Guns

[NLxAROSA]

Remember, gang bangers in these cities already carry illegally.

While I can follow the sentiment up to a certain point, I still don't think adding more guns is the way to go. Rather I would seek the solution into preventing gang-related violence altogether. Which starts with proper education, health care, etc. as well as decriminalizing certain activities and restructuring/re-educating law enforcement. Take away the feeding ground for crime and violence. Other cities/countries are quite succesful in getting violence down without having to arm everyone in the process. Mileage may vary of course. But perhaps this is more suitable for a different topic/thread.

In the middle - I guess that is ok as long as you don't find yourself facing down a gang banger who is illegally armed (with a gun or a knife or has 5 friends who want to rob you and beat you up and rape your girl friend.

Thing is, where I live (and have lived) that's really not an issue, so really no need to protect yourself from it or even fear it. Again, because the feeding ground isn't there. Like you said, the US (and the part in the EU where I live now) is mostly peaceful.

But I still stand with my original stance: guns are neither the cause of nor the solution to the problem.

 

[Denur]

Why would you want to give guns to people you don't trust?

Who are you talking about?

 

[Barra333]

To me, and millions of other law abiding US citizens, my firearm represents my freedom. No one will take my gun away, nor will I give up my right to bear arms.

That is why the gun control thing will never get anywhere in the US - people hiding behind a law that was written in times when dueling was still a thing.

Does the reasoning matter? People still die. The threat posed to me in my life by guns is essentially non existent. I'm at risk of death by car nearly every day though.

Then why are so many not used for such a task?

What were guns designed for, then? The target shooting originally started so that people with guns could practice to become better at killing (people or animals) with them. The sport part was much later.
Cars weren't designed originally for racing either.

The problem with gun crime is the crime, not the guns. Even if you could wipe away the guns, the crime will still be there. I doubt chunks of metal make people willing to kill out of the blue.

As far as practicality goes, besides the difficulty of removing guns in a country like the US, you have to consider the short term consequences. Make them illegal and people can no longer defend themselves with guns leading directly to crimes/injuries/deaths that could have been prevented. What do you tell the affected people? Your losses don't matter as much as people in the future who may not even exist yet?

Apologies for linking to something that appeared on my facebook profile, but here are some stats. I don't really know the website, but the sources they quote are legit (eg CDC, academic journals) http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

Here are some takehome points:
- US has 4.4% of the worlds population, 42% of the guns (civilian owned)
- There is more than 1 mass shooting (>4 wounded/dead) per day
- States with more guns have more deaths
- Countries with more guns have more deaths (US is a massive outlier, but on trend)
- States with tighter gun control have less gun deaths
- Rate of gun death is going down "But one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime — in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health." (see the previous points - more guns = more deaths, regardless of absolute number)
- The pictures tell the story of the last two points:

 

[RC45]

That is why the gun control thing will never get anywhere in the US - people hiding behind a law that was written in times when dueling was still a thing.

If you are going to make such strong assertions, at least make them from a point of fact.

The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, is not a law promulgated by man. it is the enumeration of the inalienable right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms. IOW it is in our Bill of Rights.

For your own reference here is the clear unambiguous text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Apologies for linking to something that appeared on my facebook profile *snip*

Here are some takehome points:
- US has 4.4% of the worlds population, 42% of the guns (civilian owned)
- There is more than 1 mass shooting (>4 wounded/dead) per day
- States with more guns have more deaths
- Countries with more guns have more deaths (US is a massive outlier, but on trend)
- States with tighter gun control have less gun deaths
- Rate of gun death is going down "But one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime — in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health." (see the previous points - more guns = more deaths, regardless of absolute number)
- The pictures tell the story of the last two points:

Now for the real take home points:
- US has 4.4% of the worlds population, 42% of the guns (civilian owned)
** Fantastic - I am very pleased that 42% of the worlds civilian owned firearms are here in the USA in the hands of free people **

- There is more than 1 mass shooting (>4 wounded/dead) per day
** And your point being? These daily 'mass' shootings are taking place in theinner cities of predominantly Democrat controlled cities with strict gun laws already in place. **

- States with more guns have more deaths
** This must mean that cities with the strictest gun laws have the most illegal guns - after all illegal deaths are committed with illegal guns **

- Countries with more guns have more deaths (US is a massive outlier, but on trend)
** You better get on the phone to those Democrat controlled cities with the strictest gun laws and let know their gun laws are not working **

