DOJ taking action in curbing mass shootings

Aug 2018
608
363
been around
The Left will never settle for anything that doesn't remove means of defense from law abiding citizens, now matter how effective or workable it is.
 
Nov 2018
5,450
2,894
Rocky Mountains
The Left will never settle for anything that doesn't remove means of defense from law abiding citizens, now matter how effective or workable it is.
Where does anyone live in this country that they need a firearm, continuously, for defense?

There certainly are wackos who should not have firearms. Frequently they are those obsessed with having them, paranoid about someone taking their guns away, and oblivious to the dangers that firearms bring into their life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Sep 2019
108
52
CA
You have proved my points, in your typical rambling and self-absorbed fashion. It is all about your imperfect but self-absorbed need for a firearm that folks like you oppose broad legal restrictions that might otherwise reduce firearm violence but would be an inconvenience. You object to the access of the mentally ill because we have imperfect control of their access to firearms, then admit to the anger management issues that promote impulsive action, and STILL do not recognize the role of firearms in the acts of lethal violence in this country by "responsible gun owners" as well as criminals , the mentally ill, and the reckless. You might a well just argue that, to allow your convenient access to firearms needed to indulge your paranoia and irrational fear of attack, we just need to accept that irrational and criminal violence will occur. It apparently has not occurred to you that the justification for your "self-defense" need for few regulations of firearms make it EASY for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms. YOU gun knuts have created the very problem that you claim your firearms are necessary to prevent.

Once again, I suspect that you or your acquaintances have personally had preventable injury from a firearm...odds support that. You all your rambling does not address that likely fact.
Ok, let's take a different path...my telling you that you're an idiot and you telling me I'm an idiot doesn't seem to be working...so let's try a different tactic.

What are your suggestions regarding the mentally ill? I honestly would like to know. I've already stated that NONE of the ideas you've stated would have helped stop any of the mass murderers we've seen, so what do you suggest moving forward. Anything really that you suggest?

I recognize the role that any and every tool has in any violence. I simply try and point out that it isn't the tool's fault but that of the person wielding the tool. I don't care whether they wield a knife, gun, bat, or golf club...the person trying to kill people is the problem...not the tool they use to take lives. I think that's a very important distinction. If you want to assert that it's the tools fault...well then clearly this isn't a rational conversation as you're choosing to be irrational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTP
Sep 2019
108
52
CA
Not "Universal" since firearms can be transferred between family members or by casual sales of non-dealers. You should know this.
Ok, sooooo what is your suggestion? That when a father dies, that the son who inherits his belongings can't take possession of his firearm till he goes through a background check? So let me play devil's advocate. How does the government know that they person owned a firearm if they never registered it? Are you suggesting that we mandate and punish people for not registering it? So basically you are suggesting that we make law abiding citizens who simply aren't aware of the new laws coming down the pipes punishable for not staying up on current laws governing their firearms? That's my point! I hope you understand that. There are people, myself included who simply are not aware of every law the governor signs into effect and frankly NO ONE CAN BE aware of all the laws. So there are laws that are signed into law that made firearms I purchased legally last week....illegal. There are also laws that my state enacted that require I register firearms I purchased by a certain date that I wasn't even aware of until AFTER that date. So had I still had those weapons, I'd be a criminal, and not for any reason except that NO FRICKEN PERSON CAN STAY UP ON ALL THE LAWS!!!!!! When are you going to understand that??? Most gun owners I know are responsible and wouldn't give their firearms over to some kid who might use it to do harm to themselves or others. SO, you mandating some law that NO ONE BUT THE POLITICIANS WHO WROTE IT WOULD KNOW...seems pretty stupid. I'll ask you, are you aware of every law in your state? I just realized I broke a law in my city because, "In Long Beach, California, automobiles are the only items allowed to be stowed in the garage." Apparently if they wanted to fine or jail me for my breaking the law, they could....is that what you want? a bunch of useless laws that have zero impact on anything but remain on the books? It just seems that if we want to change something...we need to make a change that has some hope of actually impacting and altering the outcome that we're seeing right now...I'd prefer to see things improve...not just remain the same. You seem to want to pass more useless laws that will sit on the books and punish law abiding citizens but won't help to solve anything. Is that what you want?

