Reality vs. trump supporters

[rjhenn]

I don't know what "IOW" stands for, but your repeating nonsense regarding gun control laws comes off like Lapierre after a weekend bender. But hope springs eternal....let's see if you have the intellectual honesty to address the points in the following links;


https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-...ses-of-death-4

https://www.inverse.com/article/5844...actually-works

http://www.center4research.org/does-...l-really-work/


NOW THIS HAS STRAYED FROM THE OP. SINCE YOU AND I AGREE ON THAT, I SEE CONTINUING THIS GUN DEBATE ONLY FOR A FEW MORE POSTS.

Did you even look at your first link? It says that you're more likely to be killed by the police than in a mass shooting. And while it says that "Gun violence is a leading cause of death in America ", it's actually pretty far down their list.
And the only restrictions on gun control research have been on the CDC conducting fake research designed to promote gun control. The CDC has always been able to research the causes of gun violence. But they've only wanted to promote gun control.
And note that 5 of the 6 countries listed as accounting for half the global firearm deaths in 2016 already have very strict gun laws. Obviously, they don't work as well as you want them to. Other factors are much more important. As for suicides and guns, Japan, with very strict gun laws, until very recently had a suicide rate that was typically higher than our combined homicide and suicide rates. You don't need a gun to commit suicide.
Overall, that first link is focused solely on guns, there's no indication that any of their proposed measures had an effect on the total homicide rate. Note that Vermont, with virtually no gun control laws and constitutional carry, is typically one of the safest states in the country. Now your 3rd link talks a lot about the Brady Bill and how many failed the background checks. However, it's a felony for most of those to even try and buy a gun. Yet almost none of them are ever prosecuted for that. Of course, background checks don't do anything about the black market, except to give it even more customers. And there's no way to require a permit to purchase on the black market. The only way to legally buy a gun online is to have it shipped to a local FFL, who will have you go through the NICS background check.
So a lot of wishful thinking and disinformation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[RB 60]

It's part of the sentence and a comprehensive part of the Amendment. Like I said previously, running to the Federalist Papers does NOT justify YOUR interpretation of the FINAL law. My previous posts stands valid. Trying to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that any yahoo who can afford it can get ANY type of weapon they want, walk around with it, cross state lines with it, etc., etc. without any state or federal oversight has NOT passed the litmus test of reality and history in this country. Period. And since any law abiding citizen can choose from a plethora of revolvers, semi-autos, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc., AND form a legal militia in some states outside of the National Guard, the clap trap from the current leadership of the NRA just sounds dumb.

You say individual states have their own "rules" or better said, constitutions. Here,s PA.'s;


Article 1, section 21 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania states, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

I see no mention of "RULES regarding the "well regulated" weapons," nor do I see it in the US constitution.

What "clap trap from the current leadership of the NRA" do you speak of?

[Nordberg]

Pretty much. He follows my threads/post like a bitch in heat with the same level of right wing wonk willful ignorance and insipid stubbornness. I let him out occasionally to see if there's any improvement. Since there's not, back into the IA bin with the fool.

Truth Deflector is a terribly rude bigot. That goes along with being rabid Trumpy. Bigots are rightys and therefore pro-trump.

[rjhenn]

you're a cretin. everybody knows there's a deep state. stop huffing your own fumes.

The only deep state is the one that Trump is building that he controls.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Taichiliberal]

Did you even look at your first link? It says that you're more likely to be killed by the police than in a mass shooting. And while it says that "Gun violence is a leading cause of death in America ", it's actually pretty far down their list.
And the only restrictions on gun control research have been on the CDC conducting fake research designed to promote gun control. The CDC has always been able to research the causes of gun violence. But they've only wanted to promote gun control.
And note that 5 of the 6 countries listed as accounting for half the global firearm deaths in 2016 already have very strict gun laws. Obviously, they don't work as well as you want them to. Other factors are much more important. As for suicides and guns, Japan, with very strict gun laws, until very recently had a suicide rate that was typically higher than our combined homicide and suicide rates. You don't need a gun to commit suicide.
Overall, that first link is focused solely on guns, there's no indication that any of their proposed measures had an effect on the total homicide rate. Note that Vermont, with virtually no gun control laws and constitutional carry, is typically one of the safest states in the country. Now your 3rd link talks a lot about the Brady Bill and how many failed the background checks. However, it's a felony for most of those to even try and buy a gun. Yet almost none of them are ever prosecuted for that. Of course, background checks don't do anything about the black market, except to give it even more customers. And there's no way to require a permit to purchase on the black market. The only way to legally buy a gun online is to have it shipped to a local FFL, who will have you go through the NICS background check.
So a lot of wishful thinking and disinformation.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Once again, you just take your opinion as fact over valid, documented evidence. Labeling everyone else a liar while being unable to logically or factually prove such just makes you a 3rd rate propagandist on this particular subject.

YOU stated that there is no proof that gun control works and that all studies on such were bogus. The first link details various information regarding guns to show how proper, in depth and corroborated studies are stymied by weak legislation and the Orange Oaf's efforts to eliminate even that. What's fascinating in your myopic, supposition and conjecture laden screed is that you IGNORE that your life time chances of experiencing gun violence is 1 in 315, mass shootings are 1 in 11,125. Given we are a population of over 300 million, those odds are not so comfortable....just ask the surviving family members of mass shooting victims in the last 30 years.....you know, like one of the sub-titles said, "After Congress let a 1994 ban on assault weapons expire in 2004, gun massacre deaths skyrocketed." Here are some other titles (with highlighted links to documentation) that you ignore from the first link: States that have stricter background-check laws for gun purchases have fewer school shootings.
There's a widening gap between the number of gun deaths in states with relaxed gun-control laws and states with more restrictive policies, according to a study published in March. Research shows that states that require background checks on all gun sales had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita between 2009 and 2012.

That's just pulling the rug out from under your first myopic review. You display similar tactics for the other 2 links. All the reader has to do is just click on the links and read the material themselves to see your folly.

You should apply for Lapierre's job....if the organization is still financially solvent by the end of this year. Carry on.

[rjhenn]

Once again, you just take your opinion as fact over valid, documented evidence. Labeling everyone else a liar while being unable to logically or factually prove such just makes you a 3rd rate propagandist on this particular subject.

YOU stated that there is no proof that gun control works and that all studies on such were bogus. The first link details various information regarding guns to show how proper, in depth and corroborated studies are stymied by weak legislation and the Orange Oaf's efforts to eliminate even that. What's fascinating in your myopic, supposition and conjecture laden screed is that you IGNORE that your life time chances of experiencing gun violence is 1 in 315, mass shootings are 1 in 11,125. Given we are a population of over 300 million, those odds are not so comfortable....just ask the surviving family members of mass shooting victims in the last 30 years.....you know, like one of the sub-titles said, "After Congress let a 1994 ban on assault weapons expire in 2004, gun massacre deaths skyrocketed." Here are some other titles (with highlighted links to documentation) that you ignore from the first link: States that have stricter background-check laws for gun purchases have fewer school shootings.
There's a widening gap between the number of gun deaths in states with relaxed gun-control laws and states with more restrictive policies, according to a study published in March. Research shows that states that require background checks on all gun sales had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita between 2009 and 2012.

That's just pulling the rug out from under your first myopic review. You display similar tactics for the other 2 links. All the reader has to do is just click on the links and read the material themselves to see your folly.

You should apply for Lapierre's job....if the organization is still financially solvent by the end of this year. Carry on.

You are clearly paranoid about guns. How is a reduction in gun deaths meaningful if just as many people are dieing? And you can't accept the facts. They have to mean what you want them to mean. You refuse to accept what your 1st link said. You are about 3 times more likely to die from riding a bicycle than from a mass shooting. There's nothing stymieing legitimate research on the causes of gun violence. The only restriction was on fake research by the CDC.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, you just take your opinion as fact over valid, documented evidence. Labeling everyone else a liar while being unable to logically or factually prove such just makes you a 3rd rate propagandist on this particular subject.

YOU stated that there is no proof that gun control works and that all studies on such were bogus. The first link details various information regarding guns to show how proper, in depth and corroborated studies are stymied by weak legislation and the Orange Oaf's efforts to eliminate even that. What's fascinating in your myopic, supposition and conjecture laden screed is that you IGNORE that your life time chances of experiencing gun violence is 1 in 315, mass shootings are 1 in 11,125. Given we are a population of over 300 million, those odds are not so comfortable....just ask the surviving family members of mass shooting victims in the last 30 years.....you know, like one of the sub-titles said, "After Congress let a 1994 ban on assault weapons expire in 2004, gun massacre deaths skyrocketed." Here are some other titles (with highlighted links to documentation) that you ignore from the first link: States that have stricter background-check laws for gun purchases have fewer school shootings.
There's a widening gap between the number of gun deaths in states with relaxed gun-control laws and states with more restrictive policies, according to a study published in March. Research shows that states that require background checks on all gun sales had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita between 2009 and 2012.

That's just pulling the rug out from under your first myopic review. You display similar tactics for the other 2 links. All the reader has to do is just click on the links and read the material themselves to see your folly.

You should apply for Lapierre's job....if the organization is still financially solvent by the end of this year. Carry on.

You are clearly paranoid about guns. How is a reduction in gun deaths meaningful if just as many people are dieing? And you can't accept the facts. They have to mean what you want them to mean. You refuse to accept what your 1st link said. You are about 3 times more likely to die from riding a bicycle than from a mass shooting. There's nothing stymieing legitimate research on the causes of gun violence. The only restriction was on fake research by the CDC.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness. You just ignore the information in the link you don't like and harp on out of context quotes. Obviously, you were asleep when they taught comprehensive reading in school. Then to add insult to injury, keep making accusation you cannot prove. Again, calling a source fake and proving such are two different things....a concept lost on you when it comes to guns. The childish tactic found in the babblings of the current NRA propaganda and general right wing noise machine (like Fox News).

Maybe it's okay in your warped mindset to be 1 in 315 victim of gun violence or 1 in 11,125 mass shooting victim or have a family member/relative/friend/significant other be one. But if you ask the surviving members of such victims from the last 20 years (hell, the last 10), they'd have some choice words for you.

Oh, and FYI; my Pop was a NYC homicide detective...I grew up with guns in the house, and could tell you some stories regarding them and homicides that would curl your toes.

It's like this, Reggie...all this stuck pig squealing from you regarding guns is just plain stupid, as of this second you (a law abiding citizen) can choose from a plelthora of hand guns, rifles and shot guns to buy that are more than adequate for home protection, self protection (given local state laws) or hunting... it's been that way for all my 60 years on this planet. And since NO OUTRIGHT CONFISCATION OF LEGALLY BOUGHT WEAPONS UNDER THE LAW HAS OCCURRED, your hand wringing is just the result of being duped by gun manufacturers/sellers and some internal paranoia/hatred of the federal gov't. No facts or logic can dissuade folk like you, so since we are in agreement on the OP, I'll just leave you to utter your final accusations, insults and revisionist clap trap. We're done here.

[rjhenn]

Now you're just being stubborn to the point of insipidness. You just ignore the information in the link you don't like and harp on out of context quotes. Obviously, you were asleep when they taught comprehensive reading in school. Then to add insult to injury, keep making accusation you cannot prove. Again, calling a source fake and proving such are two different things....a concept lost on you when it comes to guns. The childish tactic found in the babblings of the current NRA propaganda and general right wing noise machine (like Fox News).

Maybe it's okay in your warped mindset to be 1 in 315 victim of gun violence or 1 in 11,125 mass shooting victim or have a family member/relative/friend/significant other be one. But if you ask the surviving members of such victims from the last 20 years (hell, the last 10), they'd have some choice words for you.

Oh, and FYI; my Pop was a NYC homicide detective...I grew up with guns in the house, and could tell you some stories regarding them and homicides that would curl your toes.

It's like this, Reggie...all this stuck pig squealing from you regarding guns is just plain stupid, as of this second you (a law abiding citizen) can choose from a plelthora of hand guns, rifles and shot guns to buy that are more than adequate for home protection, self protection (given local state laws) or hunting... it's been that way for all my 60 years on this planet. And since NO OUTRIGHT CONFISCATION OF LEGALLY BOUGHT WEAPONS UNDER THE LAW HAS OCCURRED, your hand wringing is just the result of being duped by gun manufacturers/sellers and some internal paranoia/hatred of the federal gov't. No facts or logic can dissuade folk like you, so since we are in agreement on the OP, I'll just leave you to utter your final accusations, insults and revisionist clap trap. We're done here.

You're being stubborn to the point of stupid. You just ignore what the links really say and obsessively focus on the bits that support what you want to believe. You can't provide any specifics as to how I'm wrong, just meaningless generalities. Apparently deaths only matter to you in your warped mindset if they're caused by guns. Your childhood appears to have given you a warped view of guns. Guns don't kill people any more than hammers kill people. It's the person using the gun or hammer who's doing the killing.
You're also not listening to your own side. They have made it quite clear that their ultimate goal is total removal of firearms from civilian possession. And I'm not the one who brought that up. You did. But, of course, no facts or logic can dissuade folk like you. Not only are you completely paranoid about guns, but you persistently project your behavior on the opposition. So it's just as well that we're done here. Talking about gun control with you is like talking about Trump with one of his cultists.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Taichiliberal]

You're being stubborn to the point of stupid. You just ignore what the links really say and obsessively focus on the bits that support what you want to believe. You can't provide any specifics as to how I'm wrong, just meaningless generalities. Apparently deaths only matter to you in your warped mindset if they're caused by guns. Your childhood appears to have given you a warped view of guns. Guns don't kill people any more than hammers kill people. It's the person using the gun or hammer who's doing the killing.
You're also not listening to your own side. They have made it quite clear that their ultimate goal is total removal of firearms from civilian possession. And I'm not the one who brought that up. You did. But, of course, no facts or logic can dissuade folk like you. Not only are you completely paranoid about guns, but you persistently project your behavior on the opposition. So it's just as well that we're done here. Talking about gun control with you is like talking about Trump with one of his cultists.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

He said it, dear readers! Possibly the most absurd retort in the NRA flunky arsenal....a version of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"!

No shyte, Sherlock! Obviously you've discovered that unlike a 1950's Warner Bros. cartoon, guns don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around shooting at them. In the real world, a person needs to aim and fire....the more bullets accurately fired, the more victims wounded, maimed or killed. So a revolver with 6 chambers has the possibility of doing the aforementioned to 6 people, the bolt action hunting rifle more killing power and bullet loads, the semi-automatics carrying up to 14 shots or more, the shotgun doing serious damage with either 2 shots or a pump action of many, etc. etc. Hell of a more deadly potential than a hammer, wouldn't you say?

Reggie, you've gone off the deep end in your gunner rhetoric. You're wasting my thread space with this drivel. The chronology of our exchanges will always be your undoing to the objective reader. You're done. Adios.

[rjhenn]

He said it, dear readers! Possibly the most absurd retort in the NRA flunky arsenal....a version of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"!

No shyte, Sherlock! Obviously you've discovered that unlike a 1950's Warner Bros. cartoon, guns don't spring tiny sneakered feet and chase people around shooting at them. In the real world, a person needs to aim and fire....the more bullets accurately fired, the more victims wounded, maimed or killed. So a revolver with 6 chambers has the possibility of doing the aforementioned to 6 people, the bolt action hunting rifle more killing power and bullet loads, the semi-automatics carrying up to 14 shots or more, the shotgun doing serious damage with either 2 shots or a pump action of many, etc. etc. Hell of a more deadly potential than a hammer, wouldn't you say?

Reggie, you've gone off the deep end in your gunner rhetoric. You're wasting my thread space with this drivel. The chronology of our exchanges will always be your undoing to the objective reader. You're done. Adios.

You still haven't been able to point out a single gun control law that has been demonstrated to have made things better. By better, I mean a lasting reduction in total homicide, not a reduction in some category of gun misuse. As for the "guns don't kill people, people do", that just points out that you are obsessed with the wrong end of the problem. Taking away guns doesn't change the behavior. And it's the behavior that's the real problem. If you want to kill a bunch of people, arson is more reliable than guns, as the recent Kyoto Animation arson attack demonstrates. 36 dead with no guns involved. A can of gasoline and a match has more deadly potential than just about any firearm. And, again, according to your own source, you are almost 3 times as likely to die from bicycling than from a mass shooting.
And the objective reader will quickly notice that you don't actually have any arguments.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Iron-Merc]

The only deep state is the one that Trump is building that he controls.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

These people (left wing nuts) are just pretending. They know Trump is wise to the deep state so their only option is to pretend it "doesn't" exist.

[Iron-Merc]

You still haven't been able to point out a single gun control law that has been demonstrated to have made things better. By better, I mean a lasting reduction in total homicide, not a reduction in some category of gun misuse. As for the "guns don't kill people, people do", that just points out that you are obsessed with the wrong end of the problem. Taking away guns doesn't change the behavior. And it's the behavior that's the real problem. If you want to kill a bunch of people, arson is more reliable than guns, as the recent Kyoto Animation arson attack demonstrates. 36 dead with no guns involved. A can of gasoline and a match has more deadly potential than just about any firearm. And, again, according to your own source, you are almost 3 times as likely to die from bicycling than from a mass shooting.
And the objective reader will quickly notice that you don't actually have any arguments.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Remember the shooting at the Texas church two weeks ago? Yeah, the shooter would have killed far more had it not been for the quick reaction to someone armed with a weapon of his own, who boldly stood up and shot the vile assassin dead in his tracks.

Not to mention "gun free" zones around the United States have some of the highest instances of violent crime, usually involving a gun as a weapon.

I don't think you are smart enough to put two and two together.

[Nordberg]

That someone was a guard, not a person who walked by with a gun. It was his job.

[rjhenn]

That someone was a guard, not a person who walked by with a gun. It was his job.

Not quite. He was a volunteer security guard.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Taichiliberal]

the opening of this thread was about the absurd defense that Kelly Ann Conway offered for Trump's conduct regarding Ukraine and the House Impeachment hearings.....nothing to do with gun control.