The Left is Rallying to Take Your Guns Again

[Trogdor the Burninator]

The Founding Fathers had firearms that were matched to that of the British Army.

The AR-15 today, is compatible with my grand daddy's flintlock.

The British Army today has tactical nuclear weapons. I want one to defend myself too. I promise to be well-regulated.

 

[cow451]

It's not the law abiding citizens that are killing kids.

That noise by your ear was not a live round. It was the point whizzing by.

 

[wonderkins]

I'm starting to get to the point where it's like yeah......People can't be trusted with certain firearms. Take them away except for double-barrel shotguns, bolt, action rifles, and 6-shooters. No more assault rifles, Glock 17s, Tec-9s etc.

How do you figure? I don't know the numbers, but how many guns are there in this country? The people committing crimes with guns are a tiny percentage compare the millions who gave guns and never hurt anybody. I would guess that most people who own guns responsibly, you would never know own any at all. That's because they don't talk about it. They enjoy their guns in private, or with friends and at shooting ranges.

You don't punish everybody for the actions of criminals.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

None of these quotes answer the question of why we are sacrificing over 40,000 lives a year just on the off-chance that we might need our arsenal of privately held guns to overthrow a tyrant. How many tyrants have been overthrown by means of privately-held small arms in any highly developed nation ever in the history of highly-developed nations? It is a fiction. Either the need will not ever arise, or if it does arise, the power of small arms in the hands of the public will be of no use against a tyrant with air power and tanks. In the history of the US Constitution, that particular need has never arisen.

It’s an obvious smokescreen. They don’t want anyone taking their guns because they care more about their individual wants than the greater good. I know this because I’ve gotten the gun loving faction of my family to actually admit it. The same “good, conservative Christian” faction that today discussed the shootings in Texas using phrases that I wouldn’t dare repeat here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

See post #15. Do the math.

BTW, guns save more innocent lives then they take in the U.S. Lott proved it. For that matter, in most cases, deadly situations are diffused without a single shot being fired.

No, post #15 doesn't prove a thing. It is only pure speculation that all those who were victims of tyranny would have been saved if their country had had something like the 2nd amendment.

And, not, Lott did not prove anything of the sort. It is more speculation based on number of times a gun was used. What is needed is a count of the number of times a life was certainly saved by some citizen having a gun, and that is exactly what we do not have. But we do have statistics on the number of children killed by guns. The 2nd amendment was the worst mistake the founding fathers made. But I understand why they made it. They were still thinking about how useful guns owned by citizens was in the revolutionary war. But they could not imagine a day when all highly-developed nations would have air power and tanks belonging to the government. There is no way small arms in the hands of private citizens can counter that.

 

[HARK!]

Lott proved nothing of the sort, but keep the fantasy if needed. The bogus claims of the NRA's favorite social scientist, debunked

I read Lott's scholarly work. The evidence is clear; and it's statistical analysis of our government's own records.

I tried to visit your Left-wing propaganda site; but I had to give them permission to write scripts to my computer, and to let them track me, in order to read their propaganda.

Of course, I declined their invitation.

 

[cow451]

The British Army today has tactical nuclear weapons. I want one to defend myself too. I promise to be well-regulated.

How about a nuclear bullet for your flintlock.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You don't punish everybody for the actions of criminals.

But you can responsibly regulate.

 

[cow451]

How do you figure? I don't know the numbers, but how many guns are there in this country? The people committing crimes with guns are a tiny percentage compare the millions who gave guns and never hurt anybody. I would guess that most people who own guns responsibly, you would never know own any at all. That's because they don't talk about it. They enjoy their guns in private, or with friends and at shooting ranges.

You don't punish everybody for the actions of criminals.

Because some people drive drunk, I can’t drink a Modelo on my way home from work.

 

[wonderkins]

But you can responsibly regulate.

What regulation would have prevented the shootings?