"Mistakes" become more significant, deadly and injurious when they involve firearms, don't they?
Based on what data?

I am disappointed that you choose to misrepresent by this statement. The muzzle energy of an assault weapon is far greater than that of a 22. The common size is actually .223 and the cartridge is much larger. Look up the definition of kinetic energy to understand that velocity is more important than mass.
1. stop using the term assault weapon...it identifies you as a compete imbecile.
2. Muzzle velocity doesn't matter. a .22 can kill just as effectively as a .308, .338 lapua, 30-06, .458 socom, or even .50 cal. A .22 was in fact a popular choice for mob hit men as it could easily be silenced and the rounds were relatively untraceable.

Anecdote is not data and your anecdotes do not trump the massive firearm death and injury statistics. But this is a common pro-gun argument-- if someone somewhere happened to use a firearm to prevent an assault, then tens of thousands of firearm deaths and injuries are justified. Math is not a strong suit for the gun nuts, unfortunately. Otherwise you would understand a risk-benefit calculation.
I'll concede if you can provide me with accurate data on the number of lives saved by guns vs the number of lives lost by guns. When you can provide me accurate data, I'll concede and you can call me stupid all you want.

So NOW you are back to the vehicle comparison? You do not want the licensing and registration of a vehicle but you want to repeatedly raise that as a comparison.
Actually I'm just pointing out how hypocritical you're being. You spend SOOOOOO much time focused on gun control for the rifles you don't like when they are less than a % of the total number of deaths per year we see. You are basically saying, it's more important to get rid of guns than save lives. Otherwise you'd be focused on the root cause that truly is killing more people per year than guns, cars, knives, and any number of other things...but you aren't. You're only focused on guns and specifically rifles like the AR because again...you don't care about making an actual difference, only getting rid of the thing you hate. This isn't about stopping murders...this is about you supporting the nonsense your party feeds you. You're a pawn. Nothing more and you don't think for yourself.


You have been more lucky than smart.
No, I'm been extremely safe and smart which is why my weapons don't fall into criminal's hands. I'm not the Democrats handing over illegal weapons in fast and furious to the cartels. I am a law abiding gun owner who takes my family and my safety seriously. You just want to disparage me because you'd prefer I be unarmed and a victim to any criminal out there like you are. and seriously, fuck you for saying I'm not being smart...what a completely asinine thing to say. I don't know anything about you other than you're a liberal who hates guns and because I haven't had mine stolen from me, I must be lucky and stupid? Clearly that's what you and your idiots think of gun owners...not that we're safe or intelligent...no...that would ruin your stereo type of us. Man you really are reprehensible and divisive. I admit, we've bantered and harassed each other back and forth but frankly...I wouldn't piss on your head if your hair was on fire at this point. I'd let you burn which is saying a lot because I'd even save a person who threatened my life just to see them brought to trial.

