Science Right-to-carry laws make us less safe

[Jade Falcon]

Jade Falcon better not watch this - it's the equivalent of a snuff film for him:

I see you and Himmler have a lot in common.....

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Most disappointing steamroller video ever. You always want to show what the stuff looks like afterwards, that's the whole point of the exercise.

barfo

Too upsetting. Besides, haven't you seen the ear-severing scene in Resevoir Dogs? Sometimes less is more.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I see you and Himmler have a lot in common.....

Actually it would be you who has a lot in common with Himmler since he never said that.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Are you sure you're not thinking of the "you must first disarm it's citizens" quote that is often cited by Hitler? That one is indeed false.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Are you sure you're not thinking of the "you must first disarm it's citizens" quote that is often cited by Hitler? That one is indeed false.

"I never said that!"

- Heinrich Himmler


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

What's more disappointing is that I could have made a pretty cool modern version of the throne from Game of Thrones with them.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

What's more disappointing is that I could have made a pretty cool modern version of the throne from Game of Thrones with them.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Terrible, just terrible. Maybe it looks better in person.

 

[barfo]

Terrible, just terrible. Maybe it looks better in person.

Things not to think while searching Tinder.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Things not to think while searching Tinder.

barfo

Ok

 

[Jade Falcon]

"I never said that!"

- Heinrich Himmler


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler

You do realize that the site that Wikiquotes claims the quote came from does indeed contain many factual quotes from other people, right? Just because Wikiquotes can't verify it, doesn't mean Himmler didn't say it.

But okay....for the sake of argument, let's assume that Himmler didn't say that.

However, Hitler himself did indeed say this:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

Specifically, he was speaking of disarming Jews, not disarming a nation, since the Jews were not considered "citizens". Furthermore, Hitler was speaking of the need to disarm non-Aryans in the parts of Russia that had been occupied by German forces in the midst of a war. I assume this quote is misused as the "disarm it's citizens" quote that he never actually specifically said.

Source:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Hitler.27s_Table_Talks_.281941.E2.80.931944.29_.281953.29

I also find it interesting something I found on Wikipedia:

In October 2015, and in response to comments made by Ben Carson, history professor Alan E. Steinweis wrote in a New York Times opinion piece:

The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson’s suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.[5]

The view that had Jews been armed they could have stopped the Holocaust not only has little support among legal scholars and historians, it also has little support among human rights activists like Richard Lutz who wrote: “It is farcical for gun rights advocates to assert that Jewish civilians could have stopped the Holocaust if only they had ready access to firearms as they only constituted a tiny disorganized minority in areas under Nazi control, though some able-bodied Jews would undoubtedly have been able to put up more resistance as in the case of the Bielski partisans.”[26]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_theory

The one GLARING problem with this is:......no gun rights activists has ever argued that Jews alone could have stopped the Holocaust had they been armed. That is utter nonsense.

What gun rights activists have ACTUALLY argued is that had they not been disarmed, they would have had a fighting CHANCE in isolated cases. Which I'm sure even Rasta can admit is better than submitting to death without a fight.

Furthermore, the folly of using this argument by gun control activists is that it does not apply to the current US population, as over half of the country's population is armed. Whereas Germany had aproximately 1% of their population whom were Jewish.

 

[Jade Falcon]

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/07/lawmakers_pass_bill_to_take_gu.html

Someone explain to me how this law will be effective when the Judge will not be allowed to view a person's past mental health.

The court may not include in the findings any mental health diagnosis or any connection between the risk presented by the respondent and mental illness.

- SB719, Section 2, Part 6, subsection A

Of course not. The Medical History of all individuals are PRIVATE, as it should be.

Furthermore....will the Defendant be allowed Due Process to present evidence in his defense when the Judge calls for him to turn over his firearms? Will he be allowed legal council?

As Dam87 said in the comment section:

So now the state can confiscate your property without compensation or committing a crime through a secret court you are not allowed to attend or be notified of until after you are found guilty, from testimony of law enforcement and family members making a medical diagnosis and recommendations that they are not qualified to make.

This bill has more to do with due process than it does the 2nd, If you believe in living in a free society, due process and the assumption of innocence then you would not support this.

I agree.

 

[KingSpeed]

I believe if I were the only one with a gun I would be really safe. I'm less safe with all of you fucks having them.

Me only with gun = safe

Everyone with guns = less safe

I'd say you're less safe with a gun. Other people in your circle, such as a child, could get their hands on it and shoot you, or you could shoot yourself by accident. You're also more likely to commit suicide if you have the easy means to do so.

 

[riverman]

I'd say you're less safe with a gun. Other people in your circle, such as a child, could get their hands on it and shoot you, or you could shoot yourself by accident. You're also more likely to commit suicide if you have the easy means to do so.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'd say you're less safe with a gun. Other people in your circle, such as a child, could get their hands on it and shoot you, or you could shoot yourself by accident. You're also more likely to commit suicide if you have the easy means to do so.

It's thinking like that is why you won't survive the coming zombie apocalypse.

 

[Cippy91]

I'd say you're less safe with a gun. Other people in your circle, such as a child, could get their hands on it and shoot you, or you could shoot yourself by accident. You're also more likely to commit suicide if you have the easy means to do so.

This is something...

 

[riverman]

It's thinking like that is why you won't survive the coming zombie apocalypse.

zombies can't run....they shuffle like thorazin patients in an insane asylum....the only way not to survive them is to be unable to run...Kingspeed can run

 

[MarAzul]

I'd say you're less safe with a gun. Other people in your circle, such as a child, could get their hands on it and shoot you, or you could shoot yourself by accident. You're also more likely to commit suicide if you have the easy means to do so.

Sigh!

A child will not get their hands on your gun unless you make it possible.
You do not shoot yourself by accident. Only a fuckup will shoot himself, it is not an accident.

 

[Jade Falcon]

I'd say you're less safe with a gun. Other people in your circle, such as a child, could get their hands on it and shoot you, or you could shoot yourself by accident. You're also more likely to commit suicide if you have the easy means to do so.

So owning a car means I'm more likely to be in a car accident?

Yes, accidents can and do happen. But if you exercise strict safety at all times, the risks of such accidents are far reduced. If you are careless, then of course the chances of something bad happening go up.

But as with all things....we shouldn't restrict a Right because a few morons among us want their girlfriends to shoot a phone-book on their chest with a .50 Desert Eagle.

I've had a pocket knife of some sort since I was 11 years old. But I've only been cut once. And I learned: when closing a folding knife, move your finger out of the way of the blade.

Haven't cut myself since, and I currently have 4 carry knives.

Responsibility and exercising proper safety at all times are the keys to staying safe when owning or shooting firearms.

 

[riverman]

It is embarrassing to see a man post incompetent malarkey like this. This lack of knowledge should result in loss of eligibility to vote.

you cut and paste these posts, right? spoken like a loyal servant of an empire! (those who oppose my views should not be allowed to vote?) now that's some serious malarkey....having an opinion is not a matter of competence, it's a matter of opinion...a person of knowledge would be objective one would hope...but gun control seems to tug at your emotional heart strings

 

[MarAzul]

but gun control seems to tug at your emotional heart strings

Not at all. It is off the table. But I do hope Kingspeed is not risking having one around. He would be in harms way.

 

[Cippy91]

Riverman can't even see the ignorance of others on a topic. To say your less safe with a gun is completely ignorant and the reasons being because some child could get their hands on it and shoot you or themselves and you're more likely to kill yourself with it around?

Do any of these people actually know how many people own guns?!?! gun safety? our are you too guarded and in safe spaces to understand?

 

[Jade Falcon]

Riverman can't even see the ignorance of others on a topic. To say your less safe with a gun is completely ignorant and the reasons being because some child could get their hands on it and shoot you or themselves and you're more likely to kill yourself with it around?

Do any of these people actually know how many people own guns?!?! gun safety? our are you too guarded and in safe spaces to understand?

