it's just weird that you pick Afghanistan, because no one has ever conquered Afghanistan. No one. Of all historical or present comparisons--it is the absolute worst one to make. Alexander of Macedonia was like...eh fuck this place. I'm out.
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.
Are you screwed up again? We went over this and you even replied to this same post last night. I have to call them like I see them.Holy shit, you hate yourself so fucking much! sad!
Bonus: Schools are safer than ever if you bothered to check the facts."
Nope. But it's a case of me being too lazy to do the legwork. So this is me stealing someone's work.
"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.
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9).
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.
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."
Examining violent crime, homicide, rape, robbery, and assault for 1,997 counties in the United States, the findings indicate that increased prevalence of firearms was associated with increased violent crime, homicide, rape, robbery, and assault.
We found no robust, statistically significant correlation between gun ownership and stranger firearm homicide rates. However, we found a positive and significant association between gun ownership and nonstranger firearm homicide rates. The incidence rate ratio for nonstranger firearm homicide rate associated with gun ownership was 1.014 (95% confidence interval = 1.009, 1.019).
Consistent with prior research, this study demonstrated that Connecticut’s handgun permit-to-purchase law was associated with a subsequent reduction in homicide rates. As would be expected if the law drove the reduction, the policy’s effects were only evident for homicides committed with firearms.
Conclusion:
Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.
I don't have a problem with this, assuming the schools are very, very careful with safety and storage of the weapons. Like any sport there will be injuries and deaths but sport shooting is fine by me and if kids want to learn gun use/safety that's valuable information in the absence of sane gun laws.
From my perspective this is how almost all guns should be used/stored.
Do you have any scientific polling to support your position like I had for mine?
Dude, no schools have an campus armory for their shooting sports.
Your politico link? HAHHAHAAHHH
All media outlets besides the approved conservative media outlets that Masters Limabugh, Hannity, and Jones approve, are biased in terms of reality.No, the survey itself.
If you wanted to say ‘I have nothing’ this was a good way to do it.
this is surprising and or bad because? last I checked shooting sports were Olympic events...are we now against teaching in a controlled and responsible environment? pathetic what this debate has devolved into.
I'm sure you think you made some sort of point there.
just adding my useless two cents to this thread as yourself and many others...but by all means continue to try and tear apart my post with your lame jabs.
There is nothing to tear apart, that was the point.
IMO, that money would be better spent on school supplies for example. Some schools struggle budget wise (forcing parents to pony up for supplies), but they're getting money to teach students how to shoot? Doesn't seem right, although I don't expect the NRA to be interested in anything other than gun-related activities.this is surprising and or bad because? last I checked shooting sports were Olympic events...are we now against teaching in a controlled and responsible environment? pathetic what this debate has devolved into.
^Thisthis is surprising and or bad because? last I checked shooting sports were Olympic events...are we now against teaching in a controlled and responsible environment? pathetic what this debate has devolved into.
I think it would be best be spent on the Fern Retirement Plan. We can all have our opinion on where money is best spent, but the people who donated their money want it spent this way.IMO, that money would be better spent on school supplies for example. Some schools struggle budget wise (forcing parents to pony up for supplies), but they're getting money to teach students how to shoot? Doesn't seem right, although I don't expect the NRA to be interested in anything other than gun-related activities.
I think it would be best be spent on the Fern Retirement Plan. We can all have our opinion on where money is best spent, but the people who donated their money want it spent this way.
Fern
Only the feeble minded can’t comprehend logic when presented to them ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh you think that was logic? A logical fallacy sure but logic? Lol
IMO, that money would be better spent on school supplies for example. Some schools struggle budget wise (forcing parents to pony up for supplies), but they're getting money to teach students how to shoot? Doesn't seem right, although I don't expect the NRA to be interested in anything other than gun-related activities.
so would you say this to all the other interest and or lobbying groups looking to contribute funds to various districts or agencies? why should the NRA donate funds for school supplies? and by extension then why shouldn't other groups? seems like a double standard.
As I mentioned before, competitive target shooting is currently an Olympic event, do we not want to remain competitive of which nations compete on a global scale (hence the Olympics)...do we not want to encourage people to be educated about proper firearm safety in a regulated and controlled environment?? its funny as those calling for enhanced controls are typically pretty quick to bleat on and on about how they don't want to take "all guns away" and how they are all for more training, until they aren't which is clearly evident here.
Or is it just because it is the NRA? please enlighten me