God made men colonel Colt made them equal.
Maybe someday you’ll actually favor us with some actual reporting or serious commentary to support your remarkable claim about that. Hell, even some crackpot blog would be more than you’ve offered other than your OCD-like “Look what you made us do!” crap.
Extremely, extremely questionable, and that’s being generous. But you’ve already shown yourself eager to swallow any gun glurge that comes your way and repeat it as “fact”, haven’t you?
Time to grow the fuck up, kid.
I already did this in post 2611. I went through in painstaking detail, noting my objections to your cites. Since you often just link generically to something without actually citing and quoting the relevant bit, this took some time. I went so far as to reviewing data tables, attempting to retrospectively determine what base data the Texas guy was using (since he didn’t provide it) by reverse calculation from his population averaged data. Another cite, buried in the middle of a long ass article – which you again failed to bother to specifically cite – was from a lawyer. In order to ensure that he had no demonstrable expertise on the topic of CCW safety, I searched for and reviewed his CV. I even linked to that for you.
The fact that you could now, at this stage, ask me to specifically document my objections to your cites demonstrates why any meaningful response to you is just a waste of time. You are uninterested or incapable of comprehending the issues. I suspect the latter, since you continue to do things like cite the fact that some lawyer or Bill Bennett said so, or you say things like “some of my cites include the violence policy center and the department of justice.” Cognitively, you are still at a very primary stage – appeals to authority are all you can muster, rather than thinking through for yourself the merits of an argument or a bit of evidence.
For instance, one problem with an appeal to authority on your part like “I cited the Violence Policy Center” is that you then have to cope with inconvenient facts. For instance, the VPC’s position on DGU is reflected in this press release from April, 2013, which says in part:
(Bolding in the original.)
Since you lack the capacity to think through the merits of your arguments and your cites, you are now in the position of having to mindlessly reject this evidence from the VPC while continuing to endorse some other supposed evidence from the VPC.
So which is it? Do you endorse the VPCs position that the number of DGU’s on an annual basis from 2007 to 2011 was 84,675 per year?
But … but … there was some glurge in his Facebook feed that said something he *wants *to be true! So there!
I need to correct my last line above. I treated the window of time from that data (2007-2011) as a four year period rather than a five year period. So the average DGU per year would be 67,740 instead of the number I gave above.
That doesn’t even break down the number of “uses” where the gun actually made any difference to the outcome, or was necessary or even appropriate, or even escalated the situation.
Jesus wants you to sell your clothes and buy a gun. Problem is, you can’t get ammo for it because DHS is hoarding it as part of Obama’s scheme to enslave you.
I really wish there were more crazy left-wing gun nuts so someone would shoot Klingon Shit already.
Regarding the defensive gun use discussion, can anyone even think of a way to get a study that might be in the same universe as truthful in the current political climate?
It is difficult, but I’m not sure the climate has much to do with it. The problem is that official records are likely to misscases that are unreported. However, surveying gun owners is problematic because they are by their very nature, likely to over report incidents, as well as reporting incidents that they themselves escalated as “defensive”.
Does the fact that most of the nuts are on the pro-murder-rights side mean anything to you?
What does it mean, “Pro-murder-rights”?
Calling things what they are is good, isn’t it?
Now the NRA wants the SCOTUS to strike down laws banning handgun sales to under-21-year-olds.
Y’know, whatever the reasons why the Columbine High School massacre happened, it would not have happened if it had been just a little more difficult for two emotionally disturbed teenagers to amass a small arsenal of firearms and ammunition without some responsible adult finding out about it.
I want you to let that (“Your side is literally advocating murder!”) slide the next time a pro-lifer says it to you.
(I’m vehemently pro-choice with no limitations, fyi.)
That sounds a bit wrong even for a gun owner.
Did the Columbine killers buy the guns, or did they use family member’s?
Not any under-21s, just younger than 18; the age at which you can vote, drink in many states, and join the Army against your parents’ wishes.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were under 18 when they illegally acquired their guns through straw buyers and a gun dealer who broke federal law by not recording the identity of a purchaser.
So how do you propose to have enforced the broken laws?
Man, the fuckin’ NRA.
Regarding Harris and Klebold, I expand my previous stance–The law SHOULD be such that the dealer who sold them the weapons should be prosecuted for murder–he made an inexcusable (to my knowledge, there’s nothing like a fake ID involved) error regarding transferring possession of a firearm that directly resulted in a murder.
Mostly the reason I find gun threads so depressing anymore is that I can’t think of a political position taken by the NRA in the last five years that I wasn’t offended by. So the pro-gun types tend to think of me as a gun-grabbing quisling–especially because I’m, gasp, in favor of registration and licensing.
Meanwhile, because I wholeheartedly support (for what I would consider to be solid moral reasons) the individual right to effective self-defense, I’m seen as a crazy gun-owning asshole by the other side.
Cracking down on illegal gun dealers would be a good start, but I daresay the NRA would have something to say against that. Not 30 years ago, but they’ve completely cut loose from reality, now.
According to this article, neither the straw buyer nor the gun dealer were ever charged.
Turns out it was perfectly legal for the underaged guys to buy their guns (except the handgun) and they didn’t even need their 18-yo friend to buy for them.
I seem to recall improper record keeping by licensed gun dealers, or even lack thereof, is a maximum misdemeanor, thanks to the NRA again.
It would be nice if the ATF had the funding and manpower to, you know, enforce the laws we already have. That would be one way to enforce the laws. You know, have enough people whose job it is to, you know, enforce the laws.
Well, I want every 18-year-old to vote, and I don’t much care if an 18-year-old is drunk, but I do care if he’s drunk and driving, and drunk and armed is worse. For that matter, sober and armed is more dangerous than drunk driving at that age, unless he’s actually in the Army (which is more dangerous still, but that’s another discussion).