So your behavior in your home is rational but the exact behavior of others is reckless and irresponsible. Most parents think they understand their children better than they actually do. Studies have shown that children, expected to avoid firearms after training, still have an irresistable fascination with them.
My "Behavior" has saved at least one child's life...can you say the same? I teach gun safety, I let people like you shoot for the first time and educate them so they understand guns and aren't children and scared because they were told to fear guns. I've seen those same studies and here's where we're different...I have the actual data to prove you wrong. If you'd like, I'd actually put aside our differences and welcome you and your family to shoot any number of firearms and make sure you leave educated on gun safety. Whether or not you like them after I couldn't care less...I just want to make sure you're educated. Feel free to message me if you ever want to take me up on the offer. To date, I've taken 136 people shooting and taught them gun safety...all as a hobby. I have a profession unrelated to firearms...I just do it because too many people like yourself are ignorant and I want to change it. Of those 136, 68 were children and every single one of the families purchased a firearm after they went with me. I know because I helped them all by going to a gun store to purchase at their request. Anti-gunners are all ignorant. They have all been fed lies and such hate that they think they know what they don't like but when they actually learn about guns...they realize how little they know. I'd wager you're going to say, "I've fired a gun before" or "I've fired several guns before" as your opening argument...and frankly...that's what they all say and they're all naive and stupid. I don't care if you like guns. Just stop blaming the tool for the actions of a lunatic. I can go to any home depot and buy all the necessary supplies to build a bomb, build a weapon, or create something to kill. I don't because I'm not a lunatic. That's my point...it's not the weapon...its the lunatic who wants to hurt innocent people. YOU only want to focus on the weapon and that's why your position is narrow minded and ignorant.

Either you are in denial, or you have been extremely lucky. Make some inquiries and you will find among your circle that more people have been killed or injured by firearms than you suspected. It is only a matter of time. I am sorry that you have created a false sense of protection from firearms because the data demonstrate that a firearm in the household is the greatest indicator and predictor of an incidental firearm death or injury to family, friends, or visitors by accident, impulsive behavior or suicide/homicide.
Please explain how I can provide you with actual information and you're retort is I'm in denial? I don't have anyone who owns a firearm that I know who has been injured or killed. Why is that so hard for you to fathom? I guess you need to give up your cell phone because one day some hacker may breach it and steal your identity. Or maybe you should get rid of all your spoons because one day you might get fat. Maybe you should get rid of your car because one day you might use it to cause an accident. Your reasoning is purely stupid and childish and you're just pathtetic.
 
Sep 2019
108
52
CA
Not "anyone". Just those who think that they make the world safer with a firearm.
Ok, so you're a moron? You do realize the USA has a stockpile of nuclear weapons as a deterrent right? The whole point is to make sure no other country thinks they can walk in and wipe us out. To the same effect. I have a gun because even some criminal who has a gun will realize when I shoot back, that I and my family are not going to be victims without a fight. You'd prefer I play the victim though wouldn't you? You and people like you love victims because then you can say that we need more gun control to stop the criminals. Problem is, I work with many different agencies and local and county law enforcement...I see the worst in people and the criminal elements we protect you from. You're safe behind your walls because of people like me and yet you tell ME that I should be unarmed...that's about as stupid as you saying you're a nobel prize winner...clearly you're not intelligent enough to be one...much like you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

You should care because you live in a society filled with guns. Some are owned by very dangerous people that will threaten you or your family by reckless behavior or criminal action, eventually.
Let me fill you in on a little info...on my block...there are 20 houses. There are 2 houses that the rest of the neighbors know aren't armed because they're elderly. EVERYONE on our block monitors people who come and go and we all protect our elderly neighbors. There was a threat 2 years ago where some young teens tried to break into a home and made it as far as the backyard before the home owners drew down on them and the neighbors all joined in and drew down also. Since then, my neighborhood is one of the few in the area sought after and we have people wanting to move into the area JUST because EVERYONE knows how safe it is. Sure, there's always the chance that john doe flips his lid and commits suicide due to something that happened...but we all look out for one another as neighbors should. Tell me...how many neighbors do you know on your block? I know all of them and we have regular block parties. Most people like you stay inside and may only know the neighbors right next door...I know all of them on my block. When one of my neighbors (an elderly couple) had some medical issues...EVERYONE stepped up and helped out. We watched their pets, mowed their lawns, helped with covering their bills while they recovered. That's the difference between us...we (gun owners and people who respect one another) all respect each other and help each other out. We don't ridicule each other because we have different political views. We don't reprimand one another because someone owns guns...we all respect each other and support one another. I'd bet you couldn't name the names of 4 neighbors around you.