Yep. The last estimates I saw, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, was about 180 million gun owners owning about 300 million guns in this country. So, by the emotions of Liberals, there should be over a few million deaths a year in this country just from guns alone.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

BLM responds to that nutso NRA ad:

 

[barfo]

Yep. The last estimates I saw, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, was about 180 million gun owners owning about 300 million guns in this country. So, by the emotions of Liberals, there should be over a few million deaths a year in this country just from guns alone.

View attachment 15070

Jade, the math in your little exhibit is bogus (even assuming that all the data is correct, which I'm not going to bother trying to verify).

barfo

 

[Jade Falcon]

BLM responds to that nutso NRA ad:

The NRA's spokesman is a black lawyer from Texas who was a pro-gun activist long before he was hired by the NRA.

You lose.

Jade, the math in your little exhibit is bogus (even assuming that all the data is correct, which I'm not going to bother trying to verify).

barfo

The burden of proof is on you. I have a feeling that you simply disagree with facts though, so you're just throwing this out there desperately.

 

[barfo]

The burden of proof is on you. I have a feeling that you simply disagree with facts though, so you're just throwing this out there desperately.

Sorry, burden of proof of what? The math is wrong? Anyone who cares can verify that for themselves.

barfo

 

[Jade Falcon]

Sorry, burden of proof of what? The math is wrong? Anyone who cares can verify that for themselves.

barfo

Well, you obviously care, so how is the math wrong? Hell, it's not like my math skills were ever good, nor did I make that graphic. So break it down for us.

Even assuming that the math is wrong, I'm willing to bet good money that less than 1% of our population dies from firearms each year. So the point still stands: America does not have a gun violence problem.

 

[barfo]

Well, you obviously care, so how is the math wrong? Hell, it's not like my math skills were ever good, nor did I make that graphic. So break it down for us.

Even assuming that the math is wrong, I'm willing to bet good money that less than 1% of our population dies from firearms each year. So the point still stands: America does not have a gun violence problem.

Ok, first of all, how in the world is 1% your cutoff? If more than 30 million people in the US die from something every year, only then you will consider it important?

Guess we can quit wasting money trying to cure cancer.

As for the math. 10,560 homicides - 8448 gang related = 2,112 not 1,712.
Also, 1,712 / 312 million is 0.0005%, not 0.0001%

And then they give a lower percentage 'if you aren't planning on suicide' etc. but they've already excluded those things from the 1,712 number.

32,000/312 million is 0.01%

In short, the math is crap. If you want to say 'your chances of dying from a gunshot this year are less than 1%', then I agree. They are less than 1%.

barfo

 

[Jade Falcon]

Ok, first of all, how in the world is 1% your cutoff? If more than 30 million people in the US die from something every year, only then you will consider it important?

For the same reason that Liberals have decided that 10 rounds is okay in a magazine, and not 11 or 12 or....

And I don't consider it important, as accidents only happen to the careless and the criminal. If you avoid the hood, and maintain strict responsibility with firearms, then your chances of dying from a firearm are almost zero.

I'm more likely to die in a car accident than I am to die by a gun. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop driving.

Guess we can quit wasting money trying to cure cancer.

Cancer is a disease. Misusing firearms is a choice.

As for the math. 10,560 homicides - 8448 gang related = 2,112 not 1,712.

Okay.

Also, 1,712 / 312 million is 0.0005%, not 0.0001%

We're currently at 326 million people as of this year, so the number is likely closer to 0.0003%. But whatever....it's still a minuscule amount of cases.

32,000/312 million is 0.01%

Again: minuscule. You are more likely to be killed in a car accident.

http://asirt.org/initiatives/informing-road-users/road-safety-facts/road-crash-statistics

WAAAYY more likely.

If you want to say 'your chances of dying from a gunshot this year are less than 1%', then I agree. They are less than 1%.

Good. Now, if you actually want to fix this so-called problem, focus on poverty (jobs in poor areas), fixing the education system, and overhauling the mental health system.

But since those three things will never get done or addressed, then the easy, half-ass answer is to blame the inanimate object.

Blaming guns is like trying to fight a 1 million acre wildfire with a watering can. And it's even more asinine to blame the NRA for it too.