NRA attacks Hillary

[kohburn]

I don't share the opinions here that the reason is control-related. I think they simply want to reduce gun-related deaths. No guns=no gun deaths=less deaths overall (fewer successful suicides, less accidental deaths, perhaps reduced lethality of criminal violence that will still occur, less fear of being an accidental victim, and less social cost of the above).

only the naïve think that way. the ones in power think about maintaining that power by control.

 

[RoadDawg]

For the last couple of posters, no, I am not an anti. I predicted, and almost wrote in advance, that some of you would interpret my last post this way. By saying that a truly gun-less world is not feasible but is the only way to achieve an end to gun crimes/gun deaths, is not the same as advocating for that ideal (does it not in fact do the opposite by pointing out the fruitlessness of it?). By opining that gun control proposals/laws seem consistent with the objective of reducing gun deaths (and may even work to meet that goal) and is a simple explanation for gun control propopents' motivations is not the same as advocating for such proposals. Did I not point out how these objectives are unconstitutional and don't consider the benefits of guns? Some respondents have understood this...others I think may be battered gun owners with over-active defense mechanisms on a friendly forum, and for that reason I have tried to ignore the snippy comments. No, I like the fact that in our country we have (are supposed to have) certain rights, and I would like to have all of them (back) respected.

Thanks to everyone for the substantive replies... I think I will do some reading that was suggested and see where that gets me.

Of course the prediction was made. Was it a smoke screen. Using talking points and sounding like an anti who wants to press for information and sell the idea that other antis don't really want to take guns... It is naturally going to rile up some hearty suspicions from folks here on the front line.

We live in Marylandistan and unlike Kansas, we are constantly under attack from the antis. The normal anti folks here actually DO want to ban guns. They really do believe in the "no gun = no crime la la land". It's not BGOS... it's gun owner on the front line syndrome. It's being cautious because we've seen far too many trolls and moles pop up in here and try the same tactics under the guise of "seeking information".

And FYI... "gun crime" = synonymous with "gun death". It's a term the left brings out regularly to associate guns with an evil connotation.

Seeking to understand something? Here... Understand this...

Crimes and deaths caused by criminals have one commonality... The damned criminal. All other particulars, including the tools used, are merely incidental elements. Deal with the damn "criminal element" and the rest will take care of itself.

 

[Z_Man]

From RoadDawg's post that I quoted. I assume it means crimes using guns.

what he is saying is

1) crime is crime. fists, hammer, car, knife, gun, rope, tnt, airplane..... it doesn't matter the tool, crimes where pain, suffering, trauma and/or death are violent crimes

2) stop giving into the media and government narrative that crimes are classified by what instrument is used to commit them. just stop it.

3)as was said above, if politicians wanted to reduce crime, there is a plethora of evidence that suggests that

3.1) gun bans don't work look at violent crime from 1995 to today for
3.1.1) England, London specifically
3.1.2) Australia
3.1.3) Maryland
3.1.4) California

3.2) places that have removed or loosened gun control have become less violent

3.3) there are twice as many people who choose to kill themselves (they are not victims of gun violence if they choose to end their own life) with a firearm than are killed by others who choose to use a firearm for their crime.

3.4) the vast majority of people who choose to use a firearm to harm others are already convicted of a felony, and thus, prohibited from gun ownership, (thus further proving that the limits on gun ownership have no significant effect on crimes that are committed with firearms)

3.5) the types of immediate firearm infringements that the government is trying to pass effects firearms that are used in crimes the least... a la scary black rifles. more people are beaten to death without a weapon every year than are killed someone using a rifle to do them harm. yet the biggest push is to go after scary rifles

3.5.1) the next scary thing is magazine capacity. again, this has 0 effect on reducing crime. the college shooting a few years ago in California proved this. he was free to commit crimes with impunity, with a dozen 10 round magazines, shooting whomever he pleased until another armed human being scared him so he ended his own life. 17 round magazines would not have changed the outcome at all.

3.5.2) sandy hook. if lanza had what the anti gun zelots wanted (a shotgun) he would have been able to carry out the same crime, with the same devastation. the only difference is he wouldn't have ended his own pathetic life. the weapons he used and how many cartridges in the magazine, made no difference in what happened. it only stopped when other armed human beings intervened.

3.6 most mass shootings are ignored by the media. mass shootings are what drive the public to consider gun control. there is a mass shooting on a near weekly basis in Baltimore MD. you hear of exactly 0 of them. politicians clearly care about stopping mass shootings.....


I could cite examples until I hit the character limit for posts on this forum.


TL: DR

gun control doesn't hinder criminals and their ability to perpetrate their crimes. If anything, it only emboldens them because there are fewer armed citizens to resist them. Crime reduction is the only "reasonable" reason for even considering gun control. We have significant amounts of factual evidence (more than they have for climate change) we need to demonstrate that it isn't true. so if the only "reasonable" reason to enact gun control is false, there is NO REASON for any infringement on the right to keep AND bear arms.

Politicians are liars.

 

[kohburn]

On question #3, I don't think that, at least not literally. Stopping gun deaths entirely would essentially require a total absence of guns, which isn't feasible in my opinion.

not possible without changing the laws of physics

Regarding heroin, I am really not familiar with that, but I would suspect that if it were legal, cheaper and easier to access, more people might use it than already do.

and you would be wrong based on actual occurrences. It has been done and along with replacing prosecution with treatment has resulted in a 15% reduction in usage, reduced crime, reduced prison populations, etc.

https://mic.com/articles/110344/14-...-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening#.uES2JP5Ys

 

[jehu]

I don't share the opinions here that the reason is control-related. I think they simply want to reduce gun-related deaths. No guns=no gun deaths=less deaths overall (fewer successful suicides, less accidental deaths, perhaps reduced lethality of criminal violence that will still occur, less fear of being an accidental victim, and less social cost of the above).

I guess you think they want amnesty for all illegals because they like tacos?

 

[Indiana Jones]

Responsibility scares me. So do guns, and things I don't understand. And Roaddawg...he's a big dude...

 

[RoadDawg]

Responsibility scares me. So do guns, and things I don't understand. And Roaddawg...he's a big dude...

They closed our steak and cheese place Doctor Jones... The next time you slide east... It'll have to be Mother's or Texas Roadhouse...

 

[Z_Man]

Responsibility scares me. So do guns, and things I don't understand. And Roaddawg...he's a big dude...

I believe this is the root of this issue... and about 90% of the problems today. I don't want responsibility, so I am going to empower the government to force responsibility over me, AND you