Sounds exactly like a "gun nut" to me. Since you have an intense need to suppress ANY legal actions to attempt to reduce firearm violence, you fit the exact definition I like to use of a "gun nut".
An you sound like a hate filled divisive douchebag. I NEED to protect our rights and defend your right to be a douche. That's it. I may not like you or your stupid views, but I will support you and defend your right to have those views no matter how dumb they are.

If you are suddenly concerned with disparaging comments, you should clean up your comments before attacking me. I am sure you are angry-- it is a common emotional response that gun promoters have... unfortunately. However, try to confine your comments to rational and persuasive statements that are verifiable scientifically, not by anecdote, attempted insult, or sweeping generalization.
I admit, I am emotional. Imagine me coming into your home and telling you how to live when it's completely contrary to what you feel is right? You are telling me that my guns, which have never hurt anyone and that I invested in and own as a tool to ensure I have a fighting chance to protect my family...you're telling me I'm stupid for wanting to use that tool and I should give it up. It's one thing to agree we disagree...it's another for you to dictate how I should live my life when I completely disagree. That's what you and people like you don't grasp...you aren't saying, we should cut down on our calorie intake...you're telling us we need to stop eating all together. We enjoy target shooting, we enjoy hunting (Though I have never hunted and never will), we buy firearms to protect our families, and we do so because not all of us can live in gated communities protected from the awful things you never see. Yeah, I admit I am probably being rude and vulgar in my response. Honestly...I am sorry because no matter what, you are my american brother or sister and I would give my life to help you if you needed it. Not because I'm trying to be a hero...but because I simply respect life and will never stop being a soldier first.
 
Sep 2019
108
52
CA
Where does anyone live in this country that they need a firearm, continuously, for defense?

There certainly are wackos who should not have firearms. Frequently they are those obsessed with having them, paranoid about someone taking their guns away, and oblivious to the dangers that firearms bring into their life.
Ok, in all seriousness...I'm going to divulge some personal information....

I have had 3 occasions where I have had my life threatened and had it NOT been for a firearm...I wouldn't be here.

1. I was consulting for a group who had me come out to a remote location. There were 2 guards armed with AR style weapons and they needed me to determine what they needed to do to secure their perimeter due to "problems". During the course of a site walk (literally walked the perimeter) a car pulled up and some degenerate gang banger types stepped out asking how much they could get for what we had. Had it not been for the guard, my associate and myself all drawing our weapons...the 4 losers would have killed us. As it was, we drew on them and held them till police arrived to take their many weapons and some stolen good in the trunk. It took police 38 min to arrive knowing we had them at gun point.
2. I was with another associate driving out to a site and was struck on the road by a vehicle that bumped me. I pulled over and as I was getting ready to step out, I noticed that something wasn't right and drew my gun and instructed my passenger to call police. I learned when Police arrived that I just was struck by a couple of degenerates who have done this several times int he past and were suspected of killing someone2 years ago during one of their hits. It took Police 46 min to arrive knowing I had them at gun point.
3. I was in a very populated city entering a populated area and was with 2 associates both of which had concealed carry licenses. An elderly person fell in front of me and as I bent down to help the person up, a gun was pointed at my head. I came to find out that this was a scam and the elderly person and the gunman worked together and thankfully my 2 associates drew their firearms on the gunman and he dropped his weapon. When police arrived, we learned they were suspected of shooting someone and robbing several others in the past month.

These are actual cases I was involved in. I never saw any of these in the paper but I have the police repots to prove each and I was subpoena'd to appear in court for each. I live in one of the most gun restrictive states in the United States and this happened to me. Welcome to California. Land where they want everyone to be a victim. The City in question was LA. The state and cities in California pass more restrictive gun control measures than nearly every state and frankly it only makes things worse...I know...I live here. I work with law enforcement and I see it every day.