- States with tighter gun control have less gun deaths
** Uhm - the reality is not state wide per capita homicide, but rather per city - this way the huge cess pool democrat cities with insane inner city gang crime get counted correctly **

- Rate of gun death is going down "But one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime — in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health." (see the previous points - more guns = more deaths, regardless of absolute number)
- The pictures tell the story of the last two points:
** Suicide is not a gun problem, it is a mental health problem **

Oh, I almost forgot the real stats for you:
http://heyjackass.com/
Chicago: (very strict gun laws) 2.7 million people
Year To Date
Shot & Killed: 412
Shot & Wounded: 2356
Total Shot: 2768
Total Homicides: 466

http://www.click2houston.com/news/houston-murder-rate-skyrockets-in-early-2015_20151125214501203
Houston: (extremely permissive gun laws) 2.1 million people
Year To Date
Shot & Killed: cannot be more than 281 can it?
Shot & Wounded:
Total Shot:
Total Homicides: Predicted 281

 

[Com Fox]

The illegal deaths made by illegal guns argument feels a bit too simple in this situation IMO.

If 42% normal civilians already own guns then when they snap and go out and kill people they already have guns tht they LEGALLY own, they don't go out for illegal guns when they already have legal ones before they become mentally corrupted.

If this argument was valid then countries like Australia should still be getting Mass Shootings but Australia hasn't had one ever since the Tasmanian Mass Shooting, the Mass Shooting that made Australia create harsh gun laws in the first place.

and I hardly consider something that can be very harmful to people to be a symbol of freedom, infact more the opposite. People need to be more cautious and even frightened around people who can potentially shoot them (albeit this is much smaller than the 42%). It is a lot different than lets say, a freedom to wear whatever clothes you want as clothing should only effect the person wearing them unlike guns which can potentially hurt people.

That is why the gun control thing will never get anywhere in the US - people hiding behind a law that was written in times when dueling was still a thing.

Sorry but I got a massive Yugioh vibe from this

but I agree, the Bill of Rights is a good idea but it is so outdated and needs to be refreshed as back then like you said "dueling" was a thing back then, but now it is looked down upon.

 

[Barra333]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
I believe that the Bill of Rights was written by man. Can you point me to the well regulated militia?

Now for the real take home points:
- US has 4.4% of the worlds population, 42% of the guns (civilian owned)
** Fantastic - I am very pleased that 42% of the worlds civilian owned firearms are here in the USA in the hands of free people **

- There is more than 1 mass shooting (>4 wounded/dead) per day
** And your point being? These daily 'mass' shootings are taking place in theinner cities of predominantly Democrat controlled cities with strict gun laws already in place. **
Did you look at the map in the story? The dots seem pretty well distributed to me, roughly in line with population density.

- States with more guns have more deaths
** This must mean that cities with the strictest gun laws have the most illegal guns - after all illegal deaths are committed with illegal guns **
Huh? Even if the stats only count legally owned guns, there are still less gun related deaths in the states with less legal guns. Unless you think that the hospitals are covering up the cause of death as well. If all of the gun crime was done with illegal guns, there would be no correlation at all.

- Countries with more guns have more deaths (US is a massive outlier, but on trend)
** You better get on the phone to those Democrat controlled cities with the strictest gun laws and let know their gun laws are not working **
This is the country as a whole. The bloodbath cities and the peaceful ones add up to give an average. This number is off the charts higher than everywhere else. Is it just a coincidence that the gun prevalence is similarly off the scale?

- States with tighter gun control have less gun deaths
** Uhm - the reality is not state wide per capita homicide, but rather per city - this way the huge cess pool democrat cities with insane inner city gang crime get counted correctly **

- Rate of gun death is going down "But one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime — in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health." (see the previous points - more guns = more deaths, regardless of absolute number)
- The pictures tell the story of the last two points:
** Suicide is not a gun problem, it is a mental health problem **
Again, see the story. It said that the ready availability of guns massively increases the success of suicides. Yes, suicide is a mental health problem, but the success of suicide is a gun problem.

Oh, I almost forgot the real stats for you:
http://heyjackass.com/
Chicago: (very strict gun laws) 2.7 million people
Year To Date
Shot & Killed: 412
Shot & Wounded: 2356
Total Shot: 2768
Total Homicides: 466

http://www.click2houston.com/news/houston-murder-rate-skyrockets-in-early-2015_20151125214501203
Houston: (extremely permissive gun laws) 2.1 million people
Year To Date
Shot & Killed: cannot be more than 281 can it?
Shot & Wounded:
Total Shot:
Total Homicides: Predicted 281

You don't like the numbers put up by the CDC and some idiots a place called Harvard, but you are happy to push numbers from a site called heyjackass?

I can cherrypick stats too -
Australia (very strict gun laws) 24million people
2012 - 40 homicides by firearm (rows 1840-1842 in the underlying causes of death nationally). 50 people died from falling down the stairs.

Gun Murders in England, Scotland and Wales 2011/12
There were 640 Murders / Homicides in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 2011/12 (10.43 per million population)
Of these 640 Murders / Homicides, 44 involved a gun or firearm as the main weapon. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6%of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population).

Population of Britain (combined England, Scotland and Wales) in last census 2011 = 61,370,912

 

[TenEightyOne]

You can try showing the gun lobby that the murder rate (and accidental firearm death rate) is much higher but they'll seemingly always retreat to niggling about what constitutes Mass Killing, whether or not Democrats are in charge of certain cities and that the Constitution says don' tek ma guns.

 

[RC45]

You can try showing the gun lobby that the murder rate (and accidental firearm death rate) is much higher but they'll seemingly always retreat to niggling about what constitutes Mass Killing, whether or not Democrats are in charge of certain cities and that the Constitution says don' tek ma guns.

What demographic I most likely to die by gun fire in the United States at this time?

Please - provide age range, race, location of the persons most likely to die by gun fire and by whom will they be shot? Age range, race and location of the shooter.

Please - provide what YOU think the answer is. This question is for TenEightyOne, Barra333, RESHIRAM5.

Come on: race, age range and location of people most likely to kill by gun and be killed by gun... let's see how much you actually know about the reality and how much of your opinion is shaped by FALSE narrative and manipulated data.

 

[Barra333]

You will have to pardon me for not knowing the exact specifics of 'reality'. No matter which source I give, you are going to call it biased and throw back one biased in the other direction. I gave you a link which included research that came from a respected university. You came back with www.heyjackass.com.

To humour you, I am going to guess that both the shooter and the shootee are age 18-25, black, and, based on the fact that you referenced Chicago above, I will say they are from there. Otherwise I could guess Baltimore, Washington or St Louis. And no, I have no idea whether any of my guesses are 'democrat controlled cities'.

 

[RC45]

You will have to pardon me for not knowing the exact specifics of 'reality'. No matter which source I give, you are going to call it biased and throw back one biased in the other direction. I gave you a link which included research that came from a respected university. You came back with www.heyjackass.com.

To humour you, I am going to guess that both the shooter and the shootee are age 18-25, black, and, based on the fact that you referenced Chicago above, I will say they are from there. Otherwise I could guess Baltimore, Washington or St Louis. And no, I have no idea whether any of my guesses are 'democrat controlled cities'.

HeyJackass is simply aggregating the data of daily reported deaths by gun fire in black inner city Chicago.

These stats are not a mystery. They are fact and reality. Don't like the numbers, go to Chicago and fix the cesspool ghettos, to where the majority of this violence is contained.

Young black males in Democrat run inner cities are most likely to commit gun violence and die by gun fire by multiple factors compared to all other demographics combined.

If you are going to stand and soap box about gun control and an entire nations right to self defense why do you not do it in the correct context of those that are over whelmingly committing the violence you are raging against?

Young black males kill each other by way of gun fire while living in cities with extremely strict gun laws (to the point that gun ownership is outlawed there by making ALL the gun crime committed by way of illegal firearms) by a multiple factors compared to all other demographics combined - these are the facts. Period.

Why refuse to take them into account when citing all the data?

The numbers are extremely skewed by this black on black violence.

You want to make a difference? Fix the inner cities but leave me and the rest of the free law abiding gun owning population out of it, ok?

 

[Exorcet]

My point though was not so much the predisposition to make violence, but more the acceptance of violence as a norm, thus allowing more violence to happen.

I don't know, if violence is the norm, admitting that that is the case makes it easy to justify coming up with a defense.

Here are a whole lot of stats showing that mass killings, and deaths attributed too are on the rise, especially in the last couple of years. Also interesting to note is the correlation between the drop in homicides that almost exactly follows to drop in households with guns.

Note also though that the mass shooting increase is happening at a time when gun ownership is decreasing according to the article. What does that mean?

Also one thing to consider is that the US being an outlier might not make it the best place to look when it comes to a link between guns and violence. Nations like Austria and Switzerland are just above average and below average respectively in the gun death per person stat.

But, hey, you got your data, I have mine. At this point, I'm tired of arguing around in circles. I'm glad Exorcet you've not face violence, I hope that continues for you. It really changes your world view.

I'm trying to avoid my own world view. That I haven't seen any violence at all doesn't mean there is none, and I haven't said that. The US does indeed have its problem, they don't seem to stem from gun ownership though as far as I can see.

Who are you talking about?

What I take away from the post is that the US has guns out of need because you couldn't be sure of your safety otherwise. In reality, the biggest danger in day to day life in the US is something like just crossing the street. Gun ownership is just like any item ownership. Most people are reasonable, so who cares what they have on them. A person walking around with a gun shouldn't be a concern.

Either way if someone told me your post was made by an American, I wouldn't doubt it. The sentiment for both sides exists globally, it's just the size of each side is different from place to place.

That is why the gun control thing will never get anywhere in the US - people hiding behind a law that was written in times when dueling was still a thing.

What part of the law is outdated? Why should normal people be barring from having an arbitrary item?

What were guns designed for, then?

To fire projectiles. And no, that does not imply killing.

The target shooting originally started so that people with guns could practice to become better at killing (people or animals) with them. The sport part was much later.
Cars weren't designed originally for racing either.

Cars were designed to move under their own power. How they are used is up to the user.

What inspired someone to make cars or guns is a different story. However even if war was the driver for guns, what difference does it make? The gun is still not a killing tool because it is just as good as killing or not killing despite its inventor's intent. The same goes for cars. Whatever the designers intent, they are no less scary.

Here are some takehome points:
- US has 4.4% of the worlds population, 42% of the guns (civilian owned)
- There is more than 1 mass shooting (>4 wounded/dead) per day
- States with more guns have more deaths
- Countries with more guns have more deaths (US is a massive outlier, but on trend)
- States with tighter gun control have less gun deaths
- Rate of gun death is going down "But one theory that researchers have widely debunked is the idea that more guns have deterred crime — in fact, the opposite may be true, based on research compiled by the Harvard School of Public Health." (see the previous points - more guns = more deaths, regardless of absolute number)

This seems to include suicide though. Take that out and the trend breaks down:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-gun-laws-tend-to-have-the-fewest-gun-deaths/

So death from aggressive violence is at best weakly correlated. The UK is a good case study since they allow us to see the effect of a gun ban with other factors held relatively constant:

http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

but I agree, the Bill of Rights is a good idea but it is so outdated and needs to be refreshed as back then like you said "dueling" was a thing back then, but now it is looked down upon.

Morality does not change with time. Only societal norms do.

You can try showing the gun lobby that the murder rate (and accidental firearm death rate) is much higher but they'll seemingly always retreat to niggling about what constitutes Mass Killing, whether or not Democrats are in charge of certain cities and that the Constitution says don' tek ma guns.

The constitution is just paper. There are people that will indeed stand by it. Some of them are just making poor arguments though.






EDIT


One thing needs to be said clearly. Law enforce gun bans are morally unacceptable, but that doesn't mean that society can't regulate guns without government oversight.

 

[Barra333]

The way interpret this is that the states that are further above that line are more violent than those below it. The state top right is Wyoming. Now, I've never been there, but I don't know of any big cities in Wyoming. The furthest above the line are Louisiana and Nevada. Now, I know that there are some sketchy parts of New Orleans, but I don't know much about Nevada
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and so on all look pretty average. New York, home of one of the biggest cities in the country is well below the line. If your big city black kids are doing all of the killing, shouldn't those states be further up the y axis?

 

[RC45]

View attachment 488268
The way interpret this is that the states that are further above that line are more violent than those below it. The state top right is Wyoming. Now, I've never been there, but I don't know of any big cities in Wyoming. The furthest above the line are Louisiana and Nevada. Now, I know that there are some sketchy parts of New Orleans, but I don't know much about Nevada
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and so on all look pretty average. New York, home of one of the biggest cities in the country is well below the line. If your big city black kids are doing all of the killing, shouldn't those states be further up the y axis?

They are in fact doing all the killing and dying by a large margin - but what you are finding out is that there are lies, damn lies and manipulated statistics.

Young black men are over represented in prison, unemployment and gun deaths - but you will not see this fact represented in any anti-gun data, because the reality of inner city life does not fit the Democrat party narrative.

Guns are essentially outlawed in New York City, Chicago and Washington DC - yet those same cities have extremely high death rates among young black men.

Illinois and New York state also have vast rural areas with relatively high gun ownership rates and almost no gun violence to speak of.

You don't see those nuances in the numbers you can find either - this is not by accident.

The Democrat party narrative about gun control and regulation is not about reducing gun violence in the most violent demographic, it never was and never will be, so all data will be skewed to assert gun violence is a nationwide problem spread everywhere - and it is not.

 

[Rallywagon]

View attachment 488268
The way interpret this is that the states that are further above that line are more violent than those below it. The state top right is Wyoming. Now, I've never been there, but I don't know of any big cities in Wyoming. The furthest above the line are Louisiana and Nevada. Now, I know that there are some sketchy parts of New Orleans, but I don't know much about Nevada
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and so on all look pretty average. New York, home of one of the biggest cities in the country is well below the line. If your big city black kids are doing all of the killing, shouldn't those states be further up the y axis?

Interesting graph, but, sure to read the fine print when it comes to Mother Jones statistics. In all of the research over the past few days here, they don't seem above making little additions to their numbers to make a case against guns.
[quote "RC45"]
Illinois and New York state also have vast rural areas with relatively high gun ownership rates and almost no gun violence to speak of.[/quote]
While I don't disagree with you necessarily.
Montana and Wyoming are vast rural areas, and yet have some of the highest death numbers on that graph.
Edit: also interesting to note is the high rates of Republican ran states as opposed to Democrat ran states. But, again Mother Jones.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The UK is a good case study since they allow us to see the effect of a gun ban with other factors held relatively constant:
http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/

Excuse the quick and dirty graph - I've simply overlaid a chart from wiki with one from your link. Among some of the less culturally open-minded people I know much was made of the 'asylum seekers' (or 'bloody immigrants' as they often referred to) and their contribution to our crime stats during the influx at the start of the millenium, whilst it may or not be directly related, the correlation is noticeable - we had more homicides after letting more people in from other troubled parts of the world.

 

[RC45]

Interesting graph, but, sure to read the fine print when it comes to Mother Jones statistics. In all of the research over the past few days here, they don't seem above making little additions to their numbers to make a case against guns.

Illinois and New York state also have vast rural areas with relatively high gun ownership rates and almost no gun violence to speak of.

While I don't disagree with you necessarily.
Montana and Wyoming are vast rural areas, and yet have some of the highest death numbers on that graph.

Which is why you need to have access to the raw data, because that chart is blatantly skewed as it in no way presents the fact that 500 people will be killed by gun in Chicago this year, yet less than 200 will be killed by gun in Houston (Dallas and Houston combined numbers will be lower than Chicago this year) - and adding all the other Texas cities to the mix all with lower gun death rates than cities in Illinois, that chart will have you believe Texas has more people die by gun than Illinois, which is not true.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Anti-gun data, like pro-climate change data is manipulated for political gain and massaged to fit the narrative.

Always.

Because if it wasn't, the data would not fit their narrative, because it doesn't.

 

[Barra333]

What about Montana and Wyoming?

Pro-gun data is not exactly straight up either.

Wait, the discussion is for another thread, but are you trying to say climate change is a figment of massaged data?

 

[RC45]

What about Montana and Wyoming?

Pro-gun data is not exactly straight up either.

Actually, pro-gun data is not massaged or skewed. It does not need to be.

Without knowing the raw data, the Montana and Wyoming plots are misleading and not representative - it is possible that they have lumped suicide with criminal murder.

It is possible that many more Iraq war veterans hail from Montana and Wyoming than Illinois and because the populations of Montana and Wyoming are so small their high rate of suicide after returning from a war that wrecked havoc on their psyche is skewing the numbers.

This does not make Wyoming more violent and dangerous that Chicago or change the fact that young black men kill each other at a disproportionally higher rate than any other demographic.

Wait, the discussion is for another thread, but are you trying to say climate change is a figment of massaged data?

Man-made/influenced climate alteration on a planetary scale is a figment of massaged data. This is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

All the computer modeling and super computing and prediction of all the climate scientists on the planet combined cannot predict localized weather next week with any level of certainty above a "chance of this or a chance that" yet this same data and group can predict planetary weather in a certain number of years to within a fraction of a degree?

Bull.

 

[Rallywagon]

Someone is on that neocon koolaide hard!

 

[RC45]

Someone is on that neocon koolaide hard!

You mad because the facts don't fit your narrative?

I notice you don't challenge the assertion that young black men are disproportionally represented in unemployment numbers, prison numbers, gun crime numbers and death rates. Is it because I am correct?

What will the weather be in Moline Illinois next Tuesday?
How about in Zimbabwe in 2045?

 

[Johnnypenso]

View attachment 488268
The way interpret this is that the states that are further above that line are more violent than those below it. The state top right is Wyoming. Now, I've never been there, but I don't know of any big cities in Wyoming. The furthest above the line are Louisiana and Nevada. Now, I know that there are some sketchy parts of New Orleans, but I don't know much about Nevada
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio and so on all look pretty average. New York, home of one of the biggest cities in the country is well below the line. If your big city black kids are doing all of the killing, shouldn't those states be further up the y axis?

The way to interpret it is based on what the numbers include. Do they include suicide?

Someone is on that neocon koolaide hard!

The last refuge of someone with nothing left to contribute.

 

[Barra333]

Man-made/influenced climate alteration on a planetary scale is a figment of massaged data. This is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

All the computer modeling and super computing and prediction of all the climate scientists on the planet combined cannot predict localized weather next week with any level of certainty above a "chance of this or a chance that" yet this same data and group can predict planetary weather in a certain number of years to within a fraction of a degree?

Bull.

Oh my. I shall look up some peer reviewed research done by colleagues of mine and reply in full in an appropriate thread at some point. I will tag you when I do.

 

[Danoff]

And this is your response to a legitimate question? Oh, the irony. But typical.

It's not a legitimate question. You can't say "this is a legitimate question" and magically make any illegitimate question suddenly legitimate. Stop, use your brain, burn some calories.

 

[RC45]

Oh my. I shall look up some peer reviewed research done by colleagues of mine and reply in full in an appropriate thread at some point. I will tag you when I do.

What will the weather be in Cape Town South Africa next Thursday? How about Turkey in 2024? What was the weather on July the 1st 1745 in Cambodia?

None of the above questions can be answered with any amount of certainty above "a chance".

All your peer reviewed research has no way of measuring or predicting HUMAN influence on the climate at a planetary level in the past, in the present or in the future.

This is even supposing it is possible for HUMAN activity on the earth to have planetary wide affects - then if thi swhere accepted that there would be anything that could be done to reverse it.

The key here is "at the planetary level".

MMGW on a planetary scale is not even remotely feasible - never has been and never will be. we don't even have enough global nuclear arsenal to match a volcano - again, "planetary scale" is key here, yet your peer reviewed research will have us believe man is changing the climate (not just weather) on a planetary scale?

What utter tripe.

 

[Rallywagon]

Oh no, I can contribute to the climate debate, but last I checked this thread is titled guns.

 

[Danoff]

View attachment 488228
View attachment 488229

What's wrong with suicide?

 

[Pupik]

Actually, pro-gun data is not massaged or skewed. It does not need to be.

Yes, only one side lies in all arguments...the other side.

(no I'm not anti-gun, just anti-BS)

 

[RC45]

Yes, only one side lies in all arguments...the other side.

(no I'm not anti-gun, just anti-BS)

Show where any pro-gun data is BS. Please.

Pro gun proponents have no need to lie - the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution. Anti-gunners are required to use government to try legislate these rights away.

This effort will always require an underhanded narrative.

 

[Pupik]

Show where any pro-gun data is BS. Please.

Pro gun proponents have no need to lie - the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution. Anti-gunners are required to use government to try legislate these rights away.

This effort will always require an underhanded narrative.

So the sore purpose of a pro-gun lobbying group is to deflect distorted information? If the second amendment is strong enough, why does the NRA exist?

Edit: "lobbying", lobbing guns isn't effective.

 

[RC45]

So the sore purpose of a pro-gun lobbing group is to deflect distorted information? If the second amendment is strong enough, why does the NRA exist?

Sore? Sole?

The pro gun lobby (which is a media created misnomer) it is the pro 2nd Amendment lobby, and it exists to stave off the ongoing attack on this most basic of rights by dishonest agenda driven politicians.

The NRA exists for many reasons, one of its earliest reasons you will be pleased to know was to try restrict and legislate gun ownership - but it was along racist lines.

Early NRA history was shaped around keeping guns out of black folks hands. And I am sure you will rejoice in knowing that the NRA was instrumental in shaping many arbitrary and restrictive gun laws in the 1930's, 1960's and 1980's. Mostly laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of undesirables like blacks and Italians.

Bet you didn't know that gun control was rooted in racism did you? If you are anti-gun it appears you are racist. <--- see what I did there?

Thankfully the NRA has redeemed itself and is now firmly on the side of the citizen (blacks and whites and every other ethnic group) and is attempting to right past wrongs.