STOP EXTREME GUN CONTROL BILL H.R. 127

98cwitr said:

The Weimar Republic disarmed the people before the Nazis began their human right atrocities. As a German, I would encourage you to remember that. If the German people (ie: Jews, ethnic minorities etc) had the ability to defend themselves, there is an argument that Hilter would have not been able to commit the Holocaust in the first place

Click to expand...

The Polish army had guns, cannons, tanks, a trained army and several hundred aircraft, yet Hitler was able to invade and commit the holocaust anyway.

BNR32FAN said:

What that study fails to provide is the difference between those who own firearms and those who don’t. Yeah I could likely get shot & killed in a gun fight. Who doesn’t know that? But I can 100% guarantee you that if you don’t have a gun your 100% at the mercy of the guy who’s breaking into your house. So if his intention is to harm you, your 100% screwed. Because I have a gun I have a better chance at taking him out than he does of taking me out because I know my house, he doesn’t and I’m waiting to ambush him.

Click to expand...

That’s exactly what was studied.

"Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession."

What you understandably are not taking into consideration are all of the people who don’t act like you. People who own guns or live with gun owners and pull them out in situations where there is no real threat, but they want to dominate or intimidate other people. Add alcohol, mental health issues, or a domestic dispute and you end up with something that could have ended with a fistfight ending with a gunshot wound.

Direct Driver said:

How's Chicago and New Orleans. I understand they have some pretty strict gun laws.

Click to expand...

Chicago seems to be doing much better than a bunch of open carry states with lax gun laws, that's for sure.

State Rate Deaths
Alaska (AK) 23.3 177 - Open carry allowed, shall issue state
Alabama (AL) 21.5 1,046 - Open carry allowed, no restrictions
Louisiana (LA) 21.3 987 - Open carry allowed, shall issue state
Mississippi (MS) 19.9 587 - Open carry allowed, no restrictions
Oklahoma (OK) 19.6 766 - Open carry allowed, shall issue state

Illinois (IL) 11.7 1,490 - No open carry, ID required

Sparagmos said:

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession."

Click to expand...

I’ll take those odds over putting the lives of myself and my family at the mercy of whoever is breaking into our house at night. And I’m confident that those odds do not relate to me given my situation and preparedness.

Zergling Rush said:

The Polish army had guns, cannons, tanks, a trained army and several hundred aircraft, yet Hitler was able to invade and commit the holocaust anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes, but they had a fighting chance. We don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

98cwitr said:

Yes, but they had a fighting chance.

Click to expand...

They really didn't.

BNR32FAN said:

I’ll take those odds over putting the lives of myself and my family at the mercy of whoever is breaking into our house at night. And I’m confident that those odds do not relate to me given my situation and preparedness.

Click to expand...

As the right likes to put it: "Reality doesn't care about your feelings".

Nithavela said:

They really didn't.

Click to expand...

Most of the Polish causalities were non-combatant citizens, in 1919 Poland disarmed their people. Their citizens had no individual right to self defense recognized by their government and therefore could not defend themselves against the Nazis. THAT'S a good argument for keeping private American citizens armed.

Nithavela said:

As the right likes to put it: "Reality doesn't care about your feelings".

Click to expand...

Yeah and reality is also pretty certain that a blind guy can’t hit squat if he can’t see to aim. I can see that a person in your position is more than willing to overlook that fact because you care more about maintaining the illusion of being right than evaluating the circumstances.

98cwitr said:

Most of the Polish causalities were non-combatant citizens, in 1919 Poland disarmed their people. Their citizens had no individual right to self defense recognized by their government and therefore could not defend themselves against the Nazis. THAT'S a good argument for keeping private American citizens armed.

Click to expand...

So wait - the fact that Poland had the fourth-largest land army in Europe couldn't keep them safe from Hitler, but if only they would have allowed citizens to own a rifle or two, they would have been fine?

Zergling Rush said:

So wait - the fact that Poland had the fourth-largest land army in Europe couldn't keep them safe from Hitler, but if only they would have allowed citizens to own a rifle or two, they would have been fine?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't leap to such a conclusion, but the force against the nazis would have been far more sizeable. That would have been a good thing in both our books, wouldn't it have been?

Nithavela said:

The obvious flaw is assuming that the system is already over the "ideal point" and that lower taxation would lead to more taxes. Lower taxation was implemented. Taxes plummeted.

If someone would really believe in the "laffer curve", that person would conclude that we are to the left of that ideal point and suggest to raise taxes. But of course the objective of the creation of the laffer curve wasn't to increase tax revenue, it was to build a theory around the pre-conceived conclusion of "taxation must be lowered".

Click to expand...

No, no no, if lowering the taxes didn't work it's because they are STILL too high and need to be lowered more.

98cwitr said:

I wouldn't leap to such a conclusion, but the force against the nazis would have been far more sizeable. That would have been a good thing in both our books, wouldn't it have been?

Click to expand...

Actually, it wouldn't have made much difference at all, since in times of war most men of fighting age were called up anyway. And if I was fighting for my country, I'd rather be fighting with an army and supported by their logistics than be trying to take on an enemy by myself and unsupported.

BNR32FAN said:

Yeah and reality is also pretty certain that a blind guy can’t hit squat if he can’t see to aim. I can see that a person in your position is more than willing to overlook that fact because you care more about maintaining the illusion of being right than evaluating the circumstances.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one posting make-believe stories instead of evidence.

Arcangl86 said:

No, no no, if lowering the taxes didn't work it's because they are STILL too high and need to be lowered more.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the laffer curve has a few loop-de-loops.

98cwitr said:

I wouldn't leap to such a conclusion, but the force against the nazis would have been far more sizeable. That would have been a good thing in both our books, wouldn't it have been?

Click to expand...

Militia was already pretty outclassed and useless during the war of american independence. You think it would have fared better against the german army with its tanks, machine guns and artillery?

There was partisan action in most countries the germans conquered. I applaud the bravery of those civilians willing to put their life on the line to resist the occupying force, but it had no effect on the wars' outcome.

Direct Driver said:

I think the two are not connected. One can entertain one and not the other, or both, or neither. Or "sort of" believe one or the other. They don't go hand in hand.

Also, the right, as far as I can see, is divided into two groups. First are the Christians. They are constrained by the grace of God. Their weapons are all about self defence from perps and the government. The second is what I call stoicists, who have more in commmon with the "non-Christian" members of the founding fathers. They may not have been Christian, but they were steeped in Christian values about right and wrong, law and order, etc.

They are more likely to be proactive - and many probably in a Timothy McVeigh way. And he didn't use guns.

Click to expand...

well my point isn't using guns or not it was more just, here is the thing we've been hearing for years why guns are needed, and many believed it was the government being tyrannical and overthrowing the government, yet barely a blink.

Not saying their beliefs were true, just that given the nature of their beliefs and how severe the situation was if they were true, you would expect more.

Now take the left, if trump had used the supreme court to ilegittimatly steal the election, you would definitely have had riots, protests country wide, you wouldn't have had, "Well I can't take my guns." look at the BLM and occupy or far more minor things and they came out in much bigger force. It seems to me the right talks big, but when it's time to show it they cower.

Direct Driver said:

My argument was not about US vs Germany rapes. Rather, it was about violent crime (rape being one of the worst) in an area where gun ownership requires a "need". I would say protection of risk of rape is definitely a "need". And I'm sure many of those women in both the EU and the US wish they had guns at the time. That is my point. Guns are a very individual thing. And unless they were in one of those strong gun control areas like New Orleans of Chicago, the ones in the US probably could have had guns.

BTW, it sounds like a woman needs a gun in the US even more than in Germany.

Click to expand...

If your argument was leigimate then you would have less rapes per capita in the states where you have far more guns per capita.

hehe just my conspiratorial look at this, but to me the bill looks more like a anti gun control person putting something forward to make the pro gun control look bad heh.

Direct Driver said:

I can't argue with that. However...
View attachment 294674

Click to expand...

Except everyone carrying guns is whats killing people, not protecting them.