I've heard from others who live in California they don't suffer the same experiences and I'm happy for them...but they also never have to go into the areas I do for work. They literally are sheltered from home to work and never have to deal with the ugly things I do. Now...I'm sure you can argue I could have lived though all three of those...but frankly...how do you know? I want to get home to my wife and kids and the only way for certain I can do so...is to take the precautions I do and that entails arming myself. I don't do it because I'm a rambo vigilante...regardless of what you may think. I prefer to avoid conflict as much as possible because I AM well trained and I KNOW that no matter what, any fight will result in pain. Either I experience pain by getting hit, stabbed, shot or in legal woes that come after I have to defend myself from some idiot and he sues me. I don't want to be forced to fight anyone. I'd like to be left alone and raise my family as I choose and enjoy our time together before they have their own kids and spouses. I don't hate you for your views...I just need you to understand I don't want you telling me how to live my life and when you say you want to pass laws that impact me...I have to stand up and say NO. My guns have NEVER impacted your life regardless of what you may think. They have always been secured and like most they are secured. As you said, there are over 300 million guns in circulation and you don't run across guns every 2 feet because MOST are safely secured and safe in general. You just want to demand laws based not he actions of the lunatics and that isn't fair to the rest of us. Imagine if I decided and passed a law that impacted you because less than a % of the overall people ruined it for you....you'd feel just like I do. So why do you justify punishing me? You claim its because of "what If" but frankly...what if your car is stolen and used in a homicide? what If your kitchen knife accidentally cuts you and causes you to die, what it what if what if....its stupid. We don't deal in what if's. We deal in facts....and the fact is, we have numbers to show more lives are saved by guns than killed. We have numbers to show that more people are killed by cars than the rifles you want to ban, we have the numbers to show that more people die by knife than your rifles....so why are you wasting time on a smaller number than focused on something that can really impact a change? that's the thing we need understand...you want to do it because you want to feel like you did something...it's a placebo. Problem is...logic tells me its a wasted effort and if my tax dollars are going to be spent doing "Something" I want that something to mean more than empty promises.
 
Sep 2019
108
52
CA
That's some powerful rationalization there. How long and how many people helped you put that together? It's way too polished to be spontaneous. It really makes me wonder if you aren't an NRA employee. But your first opening premise, that the CDC was politicized is wrong.
Soooo....wait...you are mad because I answered you or mad because my answer makes sense?

1. I am not affiliated with the NRA nor do I condone their practices. I am a gun owner but not all gun owners belong to the silly NRA. I admit that they do help protect my rights...but I simply feel that they and many organizations that are special interest...are all part of the problem.
2. if I'm wrong, please provide me with the facts to prove it. Otherwise...it's conjecture and pointless.
3. I'm sorry that I provided you with a rational argument...I'm sure you'd prefer I say something like, "Dickey Amendment what" so you can feel superior and righteous. However...I'm both a VERY well educated person and I also happen to agree with why they passed the amendment to begin with. Unfortunately, too many people like you are naive/ignorant to the facts and you blindly follow the pack.

Listen...it's really quite simple...I don't care what your opinions are, I'll listen and ask questions and ask for specifics so I can decide if my position is sound or I need to adjust. I have on many occasions been presented with information that caused me to change my view which is why I ALWAYS welcome civil debate. I do feel that most liberals/democrats position on gun control is ONLY because they are fed misinformation and the only way to change that is through education. I wouldn't ask you to trust me anymore than I'd trust you...but I do ask you to just listen and do your own research and decide for yourself. I'm not always right...but you and I clearly have different opinions and while we may be wrong on some things, together we can help each other get to the right information and we'll both be better off for it.

The dickey amendment needs to remain because as long as it does, neither democrat nor republican can use government agencies to do their bidding. No matter which side of the aisle we're on, I'm sure we can both agree on that basic premise. That way, the information coming out of the CDC is always going to be without question, honest and truthful and won't be laced with political nonsense. To date, we've seen the IRS, FBI, CDC, and many other government agencies get pulled into politics and frankly we have a separation specifically for this reason.

