joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: Cuckingcurious
The whole article is bs... Texas got an f but meets all of the requirements. Universal background check, permit for concealed carry, no guns in schools or bars or courts etc. It's leftist propaganda...
No guns in schools, eh? Maybe your not aware that the Texas Legislation now allows CCWs on campus at the University of Texas. That same bill allows for CCW permit holders to open carry arms. So if they want to go into a bar or school*; they can! An Texas does not have universal background checks; since people are not checked at gun shows by private sellers (universal means....EVERYONE that buys a firearm is checked).
You might want to update your information....
*: for schools, its only allowed if the institution has give prior written statement allowing that individual within the grounds with a firearm. In all other cases, the person can be arrested.
First and you should know this, the people earlier on didn't say Texas didn't have uninversal background checks they said Texas didn't have background checks, and that is a lie.
Notice I was using the person's material? That's why we quote stuff BamaD. It informs everyone on who/what we are replying to. He was the one that made a wrong claim about Texas and background checks. Background checks in Texas are of very limited quality. When law enforcement trance firearms from crime scenes, why does a state like Texas show up in the top ten? If they had good background checks on all sales (including private sales) how many of those arms would be falling into the wrong hands?
A national system rather than fifty wonky systems would better standardized the process. When a purchase is made in Texas, its kept with all the other purchases by that individual. You find some individual has purchased 27 firearms and is neither a dealer nor collector; wouldn't that raise some curiosity? Particularly if they were all purchased in nine different states over the course of three weeks? Can the Texas system do that right now?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
CDC has done studies. Some show results that you refuse to accept others have been proven to be politically driven, most promenant the study of "child" deaths involving handguns that included 25 year olds who died in shootouts with the police. This study was so bad that it (and not the evil NRA) is the reason Congress refuses to fund CDC studies of firearms.
Where is the study from the CDC?
You do understand the nature of science is simply not to accept something because one scientific research group found 'X' is to 'Y'? That future groups take that same test, and retest it to see if their results are the same/similar to the original group? After that, other groups make experiments and test their results against the original and proceeding groups? Science tends to be pretty relentless in that regard.
If a scientific study came out claiming 4/9 firearm owners are likely to commit a violent crime within the next ten years; I would want that retested a few times. For gun nuts they would call it all sorts of names; gun controllers would push it into their propaganda immediately. Yeah sure, I would probably read through the report. I would be expecting some extraordinary evidence to back up such a claim! Would you be able to understand that study without your political views hampering things?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Talk about fantasies, at a time when gun crime is plumiting you talk about the gun culture destroying the nation.
Maybe you should come back to reality.
Why is it in the last three years, this nation has experienced more mass shootings than days on the calendar?
In a time, as you stated, the crime rate is slipping downward are we observing more mass shootings? Why? Don't you want to know why that strange circumstance is taking place? Or would you like to stay ignorant so it can flourish and start defeating some of those reasons why the crime rate was going down?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Don't care what semi-live fire shows since our arguments on the value of self defense are based on full live fire situations which show that ccw holders are very effective.
The reason why we conduct semi-live fire with paint rounds is so those that participate can go home at the end of the experiment. Rather than in coffins. Yes, sure, nothing beats 'the real thing'. Know how we can accomplish that with all the people ('good guys' and 'bad guys') going home without injury at the end of the day? If you have that knowledge, let's hook up and sell it to the US Military. We'll be multi-millionaires within a month!
You don't care, because your afraid of having beliefs tested by science. Yeah, science has a long history of destroying superstitions and beliefs with facts and evidence.
If CCW's are so effective in combating crime, why do we not see scores of them in these mass shootings? Some lady was the NRA's chapter president in Tenn a few years ago. Her husband managed to kill her and kill himself even when her gun was found on her person. Yes, the husband had emotional problems that were known by law enforcement before hand. The problem most adults have with firearms is the belief that they are 19 years old and with awesome reflexes. Reality is their reflexes are shit, they are not well practiced in squad tactics, and their enemy is surprising them (meaning their bodies have already dealt with the 'fight or flight' response). That is what semi-live fire experiments would produce. Whether what you state is true, what I state is true, or something in between. I'm perfectly 'OK' with the test; how about you?