Have you ever purchased a firearm? It's not like buying a gallon of milk or something.

 

[cow451]

I read Lott's scholarly work. The evidence is clear; and it's statistical analysis of our government's own records.

I tried to visit your Left-wing propaganda site; but I had to give them permission to write scripts to my computer, and to let them track me, in order to read their propaganda.

Of course, I declined their invitation.

They must’ve picked up your vibe. I had no more problems with that site than I do here. Sorry that it wasn’t in something you might trust like Truth Social.

 

[cow451]

What regulation would have prevented the shootings?

Have you ever purchased a firearm? It's not like buying a gallon of milk or something.

Yes it’s terribly difficult. The Shooter in Texas had an awful time getting his.

 

[HARK!]

No, post #15 doesn't prove a thing. It is only pure speculation that all those who were victims of tyranny would have been saved if their country had had something like the 2nd amendment.

Again, can you name one fully armed people, throughout history, that was reduced to the slavery of Tyranny?

And, not, Lott did not prove anything of the sort. It is more speculation based on number of times a gun was used. What is needed is a count of the number of times a life was certainly saved by some citizen having a gun

That's in the states in his book. You would do weel to read the book before presenting you unfounded opinion of what's in it.

and that is exactly what we do not have.

It's in his book.

But we do have statistics on the number of children killed by guns.

You might do well to look at all of the statistics concerning firearms, Like Lott did.

You could save some legwork, and just read his book.

he 2nd amendment was the worst mistake the founding fathers made. But I understand why they made it. They were still thinking about how useful guns owned by citizens was in the revolutionary war. But they could not imagine a day when all highly-developed nations would have air power and tanks belonging to the government. There is no way small arms in the hands of private citizens can counter that.

You would do well to study history and to study war. Did you know that a city that has been reduced to rubble by tanks, is harder to take, than if the city was left standing?

Eventually those guys need to come out of their tanks. Guess who wins when they are outnumbered by an armed people, whose homes were just destroyed by tanks.

 

[cow451]

Again, can you name one fully armed people, throughout history, that was reduced to the slavery of Tyranny?



That's in the states in his book. You would do weel to read the book before presenting you unfounded opinion of what's in it.


It's in his book.



You might do well to look at all of the statistics concerning firearms, Like Lott did.

You could save some legwork, and just read his book.



You would do well to study history and to study war. Did you know that a city that has been reduced to rubble by tanks, is harder to take, than if the city was left standing?

Eventually those guys need to come out of their tanks. Guess who wins when they are outnumbered by an armed people, whose homes were just destroyed by tanks.

I’m giving you another link on Lott. Maybe your firewall can handle this one.
John Lott, the NRA’s Favorite Gun ‘Academic’, Is A Fraud

 

[HARK!]

I'm starting to get to the point where it's like yeah......People can't be trusted with certain firearms. Take them away except for double-barrel shotguns, bolt, action rifles, and 6-shooters. No more assault rifles, Glock 17s, Tec-9s etc.

I get it. Some think that only the police and politicians are the only ones honorable enough to have the power to defend themselves. I have a higher opinion of myself than that.

The murder rates are highest where the politicians have convinced the people that they should give up their rights to defend themselves. As the murder rates climb; the politicians tax the people further into poverty, to expand the police force; and the people cry out for it. Somehow adding more low paid police never seems to solve the problem; but there does seem to be a correlation to more police brutality.

However, I don't want to diminish the value of police. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. They'll be there lickity split to open up an investigation.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Again, can you name one fully armed people, throughout history, that was reduced to the slavery of Tyranny?

That's the wrong question. In deciding on the value of the 2nd amendment, we need to do a cost/benefit analysis. The cost is the lives lost because there are so many guns. The benefit is the probabilistic estimate of the number of lives the 2nd amendment has saved or will save. The fact is the people with the most guns are also the people with most gun deaths. The correlation is striking.

That's in the states in his book. You would do weel to read the book before presenting you unfounded opinion of what's in it.

What you quoted didn't prove your point. If there is something else in the book that does prove your point, then why not quote that?

You might do well to look at all of the statistics concerning firearms, Like Lott did.

I have looked at many statistics. For example, this one:

Homicide

You could save some legwork, and just read his book.

And trust just one biased source? No thanks. I'd rather do the legwork and read several reputable sources.

You would do well to study history and to study war.

Thank you very much for the advice, but I'm good.

 

[iluvatar5150]

“We must abolish the filibuster and pass gun-safety legislation now,” said Sen. Bernard Sanders, an independent and self-described socialist from Vermont. “No one in America needs an AR-15. How many more children, mothers and fathers need to be murdered in cold blood before the Senate has the guts to ban assault weapons and take on the NRA?”

Schumer admits gun-control push will fail, hopes for bipartisan compromise

“I’m sick and tired of it,” Mr. Biden said. “We have to act. And don’t tell me we can’t have an impact on this carnage. I spent my career as a senator and vice president working to pass common-sense gun laws."

Biden demands lawmakers ‘stand up to the gun lobby’ after Texas school shooting

Then there is this riotous stunt:

It was difficult to understand Mr. O’Rourke, who was not wearing a microphone, but his comments included: “This is totally predictable” and “You are doing nothing.”

Those on stage pushed back, telling him to sit down and accusing him of pulling a political stunt.

“You are out of line and an embarrassment,” said Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

Beto O’Rourke crashes governor’s press conference on Texas school shooting

It would seem that the Right is counter-rallying to protect their golden calf.

 

[Brihaha]

But you can responsibly regulate.

Gun worshippers don't want to sacrifice anything to save lives. They're too terrified the government will take away all firearms because politicians have spoonfed this lie to win elections for decades. I remember when assault rifles were banned for a short period and gun deaths went down. The good old days when Americans actually cared about their neighbors and children. I wish we cared as much for our nine year old living children as much as we care about an unborn fetus growing in a stranger's womb.

Our politicians are too scared of being voted out of office to even sit down and discuss various ways to reduce gun violence. It is shameful how we voters won't hold them accountable for their apathy and inaction.

 

[seeking.IAM]

​

Democrats with abortion blood on their hands, really have room to talk about, the killing of children.

And Republicans against abortion stand twiddling their thumbs as our school children are killed and old ladies are killed while buying groceries. They can't call themselves "Pro Life" until they do something about this.

 

[HARK!]

I’m giving you another link on Lott. Maybe your firewall can handle this one.
John Lott, the NRA’s Favorite Gun ‘Academic’, Is A Fraud

This is a blog. Blogs are generally considered to be low on the credibility list. However, that's a moot point.

I wasn't speaking of Lott's website.

I was speaking of this book:

Overview

Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime. In this paperback edition, Lott has expanded the research through 1996, incorporating new data available from states that passed right-to-carry and other gun laws since the book's publication as well as new city-level statistics.

"Lott's pro-gun argument has to be examined on the merits, and its chief merit is lots of data. . . . If you still disagree with Lott, at least you will know what will be required to rebut a case that looks pretty near bulletproof."—Peter Coy, Business Week

"By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott's book could hardly be more timely. . . . A model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy."—John O. McGinnis, National Review

"His empirical analysis sets a standard that will be difficult to match. . . . This has got to be the most extensive empirical study of crime deterrence that has been done to date."—Public Choice

"For anyone with an open mind on either side of this subject this book will provide a thorough grounding. It is also likely to be the standard reference on the subject for years to come."—Stan Liebowitz, Dallas Morning News

"A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates."—James Bovard, Wall Street Journal

"John Lott documents how far 'politically correct' vested interests are willing to go to denigrate anyone who dares disagree with them. Lott has done us all a service by his thorough, thoughtful, scholarly approach to a highly controversial issue."—Milton Friedman