Though, if I'm wrong with my 1st point as you suggest, please share the facts stating so and I'll certainly take it into consideration and change my stance.
 
Sep 2019
108
52
CA
Did you really not understand the intent of his comment?
If you are going to be precise, you should not state "almost all" without explaining exactly what you mean.
What you mean by "almost all", 90%, 70%, 55%, 99%? Do you include special handgun loads? What calibers are you comparing? Do you define "power" by muzzle energy?
I know this question wasn't directed to me, but I'd like to answer it.

Gun related deaths are a very difficult topic to discuss especially when considering the basic information we see from the government. Groups like the CDC or the DOJ collect their data from the same general sources but the data isn't always collected in the same way. Chicago may break down gun related deaths into specific types of firearms like revolvers, semi-auto pistols, bolt action rifles, semi-auto rifles, shotguns, and even maybe single shot, whereas Some town in another part of the country just lumps all long guns together, pistols together and leaves it as that. Even worse is many towns don't record the differences like was a death because a cop shot a murder suspect or what is just a death that involved a pistol/rifle? SO, that means that the data that comes from any of the agencies is inherently flawed out of the gate. None-the-less...it's a starting point and we can at least use it to get a rough estimate.

Therefore...what is the TYPE of firearm that is responsible for the MOST deaths per year? Pistols by as little as 64% to much higher depending on the stats you follow. Here's one example: What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
Based on the link I provided by PewResearch...they suggest that only 4% of the deaths in 2016 were as a result of AR style weapons. Even extremely anti-gun groups like Gun Violence Statistics | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence don't state specifics about the number of deaths as a result of AR style weapons because it's such a small number. So, why the push to focus on the "black" rifles? Honestly, the answer is really quite simple...because it's not about saving lives...it's about getting rid of guns and they start by chipping away one piece at a time. Consider for a second, if the government told you that you couldn't travel to other states, you'd see our country flip their lid. However, if they start by first raising the prices of airfare and gas making it less likely you'll want to...you'd never raise an eyebrow would you? Not to say they are...just throwing out a way of looking at it.

The democratic party knows they can't ban guns all together. They simply don't have the votes and there'd be a modern day civil war if they did. However, if they first banned semi-auto rifles by calling them "assault weapons" and making everyone fear them...then they targeted certain types of shotguns, then pistols...eventually they'd get what they want which is an outright end to firearms...but why would they? What benefit would the democratic party have to get rid of guns? Is it really to save lives? If that were the case, why don't they focus on other root causes that take more lives per year. Based on this link by Healthline.com 12 Leading Causes of Death in the United States firearms don't even make the top 12 killers in our country. IN fact, it seems smoking and how we eat seem to kill more people per year than anything else. So, if the democrats are SOOO worried about saving lives....saving 100,000+ per year vs 245 (according to one site of AR deaths in 2016) per year seems like a more impactful endeavor right? Unless it's not about saving lives at all....

Even the Huffington Post, a relatively liberal source admits that the numbers don't add up. Thousands Of Americans Are Gunned Down Each Year, But Few Die By Assault-Style Rifle.

So, when we're confronted with reoccurring figures suggesting that all the effort to ban "assault" style weapons might ONLY impact less than 5% of the overall deaths per year...vs something like cigarettes or eating the wrong foods, or even driving a car which accounts for about 1.25 MILLION deaths per year...it begs the question...is this really about saving lives or is this really about disarming your opponents because you hate guns and you hate your opponents?
Road Safety Facts — Association for Safe International Road Travel

Honestly, I think it's pretty clear to everyone that ANY gun control is NOT about saving lives but really ONLY about taking away guns. I think if the democrats were honest though, even their supporters would tell them to piss off so the party and politicians instead play to their members emotions and say it's to save lives. Anyone with a brain knows they're lying...unfortunately the democratic members can't see their hand in front of their face because when you play off their emotion...it's hard to show them they're being dumb.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2019
108
52
CA
The CDC is, like most public health organizations, has a mandate to look at disease, causes of disease injury, and possible solutions. The term "root cause" is a quality assurance associated term that is very specific and may or may not apply to studies that look at disease frequency, associated factors, causation or correlation. "Root cause" means, for example, looking for the reasons for employee absence and finding that many employees suffered falls requiring time off from the particular floor cleaning techniques used by janitors. Not all public health problems have identifiable "root causes". They may have, however, agents of injury. So it is perfectly appropriate for CDC to study nerve problems late in life of those who had polio as children without knowing exactly the "root cause". Not all problems have "root causes" that can be identified, but studying the disease, such as firearm death and injury is appropriate. CDC does not know the precise "root cause" of vaping deaths but appropriately looks at the agent of injury to be the JUUL vapor delivery systems.
I know this may be stunning, but I will agree with you on this point. I accept your argument and concede this point. While I still hold my belief that "agents of injury" can also be a crutch if we as an example find that 90% of back pain sufferers all happened to get into an accident...that doesn't mean we can say it's a vehicles fault as an agent of injury. I accept that we can look into why so many were all driving, but we need to look further and not stop at the vehicle. Similar, if we see that a vast majority of criminals die by gun related deaths, it's not the guns...but the choice they made for an "occupation" that is the agent of injury. Basically, I just want to be fair and not stop where someone could prove their argument rather than take it to the end where the actual data may show something different.


Surely you have proof for this claim.
Honestly, no...I remember the arguments back in 1996 about this and it was then that there were a lot of claims by different groups that the CDC was being politicized. Truthfully I haven't bothered looking since then.


You are still promoting the wrong understanding of public health research. Is "polio" the root cause of poliomyelitis? Is tobacco the "root cause" of cancer? These are agents of injury. Studying the agent of injury (firearms) is an appropriate subject. The "root cause" of firearm suicide may be poor storage techniques by gun owners or access to guns by teenagers (a high risk group). So the agent of injury become inextricable in certain situations with a root cause analysis.
Honestly, I don't know that I'm qualified to argue over what the cause of polio is...but as far as the root cause for cancer...we can certainly Identify what caused certain types. You don't get lung cancer by inhaling the clean air in the mountains...it's caused by inhaling carcinogens from cigarettes...but again...medicine isn't my strong suit. With regards to suicide, well...let me ask you this, if I took away a suicidal person's gun, does that fix them? What if I treat their mental illness and get them help for depression, or whatever other mental impairment they may be dealing with? Would that help stop them? Certainly more likely right? With suicide, using your terms, the agent of injury is honestly irrelevant. The cause is the driving force to their condition. If you take away the gun...they can still commit suicide. Now you can cite the random details saying that guns help ensure success...but frankly so does leaping from a height, jumping into the path of a train, etc...so my question is...do you want to help sfix them, or keep taking away choices from them? I'd prefer to fix or help them rather than waste time taking choices away from them.

Ok, now you are really mixed up. "Symptoms" (individually reported complaints about what someone feels) are in an entirely different category to "root cause". The CDC does not attribute disease cause to symptoms. You are wrong again.
Listen...it's late as it was last night. I concede that I used the wrong term. the point I was trying to make is that the CDC needs to identify problems and most likely causes. If they tell me that I am likely to die because I own a gun, i'm going to dismiss their findings as trash because my great grandfather, grandfather, and father all lived very long lives and owned firearms.

Actually, when the issue of firearm violence or death is studied, the firearm access, misuse, or characteristic become inextricably connected to the injury just as driver reaction times, stopping distances, speed, brake function, auto exhaust, gas mileage, etc. will be important to studies of auto death or injury related to collisions or even smog. It turns out Dickey regrets that his amendment resulted in intimidation of public health research into firearms.
Firearms are not the irrelevant "tool" you want to portray. They are as important technically as any other agent of injury.
His amendment prevented gun research which is why he regretted it. I agree...I think research is always welcome as learning is always preferred. I can honestly say he was a very smart person having met him once. I know very well what his thoughts are on the subject, but thank you.