Funny how you and others ignore that last question. Are really REALLY afraid of your beliefs being found not to be true or useful? If you REALLY have done stuff like this under live fire conditions, you shouldn't be afraid of the results. The results would much more likely show something positive to the beliefs you have.
The CDC could be handing your 'side' a platter full of food, yet your totally afraid to take a bite. Why? Can you give me a rational answer here?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Don't give me crap about them not killing hugh numbers of people since you can stop a crime, and they regularly do, without killing anyone.
Yes it is called "A well regulated militia...." that stops these mass shootings from claiming more lives. During the community college shooting in Oregon, there was one CCW'er. He did not engage because he was afraid (rightly so) of the police (the well regulated militia) from thinking he's the active shooter (or another active shooter) and engaging him. For your fantasy to be true, that guy should have engaged the actual active shooter and taken him down, COD-style (with plenty of bunny hopping and teabagging action....). What did he do instead? Fled the area like everyone else!
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Remember even Bloomberg admitts to 500,000 defensive firearm uses a year.
And whom did he stated used those 500,000 defensive firearm uses a year? "A well regulated militia...." AKA Law Enforcement. He took a piece from a study from the 90's that stated 'X' number of moments a firearm, used in a defensive action protected one or more persons from death/injury. That study was referring to LAW ENFORCEMENT. Why? Because at the time verifying the non-law enforcement actions was really tough if not impossible. Go figure, private citizens with guns do not wish to be interviewed by a government investigator/researcher about a time and place they might have killed someone with a gun (i.e. afraid of admiring to wrong doing even though they felt it was self defense). That is the principle reason why the number of private citizens with 'defensive gun' usages are so low compared to Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement has to report every time a bullet is fired.
Like you, I leave a door open to the possibility that more Americans have used firearms in a defensive moment. However,
unlike you, I need evidence to back the hypothesis up.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Sources that don't lie about guns to make them look bad set the number as high as 2,000,000.
HAHAHAHAHA.....
Yeah, sources that dont lie eh? Where does that 2 million number come from BamaD? Comes from a study that looked at 19 other studies about firearm usage in America (spanning from 1982 to 1994). The study came out in 1995-1996. Of the 19 studies, only one of them showed a 2 million figure. The rest were well below the 1.2 million mark. Gun nuts have zero'd in on that 2 million mark and dumped all the other evidence because it didn't support their political agenda. Then you state here that sources do not lie?
Yeah, I have to call you out on that bullshit! You dont believe me....go study it for yourself. It's been debunked in a hundred different places online.
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
The FBI estimate of something in the range of 1,000,000 has been confirmed by your beloved CDC, one of their results you ignore.
And where is this set of studies from the CDC that the FBI quote?
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
As I pointed out many pages ago you are dead in the water so you are putting your hope in tests that can be fixed, and never can simulate the real thing, and studies that can be warped like counting a 25 year old as a "child".
Face it the well is dry give it up.
If that is how you feel, then you really have no problem in the CDC conducting studies and experiments. Since what they should find will end up proving your view points correctly, right?
Yet, if that was true, why post at all? Why not sit back and let things proceed forth?
Because you are no so sure on your beliefs. Nor are you confident the CDC will find stuff to your liking. So you must go on the attack whenever and where ever possible. Hence, my opening comments on the CDC and firearms. Conservatives are afraid of the CDC and will try any which way to shut down the CDC if it dares to investigate the firearms culture of America. In fact, I would even venture to say your afraid your beliefs will be struck down as horse shit in most regards. Yes, some minor things might go your way, but the overall consensus from the CDC will be that firearms are more and more in the hands of dangerous and unstable people. That organizations like the NRA and the Tea Party are actively trying cover up details that allow laws and processes to place Americans in more danger due to loose or absent firearm laws. That the same people whom are against the CDC using science, are ALSO, the same people against the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Climate Change (not to mention science in general).
|
RE: CDC and Firearms - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread