NRA invests millions in schools....for shooting sports

[fskimospy]

Bullfvckingsh!t

By all means let me know what part you think is bullshit. Considering it's all based on firsthand experience though in many ways it doesn't matter because you're undeniably wrong, lol.

 

[Genx87]

Ok, you need it explaining to you.

Your argument was that you need guns in case the state tries some kind of totalitarian take-over.
I pointed out that the military would be used in such a scenario, which would brush aside any disorganised resistance with ease.
Your counter-argument was that the military could not be used in this fashion because they would never go up against civilians.

Then who is engaging in this uprising exactly? In your fantastical scenario, are the military going to either a) side with the populace (at which point the "secret police" or whomever are going to be going up against an organisation of the best-trained personnel with tonnes of resources and many more years of experience, and what use are a multitude of untrained, disorganised gun nuts going to do that would be of any help), or b) inexplicably sit on the sidelines even though they're apparently all massive 2A (and no doubt other elements of the Constitution) proponents.

What kind of absurd scenario are you banking on exactly?

Meanwhile in year 16 of Afghanistan, we bring you the US military, not able to crush a bunch of poor people with guns.

 

[Guurn]

I used to work in a VA and have literally never heard any veteran advocate for strict gun control. Yes, it was talked about all the time. Usually it went like this..."They want to ban assault weapons? What idiots, they have no idea what they are talking about.". As an employee I'd keep my mouth shut, political speech and all.

 

[Genx87]

By all means let me know what part you think is bullshit. Considering it's all based on firsthand experience though in many ways it doesn't matter because you're undeniably wrong, lol.

I think we all have different experiences. Having friends who toured in Iraq during the height of the shit. And a brother in law who has been in the Army for 17 years and is about to go back over to Iraq in June. None of them want to curtail the 2a. All own guns of all types.

So your experience is people in the military are fine with curtailing the 2a. My experience is vastly different. Some other members may have a different experience.

One question I am curious about. Are your friends officers by chance? I am curious to see if it is an educational level difference in their stance.

 

[fskimospy]

I think we all have different experiences. Having friends who toured in Iraq during the height of the shit. And a brother in law who has been in the Army for 17 years and is about to go back over to Iraq in June. None of them want to curtail the 2a. All own guns of all types.

So your experience is people in the military are fine with curtailing the 2a. My experience is vastly different. Some other members may have a different experience.

One question I am curious about. Are your friends officers by chance? I am curious to see if it is an educational level difference in their stance.

No, I only have one or two friends who were officers and that came generally after I was already out as you aren't supposed to have officer/enlisted friendships. (I was enlisted)

I have no doubt that people have vastly different experiences. Honestly, I imagine that people gravitate towards those that hold similar views to themselves, which would sure seem to explain why I know lots of pro gun control veterans and others don't. I just find it irritating when people who haven't spent a day in the military try to tell me what people in it think.

 

[fskimospy]

I used to work in a VA and have literally never heard any veteran advocate for strict gun control. Yes, it was talked about all the time. Usually it went like this..."They want to ban assault weapons? What idiots, they have no idea what they are talking about.". As an employee I'd keep my mouth shut, political speech and all.

Have you considered that people who are against gun control tend to be far more vocal about it than those who are for gun control? (until this weekend! woo woo!)

 

[Guurn]

Have you considered that people who are against gun control tend to be far more vocal about it than those who are for gun control? (until this weekend! woo woo!)

You could be right. To me the democrats talking about gun control is just like the republicans talking about global warming. Clueless mfers.

 

[fskimospy]

You could be right. To me the democrats talking about gun control is just like the republicans talking about global warming. Clueless mfers.

Well overall the Democratic position of limiting access to guns is the one backed by science, assuming you believe that limiting murder, suicide, and general criminal activity should be the goal.

 

[Puffnstuff]

You could be right. To me the democrats talking about gun control is just like the republicans talking about global warming. Clueless mfers.

Meanwhile back in reality ice melts are at record levels having been captured by satellites. Damn that physical evidence stuff.

 

[IJTSSG]

By all means let me know what part you think is bullshit. Considering it's all based on firsthand experience though in many ways it doesn't matter because you're undeniably wrong, lol.

Everything except for the part where you claimed to have served. I've got over 20 years on active duty and another 10 working for a defense contractor and I've never, ever heard one veteran advocate for more gun control.

 

[Genx87]

No, I only have one or two friends who were officers and that came generally after I was already out as you aren't supposed to have officer/enlisted friendships. (I was enlisted)

I have no doubt that people have vastly different experiences. Honestly, I imagine that people gravitate towards those that hold similar views to themselves, which would sure seem to explain why I know lots of pro gun control veterans and others don't. I just find it irritating when people who haven't spent a day in the military try to tell me what people in it think.

I hear you on that. All my friends\family were\are enlisted.

 

[ivwshane]

Meanwhile in year 16 of Afghanistan, we bring you the US military, not able to crush a bunch of poor people with guns.

You think your band of merry men can last 16 years? Fuck off traitor.

 

[mikeymikec]

Meanwhile in year 16 of Afghanistan, we bring you the US military, not being able to crush a bunch of poor people with guns.

Context is rather important. It's interesting that you picked an example that in no way resembles the hypothetical one being discussed and yet you thought it was relevant. Small details like the Taliban has been entrenched for decades before the US military arrived, they likely have tonnes of contacts and supply lines from the civilian populace, the fact that they went up against the Russians before that means that they have far more experience of war (debatably more experience than the American military and certainly more experience of fighting on that turf, and they're fighting for their lives rather than a pay check), and compare that to a bunch of American civilians mostly with zero relevant experience and likely nothing set up in advance that could withstand a sustained assault with the full might of the US military with no such supply issues and fighting on their own turf.

 

[fskimospy]

Everything except for the part where you claimed to have served. I've got over 20 years on active duty and another 10 working for a defense contractor and I've never, ever heard one veteran advocate for more gun control.

So in other words you've met tens of thousands of service members and out of all of those people you never met a single solitary one who thought America's gun laws should be tighter. That should be self evidently absurd.

https://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/veterans-gun-background-checks-poll-089930

According to this poll you have near universal support for increasing background checks and plurality support for high capacity magazine bans and assault weapon bans, four popular gun control initiatives. Now I wouldn't take this poll to be the be-all of veteran opinion but the idea that you never met a single veteran that supported stronger gun control laws means you either never asked or never listened.

 

[Genx87]

Context is rather important. It's interesting that you picked an example that in no way resembles the hypothetical one being discussed and yet you thought it was relevant. Small details like the Taliban has been entrenched for decades before the US military arrived, they likely have tonnes of contacts and supply lines from the civilian populace, the fact that they went up against the Russians before that means that they have far more experience of war, and compare that to a bunch of American civilians mostly with zero relevant experience and likely nothing set up in advance that could withstand a sustained assault with the full might of the US military with no such supply issues and fighting on their own turf.

I use it as an example because it is a direct contradiction that the US military can or will crush any kind of real rebellion. We can go through history and use other examples of rebellions toppling their govts if it makes you feel better.

Anyways I don't consider taking over some outhouse in Oregon as a rebellion. I'm talking full fledged break down in civil services, a splinter in our govt due to a catastrophic reason, a situation the people have had enough. A rebellion with a following, a purpose, will not easily be put down by our military like so many on the left like to fantasize about.

Everything you listed applies to a full fledged rebellion on US soil. The military will have a worse time of it due to shooting at their countrymen. And members or entire units may join the rebellion. Did we already forget the civil war? The leaders on the south werent some avg joes. They were West Point graduates that lead a rebellion that consumed 1 million casualties over 4 years of fighting.

 

[mikeymikec]

I use it as an example because it is a direct contradiction that the US military can or will crush any kind of real rebellion. I don't consider taking over some outhouse in Oregon as a rebellion. I'm talking full fledged break down in civil services, a splinter in our govt due to a catastrophic reason, a situation people have had enough. A rebellion with a following, a purpose, will not easily be put down by our military like so many on the left like to fantasize about.

Everything you listed applies to a full fledged rebellion on US soil. The military will have a worse time of it due to shooting at their countrymen. And members or entire units may join the rebellion. Did we already forget the civil war? The leaders on the south werent some avg joes. They were West Point graduates that lead a rebellion that consumed 1 million casualties over 4 years of fighting.

You seem to have completely ignored everything I wrote, unless there's some huge splinter of the US population I've never heard of growing drugs to fund their chunk of territory and has successfully survived two military invasions.

If you want to talk about a civil war like the American Civil War, that's not a 2A scenario like Guurn raised, that's a civil war scenario that could theoretically happen in any developed country regardless of gun control legislation.

This is completely absurd. Either stick to the topic or start a new one.

 

[OutHouse]

What I'm telling you is that gun control is a lot more popular in the military than you might expect.

I don't agreen with this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Damn, I would have been all over that.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't agreen with this.

Do you have any scientific polling to support your position like I had for mine?

 

[Jhhnn]

Meanwhile in year 16 of Afghanistan, we bring you the US military, not able to crush a bunch of poor people with guns.

Short of genocide, Afghanistan simply cannot be subdued by a foreign military. Not by the British Empire, the Soviets or the US.

Which has nothing to do with gun control in this country, of course.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

How do you explain lower violent crime, lower gun deaths, in states with no conceal carry and stricter gun laws?

What states are those ? Almost every States allows it except those that allow open carry or concealed carry at all times or , which pretty much amounts to the same thing.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I have many family members who were or are in the military. I've asked them point blank, if your CO asked you to fire upon civilians would you...what if they were super libs or nazis.. The answer was always I would shoot my CO even if he was a friend. The military can't be used that way. Yeah, I know you are making a stupid argument on purpose just to get the Afghanistan or Vietnam response. The truth is that the military contains the most ardent supporters of the 2nd amendment because they have seen what happens without it or even if they haven't seen it they understand.

My experience also and you can tell who would be the CO that would be issuing the order to fire on civilians in this forum.

 

[fskimospy]

My experience also and you can tell who would be the CO that would be issuing the order to fire on civilians in this forum.

My guess is probably the same guy who thought murdering immigrants by dropping grenades into tunnels was a good idea.

 

[Guurn]

Nope. But it's a case of me being too lazy to do the legwork. So this is me stealing someone's work.

Well overall the Democratic position of limiting access to guns is the one backed by science, assuming you believe that limiting murder, suicide, and general criminal activity should be the goal.

"If they bothered to look at the issue as a whole instead of cherry picking "background checks" they'd find a very different story. DGU data shows a net positive when citizens are armed before political implications. Guns are not correlated to violence, inequality is.

And according to the DGU data The Violence Policy center (which is extremely anti-gun fyi) gives the low range estimates at ~67,000 DGUs per year. Consider this the extreme low:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/justifiable.pdf

FYI most estimates put it far higher, including the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

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 per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

So how about guns killing? Statistics show only .0005% of gun owners commit a gun related crime. Best estimates put gun ownership at 37% in America, and that was in 2013, the number today is estimated to be closer to 45% but lets go with the smaller number to do the math conservatively. So America has population of 318 million people. So the number of gun owners is 318,000,000 x .37 = 117,660,000 Source: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ricans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ So we have ~117,660,000 gun owners. What is the latest FBI statistic on violent crime? FBI database shows ~11,000 fatal gun crimes a year. The study linked in the OP including suicides is beyond BS. So 117,660,000 / 11,000= .0000934897 = 99.99065% But there is a problem with this number, it doesn't take into account illegal gun ownership and assumes the legal gun owners are the ones causing all the crime. This source shows 90% of homicides involved illegally bought or sold guns, or owners who where previously felons: Source: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html So for fun lets re-run the numbers to differentiate between criminals and non criminals. Since a felony record disbars you from legally owning a firearm, yet 90% of murders are committed by those with felony records, we know only 10% of murders are committed by legal gun owners. So we have ~11,000 murders, ten percent of which are committed by previously law abiding gun owners. So that is 1,100 murders. So we have 117,660,000 law abiding gun owners commenting 1,100 murders, which comes out to 99.999065% So yes 99.999065% of Legal gun never murder someone. Only .000045% of them become murders. So as you can see, the stats clearly show that guns do not increase the likelihood of violent crime, or cause anyone to be less safe, quite the opposite as the DGU data shows.

So using the high estimates for gun violence, and the low estimates for DGUs, DGUs outnumber use of a legally held weapon in a deadly violence by ~60 times.

Also: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294 & http://cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013

&

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

&

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294

&

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/01/using_placebo_l.html

&

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog...h_more_guns_dont_have_more_homicide_1064.html

&

https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/2#2

You are just wrong in every way it is possible to be wrong. If you want an even more simple summary, the "moar guns moar death" BS is just hilariously wrong on the face of it. According to the Washington Post, civilian firearms ownership has increased from ~240 million (1996) to ~357 million (2013) (For reference to the figures below, it shows about 325 million guns in 2010). According to Pew Research, the firearms homicide death rate fell from ~6 per 100,000 persons (1996) to 3.6 per 100,000 (2010). So according to these figures, between 1996 and 2010, the number of civilian firearms increased by ~35%. And this is while firearms ownership as % of pop stayed constant. Over the same time period, firearms homicide deaths decreased by ~40%. If you want to focus on ccw specifically, fine that shows the same thing. Rather do murder per 100,000 globally? Sure thing. And that is where you get your GINI connect fyi. The correlation is a lot stronger than gun ownership. This has been looked at and somehow keeps getting forgotten. You don't pick up a gun to hurt someone because it is your first choice, you generally do it because it is your last. Inequality, desperation, the effects of capitalism in the third world and increasingly the first, drastically increase this.

Bonus: Schools are safer than ever if you bothered to check the facts."

 

[zinfamous]

You must be drunk and/or on drugs again. Looking back on your miserable life with no children, no wife and no family. You are a loser, you always were and you always will be. You even threaten people in your damn signature.

Holy shit, you hate yourself so fucking much! sad!