See above. Actually on the issue of firearm death and injury impact on society, firearms are more injurious than cars given the frequency of use of cars compared to firearms. Guns killed more people than car crashes in 2017
and trends reported here:
I'm not even going to bother with this...there are an average of over 1 million deaths per year due to vehicles. I added the link to another remark I gave already to you so I won't bother adding it here. Frankly this is a dumb article. There are far more vehicle related deaths per year either direct or indirect than all firearms put together. please stop.

Cell phones are banned while driving in most states. Your example is evidence of your fallacious reasoning.
yet people still use cell phones and drive. I guess writing a law doesn't stop it eh?

Now you are just spinning into the predictable hyperbole of the ignorant gun advocate. We are talking about firearm injuries and firearms are central to firearm injuries as a cause.... just a alcohol is associated with drunk driving or liver disease; tobacco is important to understanding lung cancer risk whether one is a smoker or not; and, since motor vehicles are the cause of collision deaths, they are part of the equation associated with MVAs .

The worst aspect of the Dickey Amendment was that it blinded the CDC and allowed gun nuts to apply the fantasy that somehow firearms are not a factor in firearm death and injury. Imagine if heart research could not consider diet, exercise, genetic disposition or other risk factors when studying myocardial infarction deaths.
I've just decided to lump all of it together. what is your goal? Do you want to save lives? How many? Do you associate any blame to the person wielding the weapon? If you do, why aren't you focused on stopping him and not the weapon they use because THEN no matter what weapon they pick up, we can stop them? If you don't assign blame to the person wielding the weapon why don't you use the same rationale on knife assaults, vehicle ramming, and other mass murders? Here's my problem with EVERYTHING you've said so far...you are SOOOO focused on wasting time on the weapon that amounts to maybe less than 500 people killed every year as a result, instead of focused on saving 100,000+ lives by looking at other more deadly causes! Why are you wasting time on guns? seriously? You aren't targeting something that accounts for a majority or even a minority of the deaths per year...you're focused on something that is about the same as fists as being the cause of death. it's amazing to me that so much time and money is spent by you and your party fighting to ban something that even if all rifles were banned...might only save 1000 lives instead of focusing on smoking or obesity which accounts for millions. Even vehicles are responsible for over a million. It's just asinine to keep arguing over this. IF YOU WANT TO SAVE LIVES, FOCUS ON SOMETHING THAT WILL REALLY SAVE LIVES!!!!!!! ELIMINATE SMOKING!!!!! HOLD COMPANIES RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE CRAP THEY PUT IN PROCESSED FOODS!!!!! THOSE TWO ALONE WILL SAVE A COUPLE MILLION LIVES PER YEAR!!! Or you can focus on banning AR style weapons which at best might save 500. Don't you get how absurd this argument is?

I want to save all innocent lives...but when we are talking about saving lives and you and your party ignore the real killers to focus on something that amounts to less than 5% of the deaths...it shows how fake you are about saving lives and how instead you just want to punish your opponents.
 
Jun 2019
112
52
CA
Did you really not understand the intent of his comment?
If you are going to be precise, you should not state "almost all" without explaining exactly what you mean.
What you mean by "almost all", 90%, 70%, 55%, 99%? Do you include special handgun loads? What calibers are you comparing? Do you define "power" by muzzle energy?
Lloyd's statement was wrong. Period. It was yet another example of his making up "facts" to support his untenable positions.

Just as this is yet another example of your arguing for the sake of hearing yourself talk.

The point is that the argument that "assault rifles" should be banned because they are "more deadly" than pistols is skewed; almost all centerfire rifles are more powerful than most handguns. There are exceptions if one picks the rifle and the handgun carefully. I said "almost all" to avoid getting sucked into an irrelevant hairsplitting exercise about the exceptions. Alas, this effort was unsucessful.
 
Last edited: