There is an actual guide for gun control advocates to follow when debating.

[TSA]

This manual actually encourages gun control advocates to emotionally exploit major shooting incidents to advance the cause of gun control…
Boutons must know this manual inside and out, all of his arguments are pretty much word for word out of this manual. :lol
The manual urges people to ignore the facts and base every argument on emotion.

Don't know how to link the pdf file but it is at the bottom of the linked article in this paragraph.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/michael-snyder/is-there-any-doubt-that-guns-make-us-safer/


Democratic strategists have drafted a how-to manual on manipulating the public’s emotions toward gun control in the aftermath of a major shooting.

“A high-profile gun-violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,” asserts the guide. “We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.”

The 80-page document titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” also urges gun-control advocates use images of frightening-looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

“The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” the guide insists. “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.”

You can read the rest of that manual right here.

[TSA]

Strange. Link wouldn't copy on my Mac but seems to work on my PC.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

[TSA]

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

:lmao

[Th'Pusher]

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

:lmao
Ironic tbh. Considering you're a hyper-emo gun lover.

[TSA]

This shit is unbelievable


A guide to dance on the graves of those killed in mass shootings :lmao

#1: DON’T HESITATE TO SPEAK OUT.
There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet “wait and see” attitude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary

#2: EXPRESS CONCERN FOR VICTIMS (WITHOUT A “BUT”).
#3: DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM.
It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.
“No family should ever have to go through what the families of these victims are going through right now. Our hearts go out to them.”
However, all too often, such expressions of sympathy are followed by a “but” statement. (But, the real issue here is . . . But, what we have to focus on is . . .But, what I want to draw your attention to is . . . etc.)
That has two negative consequences. The “but” makes the expression of concern seem less heartfelt and more like something we had to get out of the way before getting to what we really wanted to say. “But” can be read as a way for the speaker to say “I didn’t really mean what I just said.”
And, the “but” breaks the link between the violence people are shocked by and the next thing we’re about to say. Our goal is to establish that link, not break it.
So, we need to use language where our message flows from the expression of concern into our broader argument. It can’t be an abrupt pivot. In these situations, expressions such as “look,” “actually,” and “that’s why” work a lot better than “but.”

#3: DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM.
It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.
“No family should ever have to go through what the families of these victims are going through right now. Our hearts go out to them.”
However, all too often, such expressions of sympathy are followed by a “but” statement. (But, the real issue here is . . . But, what we have to focus on is . . .But, what I want to draw your attention to is . . . etc.)
That has two negative consequences. The “but” makes the expression of concern seem less heartfelt and more like something we had to get out of the way before getting to what we really wanted to say. “But” can be read as a way for the speaker to say “I didn’t really mean what I just said.”
And, the “but” breaks the link between the violence people are shocked by and the next thing we’re about to say. Our goal is to establish that link, not break it.
So, we need to use language where our message flows from the expression of concern into our broader argument. It can’t be an abrupt pivot. In these situations, expressions such as “look,” “actually,” and “that’s why” work a lot better than “but.”
“Losing a child, a mother or a husband is every family’s worst nightmare. That’s why we have to tell our political leaders we won’t wait for the next tragedy before they act to prevent the gun violence that’s tearing people’s lives apart.”
Experience tells us that the specific facts of a high-profile gun incident are revealed over time. If we jump to conclusions about those details, we could find ourselves at odds with reality as events unfold.
So, the smartest thing to do is avoid linking our message and arguments to any one set of partially-revealed facts. We shouldn’t assume the facts.
But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details.
The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”)
Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case

#4: ASK HARD QUESTIONS.
One way to link our arguments to an event without being trapped by shifting circumstances is to ask questions – ones that point to approaches and policies that we favor, but that resonate with special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting.
Where did the gun come from? Did the shooter have to undergo a background check before he got the gun? Did the shooter have a permit for the gun? Did the shooter own more than one gun? Did he have high capacity ammunition magazines with him? How many rounds did he have on him? Did the shooter have to observe any kind of waiting period before he got his hands on the guns? Or did he get them right away no questions asked?

[TSA]

Ironic tbh. Considering you're a hyper-emo gun lover.

Admitted gun lover here.

After reading through this thing it appears you've also read it too based on all of your emotionally driven responses to gun control.

[TSA]

:lolIn some states, “Shoot First” laws give untrained civilians more leeway in the use of force than an on-duty police officer or a soldier on the front lines in Afghanistan.:lol

[TSA]

You can't make this shit up! When the facts don't fit, STRAWMAN IT!!!

"IF THE FACTS DON’T FIT YOUR STATE, CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE LINE OF ARGUMENT.
Because the strength of state laws varies dramatically across the country, the “leave these decisions in local hands” argument may not resonate in some states especially those that have terrible state-level laws and leadership unfriendly to gun violence prevention measures.
In those cases, it may make more sense to rely on the argument that more guns in more places will make us less safe."

[TSA]

Counter argument to Fast and Furious :lmao

"I’ll tell you what’s really fast and furious here. The way the NRA and its allies play fast and loose with the facts – and how furious the American people should be that the NRA’s constant attacks on the ATF help gun-runners get away with murder.”

:lmao

[TSA]

"Fast and Furious was a complicated program, but stopping gun-running is a complicated business"

unbelievable

[Th'Pusher]

Admitted gun lover here.

After reading through this thing it appears you've also read it too based on all of your emotionally driven responses to gun control.
If you can point to one emotionally driven response to gun control from me, I'll send you $100.

You're completely driven by emotion. Logic and reason do not factor into the equation one iota.

[Th'Pusher]

Remember when you stormed onto the scene after sandy hook?

Remember when you quit posting under TSA and resurrected some 7 year old account you were sitting on. It took me about 5 minutes to sniff your emo ass out. Fucking moron.

[TSA]

Remember when you stormed onto the scene after sandy hook? Sure do.


Remember when you quit posting under TSA and resurrected some 7 year old account you were sitting on. It took me about 5 minutes to sniff your emo ass out. Fucking moron.And what the fuck does this have to do with anything?

[TSA]

Funny how you've yet to make a single comment on the actual manual.

[TSA]

If you can point to one emotionally driven response to gun control from me, I'll send you $100.



Found one




If you can point to one emotionally driven response to gun control from me, I'll send you $100.




PM'ing you my paypal info in a minute.

[Th'Pusher]

Found one.
You know you're gonna have to share it before I pay

[Big Empty]

Im 100% republican on the gun debate

[Th'Pusher]

Sure do.

And what the fuck does this have to do with anything?
Just more evidence of what an emotional fucking wreck you are...

[Th'Pusher]

Funny how you've yet to make a single comment on the actual manual.

any manual that tells you how to debate is for mentally weak people. Maybe there exists a pro-gun debate manual you could put to use.

[TSA]

You know you're gonna have to share it before I pay

I did. It's in my post where I said I found one.

[TSA]

Just more evidence of what an emotional fucking wreck you are...

Using another account makes one an emotional wreck? Please explain this stupid thought in more detail.

[ChumpDumper]

You don't think there is a similar guide for pro gun debaters?

[TSA]

any manual that tells you how to debate is for mentally weak people. Agreed, and yet you use the same arguments outlined in said manual.

[TSA]

You don't think there is a similar guide for pro gun debaters?
Haven't seen one, have you? If so care to share?

[ChumpDumper]

Haven't seen one, have you? If so care to share?You didn't answer the question.

[Th'Pusher]

I did. It's in my post where I said I found one.
May need to edit your post tbh

[Th'Pusher]

Agreed, and yet you use the same arguments outlined in said manual.
Not really. I don't think I've really argued for or against gun control.

[TSA]

You didn't answer the question.

Neither did you. Fuck off chump, not in the mood for your boring schtick.

[TSA]

Not really. I don't think I've really argued for or against gun control.



The only thing that is up for discussion now is how severely we as a nation are going to infringe upon your individual right to bare arms for the collective good of society.

[ChumpDumper]

Neither did you. Fuck off chump, not in the mood for your boring schtick.I was waiting for your answer before I continued.

Don't get mad. Just answer the question, baby.

[ChumpDumper]

TSA batting .000 today.

[Th'Pusher]

"The only thing that is up for discussion now is how severely we as a nation are going to infringe upon your individual right to bare arms for the collective good of society."

Not really emotional. Kinda accurate.

[Th'Pusher]

Neither did you. Fuck off chump, not in the mood for your boring schtick.
pure emo.

[Clipper Nation]

:lol Gun control faggots deflecting from that pathetic guidebook

[ChumpDumper]

"The only thing that is up for discussion now is how severely we as a nation are going to infringe upon your individual right to bare arms for the collective good of society."

Not really emotional. Kinda accurate.Yeah, that was just descriptive. Not emo or advocating one side or the other.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Gun control faggots deflecting from that pathetic guidebookIt's pretty funny, but this is what advocacy organizations do on both sides.

[TSA]

It's pretty funny, but this is what advocacy organizations do on both sides.Prove it. (find me the pro-gun 80 page manual, or anything similar in scope to what I posted)

[TSA]

:lol Gun control faggots deflecting from that pathetic guidebook

:lol

It's been one of the more entertaining things I've read in months.

[TSA]

Not really. I don't think I've really argued for or against gun control.Now you're just trolling.

[ChumpDumper]

Prove it. (find me the pro-gun 80 page manual, or anything similar in scope to what I posted)I'll look. No guarantee there is one online.

So you don't think pro gun groups compile debate guides?

Yes or no.

[TSA]

I'll look. No guarantee there is one online.

So you don't think pro gun groups compile debate guides?

Yes or no.
Nothing as ridiculous and detailed as this, no.

[ChumpDumper]

Nothing as ridiculous and detailed as this, no.Why would they not be detailed? These companies are paid to be thorough.

[admiralsnackbar]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/GunFacts_BFA.pdf

Both sides have talking points? What a revelation.

[scroteface]

Sup TSA, did those fascist gun refulations ever go into effect in California?

[TSA]

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/publicfiles/GunFacts_BFA.pdf

Both sides have talking points? What a revelation.

The anti's talking points are rooted in fear and emotion, the pro's in stats and facts. What a revelation.

[TSA]

Sup TSA, did those fascist gun refulations ever go into effect in California?

Nothing much has changed. Still buying and selling firearms, haven't been shooting much, ammo still hard to come by out here. Just built another AR though, pretty bad ass.

[scroteface]

They didn't end up limiting magazine sizes?

[boutons_deux]

more guns = more gun violence, more gun crimes, more gun suicides, more spousal murders, more arguments won by a gun.

dickless, sicko gun fellators, GFY

[Rogue]

They didn't end up limiting magazine sizes?
Sup scrote, what do you think of the latest updates of my novel and what type of an ending do you want? mournful or delightful? I'm gonna get shit done tomorrow and it's important to give it a good ending imho, which's also gonna be a beginning of, or a prelude to its sequal.

I've already come up with a title for the sequal- "return to Dallas".

[TSA]

They didn't end up limiting magazine sizes?

Those have been limited for a while. And as the Virginia Tech shooter showed, limiting mag capacity does very little.

[TSA]

more guns = more gun violence, more gun crimes, more gun suicides, more spousal murders, more arguments won by a gun.

dickless, sicko gun fellators, GFYyour thoughts on the manual?

[boutons_deux]

your thoughts on the manual?

more guns = more gun violence, more gun crimes, more gun suicides, more spousal murders, more arguments won by a gun.

dickless, sicko gun fellators, GFY

[boutons_deux]

and there are more accidental gun deaths than there are home invaders killed by home defenders.

you gun fellators are nothing but sales shills for the guns and ammo industry.

[TSA]

more guns = more gun violence, more gun crimes, more gun suicides, more spousal murders, more arguments won by a gun.

dickless, sicko gun fellators, GFY




your thoughts on the manual?

[boutons_deux]

I don't need no steekin propaganda manual

[boutons_deux]

Gun-Safety Instructor Shoots Studenthttp://www.gunnews.com/gun-safety-instructor-shoots-student/

fucking gun fellators, what a bunch of industry-shilling, simple-minded, fucking ass-clowns. And lot of these bubbas, think, like bankster Lloyd Blankfein, that they're doing God's work! :lol

[Clipper Nation]

I don't need no steekin propaganda manual
But your "arguments" are taken right from it :lol

[TSA]

I don't need no steekin propaganda manual

You ARE the fear mongering manual.

[boutons_deux]

But your "arguments" are taken right from it :lol

my arguments are the FACTS of America polluted with 300M guns, in spite of NRA/gun industry bribing Congress to forbid govt research into to violence and gun crimes.

[TSA]

my arguments are the FACTS of America polluted with 300M guns, in spite of NRA/gun industry bribing Congress to forbid govt research into to violence and gun crimes.

:lmao taken right from page 25 of the fear mongering manual :lmao

[DMC]

This shit is unbelievable


A guide to dance on the graves of those killed in mass shootings :lmao

#1: DON’T HESITATE TO SPEAK OUT.
There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet “wait and see” attitude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary

#2: EXPRESS CONCERN FOR VICTIMS (WITHOUT A “BUT”).
#3: DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM.
It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.
“No family should ever have to go through what the families of these victims are going through right now. Our hearts go out to them.”
However, all too often, such expressions of sympathy are followed by a “but” statement. (But, the real issue here is . . . But, what we have to focus on is . . .But, what I want to draw your attention to is . . . etc.)
That has two negative consequences. The “but” makes the expression of concern seem less heartfelt and more like something we had to get out of the way before getting to what we really wanted to say. “But” can be read as a way for the speaker to say “I didn’t really mean what I just said.”
And, the “but” breaks the link between the violence people are shocked by and the next thing we’re about to say. Our goal is to establish that link, not break it.
So, we need to use language where our message flows from the expression of concern into our broader argument. It can’t be an abrupt pivot. In these situations, expressions such as “look,” “actually,” and “that’s why” work a lot better than “but.”

#3: DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM.
It’s appropriate to open with an expression of concern for the victims and their families.
“No family should ever have to go through what the families of these victims are going through right now. Our hearts go out to them.”
However, all too often, such expressions of sympathy are followed by a “but” statement. (But, the real issue here is . . . But, what we have to focus on is . . .But, what I want to draw your attention to is . . . etc.)
That has two negative consequences. The “but” makes the expression of concern seem less heartfelt and more like something we had to get out of the way before getting to what we really wanted to say. “But” can be read as a way for the speaker to say “I didn’t really mean what I just said.”
And, the “but” breaks the link between the violence people are shocked by and the next thing we’re about to say. Our goal is to establish that link, not break it.
So, we need to use language where our message flows from the expression of concern into our broader argument. It can’t be an abrupt pivot. In these situations, expressions such as “look,” “actually,” and “that’s why” work a lot better than “but.”
“Losing a child, a mother or a husband is every family’s worst nightmare. That’s why we have to tell our political leaders we won’t wait for the next tragedy before they act to prevent the gun violence that’s tearing people’s lives apart.”
Experience tells us that the specific facts of a high-profile gun incident are revealed over time. If we jump to conclusions about those details, we could find ourselves at odds with reality as events unfold.
So, the smartest thing to do is avoid linking our message and arguments to any one set of partially-revealed facts. We shouldn’t assume the facts.
But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details.
The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”)
Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case

#4: ASK HARD QUESTIONS.
One way to link our arguments to an event without being trapped by shifting circumstances is to ask questions – ones that point to approaches and policies that we favor, but that resonate with special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting.
Where did the gun come from? Did the shooter have to undergo a background check before he got the gun? Did the shooter have a permit for the gun? Did the shooter own more than one gun? Did he have high capacity ammunition magazines with him? How many rounds did he have on him? Did the shooter have to observe any kind of waiting period before he got his hands on the guns? Or did he get them right away no questions asked?

#s 2 and 3 have the exact same wording. 3's actual wording is either missing or corrupted.

[boutons_deux]

[QUOTE=TSA;6804533]:lmao taken right from page 25 of the fear mongering manual :lmao[/QUOTE

here's another one: the NRA/gun industry forbids: ATF cannot keep anything but paper records of guns, no computerized records.

[DMC]

more guns = more gun violence, more gun crimes, more gun suicides, more spousal murders, more arguments won by a gun.

dickless, sicko gun fellators, GFY




I challenge you to back up the claim you made above. Fortunately it's falsifiable and quite easily so: I bought two guns, ergo I now have 2 more than I had before. I did not kill anyone nor did I commit suicide. What number of guns would I need to own in order for me to be forced into killing someone or committing suicide?

The truth is that more people = more murder and more suicides. Since we all have the right to take our own lives, suicides should not factor into any gun control discussions. Bridges and a rafter play as large a role in the suicide as a gun could, but the largest role is played by the mental health of the individual committing the act.

So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to back up your claim by showing how an increase in guns = an increase in murders and suicides.

[DMC]

here's another one: the NRA/gun industry forbids: ATF cannot keep anything but paper records of guns, no computerized records.

Not true. There exists a law against having a government database for registering guns. That's not the same as saying "records of guns". You can find all kinds of gun records on the ATF database, just nothing that registers a particular gun with the purchaser. That's all done on paper for a reason that you wouldn't get since the only freedom you seem to value is the one to run your mouth.

[Th'Pusher]

Why the fuck is the cold dead hands crew back? Was there another incident of a bunch of first graders getting mowed down by semi auto weapons?

[ChumpDumper]

Gun-Safety Instructor Shoots Studenthttp://www.gunnews.com/gun-safety-instructor-shoots-student/
Didn't read the manual.

[scroteface]

Not true. There exists a law against having a government database for registering guns. That's not the same as saying "records of guns". You can find all kinds of gun records on the ATF database, just nothing that registers a particular gun with the purchaser. That's all done on paper for a reason that you wouldn't get since the only freedom you seem to value is the one to run your mouth.

majority of America shares out views brother. The rest of us don't want to see your home life applied large scale to the entire US getting plowed in the butt by fascist dictators tbh. It's about self preservation that's it.

[boutons_deux]

That's all done on paper for a reason that you wouldn't get

try me, bubba.

[scroteface]

Didn't read the manual.

tbh how do you feel about every prominent gun grabber (Bloomberg, Feinstein, etc) all being Jewish?

[ChumpDumper]

tbh how do you feel about every prominent gun grabber (Bloomberg, Feinstein, etc) all being Jewish?False premise.

[scroteface]

False premise.

early 1900s in Russia weren't false tho IMHO. 20 million Christians slaughtered..that's the real holocaust. Y'all just want a repeat I'm on to you...

[ChumpDumper]

early 1900s in Russia weren't false tho IMHO. 20 million Christians slaughtered..that's the real holocaust. Y'all just want a repeat I'm on to you...You're kind of dumb tbh.

[DMC]

Why the fuck is the cold dead hands crew back? Was there another incident of a bunch of first graders getting mowed down by semi auto weapons?

Well no, you're still here.

[scroteface]

You're kind of dumb tbh.

Awesome Jewish rebuttal brah. Was that one kosher aided?

[Th'Pusher]

Well no, you're still here.

Seriously? You should have left your ST chips cashed in. ^ this shit is garbage.

[ChumpDumper]

Awesome Jewish rebuttal brah. Was that one kosher aided?Just an observation. Nothing Jewish about it.

You're kind of obsessed with this.

[TeyshaBlue]

Why the fuck is the cold dead hands crew back?

:lol

[TSA]

So your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to back up your claim by showing how an increase in guns = an increase in murders and suicides.

He can't and he won't. The manual he follows specifically states that when facts get in the way it is best to just change the subject to something with more emotional appeal. :cry "If it saves just one child" :cry


"Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent."

[101A]

Reading this thread earlier today reminded me I meant to get my carry permit. Downloaded the application this morning, filled it out, drove to the sheriff's office, gave them 20 bucks - got my license.

Easy Peezy

[TSA]

Why the fuck is the cold dead hands crew back? Was there another incident of a bunch of first graders getting mowed down by semi auto weapons?

Yes or no?


more guns = more gun violence, more gun crimes, more gun suicides, more spousal murders, more arguments won by a gun.

[Th'Pusher]

"Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent."

The rate of gun ownership has also decreased significantly over that same period. The reality is you have a bunch of hyper-emo government is gonna take my guns nuts like yourself that are driving up gun sales, just like the NRA and guns and ammo industry want.

[TSA]

The rate of gun ownership has also decreased significantly over that same period. The reality is you have a bunch of hyper-emo government is gonna take my guns nuts like yourself that are driving up gun sales, just like the NRA and guns and ammo industry want.

I agree the rate of gun ownership has gone down, but by what % is really unknown. I've seen surveys showing a 10% decrease and surveys showing a 2% decrease. It is much more difficult today to get a truthful answer when conducting these surveys as I know I would tell anyone who asked me over the phone that I do not own firearms. Are you saying the decrease in the rate of gun ownership has caused homicides with firearms to drop 39% in this time frame?

Since boutons is too chickenshit to back his bogus claim I thought you'd give it a shot.


more guns = more gun violence, more gun crimes, more gun suicides, more spousal murders, more arguments won by a gun.

Yes or no?

[Th'Pusher]

Are you saying the decrease in the rate of gun ownership has caused homicides with firearms to drop 39% in this time frame?

I'm sure it has had an effect. As has the fact that medical technology has improved allowing doctors to save lives that previously would have been lost. There are a lot of factors that go into the equation.

One thing that is certain is that there are a rising number of hyper-emo govt comin' for my guns nuts like yourself that are buying more and more guns. :lol

[TSA]

I'm sure it has had an effect. As has the fact that medical technology has improved allowing doctors to save lives that previously would have been lost. There are a lot of factors that go into the equation. Advancements in medical technology do not explain the 69% drop in "other crimes with guns".


One thing that is certain is that there are a rising number of hyper-emo govt comin' for my guns nuts like yourself that are buying more and more guns. :lolSure there are, but they aren't the only people buying guns so I'm not sure what is so lol to you.


It appears you are too chickenshit to answer the question too...........


more guns = more gun violence, more gun crimes, more gun suicides, more spousal murders, more arguments won by a gun.

Yes or no?

[Th'Pusher]

It appears you are too chickenshit to answer the question too...........

Yes or no?

It's not my claim to back up tbh. I've already explained there are a number of factors in the gun safety debate that need to be accounted.

I honestly don't know that we have the data to make any sort of causal relationship, which is apparently what the NRA wants as they have been lobbying for decades to prevent the collection of key data.

[DMC]

Reading this thread earlier today reminded me I meant to get my carry permit. Downloaded the application this morning, filled it out, drove to the sheriff's office, gave them 20 bucks - got my license.

Easy Peezy
Renewal?

[DMC]

It's not my claim to back up tbh. I've already explained there are a number of factors in the gun safety debate that need to be accounted.

I honestly don't know that we have the data to make any sort of causal relationship, which is apparently what the NRA wants as they have been lobbying for decades to prevent the collection of key data.

Yet Boutons made a causal relationship.

Now you want to imply that, if you had the "key data" it would support your position?

lol

[DMC]

Seriously? You should have left your ST chips cashed in. ^ this shit is garbage.

You can't seem to address any real points without a caveat of missing "key data" which magically gaps the invisible divide in your rebuttal so romper room it is for you.

[Th'Pusher]

Yet Boutons made a causal relationship.

Now you want to imply that, if you had the "key data" it would support your position?

lol

Nope. Just saying we don't have a clear picture without key data.

[Th'Pusher]

You can't seem to address any real points without a caveat of missing "key data" which magically gaps the invisible divide in your rebuttal so romper room it is for you.
I've got no dog in this hunt. My sole purpose in this debate is to mock the likes of TSA for being an emotional Obama/California gonna steal my guns propaganda pussy.

[DMC]

Nope. Just saying we don't have a clear picture without key data.

Do you work for CNN? Here you support an assertion by saying "we don't know"?

Example of why that's a dishonest approach:

DMC: "Th'Pusher is a rapist and a faggot"

Boutons: "Where's your evidence?"

DMC: "We don't have enough key data to get a clear picture"

Boutons: "So you don't really know"

DMC: "I just don't have the key data, that's all I'm saying"

[DMC]

I've got no dog in this hunt. My sole purpose in this debate is to mock the likes of TSA for being an emotional Obama/California gonna steal my guns propaganda pussy.

You are the dog in then hunt. You're the one barking. You cannot attack from a neutral position. Not sure you realize that, maybe you don't have the key data.

[TSA]

It's not my claim to back up tbh. I've already explained there are a number of factors in the gun safety debate that need to be accounted.

I honestly don't know that we have the data to make any sort of causal relationship, which is apparently what the NRA wants as they have been lobbying for decades to prevent the collection of key data.

The amount of guns owned is not really hidden "key data". The amount and decline of murders/gun crime is also not some hidden "key data". The "key data" you speak of is really irrelevant in this discussion, we do not need to know who owns (hidden key data) the guns to come to a conclusion on whether or not more guns have led to more gun crime now do we?

[Th'Pusher]

You are the dog in then hunt. You're the one barking. You cannot attack from a neutral position. Not sure you realize that, maybe you don't have the key data.
Lol. I'm attacking TSA for being an emotional gun nut you moron.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are the dog in then hunt. You're the one barking. You cannot attack from a neutral position. Not sure you realize that, maybe you don't have the key data.

You come up with a poor analogy. He does not have to be an advocate of either policy direction to make fun of those that are advocates. This should be obvious. My making fun of Michael Jackson does not make me a Prince fan either.

[Th'Pusher]

Do you work for CNN? Here you support an assertion by saying "we don't know"?

Example of why that's a dishonest approach:

DMC: "Th'Pusher is a rapist and a faggot"

Boutons: "Where's your evidence?"

DMC: "We don't have enough key data to get a clear picture"

Boutons: "So you don't really know"

DMC: "I just don't have the key data, that's all I'm saying"
Not what I'm doing. I simply think the CDC should be allowed to study the impact of guns on society so that we can make better informed policy decisions.

[Th'Pusher]

The amount of guns owned is not really hidden "key data". The amount and decline of murders/gun crime is also not some hidden "key data". The "key data" you speak of is really irrelevant in this discussion, we do not need to know who owns (hidden key data) the guns to come to a conclusion on whether or not more guns have led to more gun crime now do we?

you can look at the number like a chimp and easily see more guns are sold and gun crimes have gone down. As I've pointed out, there are other factors to take into account.

You're an emotional chimp just banging away at your keyboard.

[TSA]

you can look at the number like a chimp and easily see more guns are sold and gun crimes have gone down. As I've pointed out, there are other factors to take into account.

You're an emotional chimp just banging away at your keyboard.

What are these factors you keep saying you've pointed out?

[TSA]

Lol. I'm attacking TSA for being an emotional gun nut you moron.

It's funny how you like to toss the word emotional out as if discussing matters on the internet equates to such.

[TSA]

Lol. I'm attacking TSA for being an emotional gun nut you moron. Attacking? :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

What are these factors you keep saying you've pointed out?
Fuck you're stupid. Guns sales have gone up, while the number of gun owners have gone down...medical technology is keeping more gunshot victims alive that previously would have died. These are factors that need to be accounted for when looking at the effects of guns on society.

[Th'Pusher]

It's funny how you like to toss the word emotional out as if discussing matters on the internet equates to such.

:lol Storming in here after sandy hook screaming Obama is gonna take my guns is highly emotional.

Demanding other posters have a moral obligation to go against protocol and help a kid while he's being beaten is emotional.

You're decision making process is highly emotional. It's fine. Just own it.

[TSA]

Fuck you're stupid. Guns sales have gone up, while the number of gun owners have gone down...medical technology is keeping more gunshot victims alive that previously would have died. These are factors that need to be accounted for when looking at the effects of guns on society.

No, fuck you're stupid. Medical technology has not made gun crime go down.

[Th'Pusher]

No, fuck you're stupid. Medical technology has not made gun crime go down.
I didn't say that It did, but it has reduced the number of homicides.

[TSA]

:lol Storming in here after sandy hook screaming Obama is gonna take my guns is highly emotional. Sure, never said it wasn't.


Demanding other posters have a moral obligation to go against protocol and help a kid while he's being beaten is emotional.I never demanded anything and that is pretty ridiculous thing to even say considering we are posting on a message board. I simply called those who wouldn't step in, such as yourself, cowards. I'll own that.

[Th'Pusher]

Sure, never said it wasn't.
Glad we agree, emo.


I never demanded anything and that is pretty ridiculous thing to even say considering we are posting on a message board. I simply called those who wouldn't step in, such as yourself, cowards. I'll own that.
Incorrect. You specifically said Blake (I believe) had a moral obligation...I'm not taking the time to find the post.

You're an emotional man and you rely heavily on emotion in your decision making process. I don't know why that bothers you so much.

[TSA]

I didn't say that It did, but it has reduced the number of homicides.

Here was my original statement.


"Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39 percent during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69 percent."

We agree that medical technology has lead to less deaths by guns.
We agree that gun sales have gone up.
We agree that gun crime has gone down.

So are you saying that more guns have not lead to more gun crime?

[TSA]

Incorrect. You specifically said Blake (I believe) had a moral obligation...I'm not taking the time to find the post.



Incorrect. I said Blake and I obviously had a different set of morals.

[Th'Pusher]

Here was my original statement.



We agree that medical technology has lead to less deaths by guns.
We agree that gun sales have gone up.
We agree that gun crime has gone down.

So are you saying that more guns have not lead to more gun crime?

we also agree the rate of gun ownership has gone down. I've already said that if you want to look at the numbers like a chimp and say more guns does not lead to more gun crime, you can. That was never my claim.

Because of the lack of research on the effects of guns, all we have is raw data on homicides and suicides as well as biased data from the NRA or the Brady campaign. I simply want unbiased scientific research into the effects of guns and gun violence so that we can make more informed policy decisions. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Why do you insist on me answering your chimp question? Never mind, I know the answer. You're and emotional wreck.

[TSA]

You're an emotional man and you rely heavily on emotion in your decision making process. I don't know why that bothers you so much.

You think you've got me pegged based on some random posts on a message board? :lmao

You ever read Descartes' Error?

[Th'Pusher]

Incorrect. I said Blake and I obviously had a different set of morals.
Sorry. You said the bus driver had a moral obligation, not Blake. Still emo.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220910&p=6796847&viewfull=1#post6796847

[Th'Pusher]

You think you've got me pegged based on some random posts on a message board? :lmao

You ever read Descartes' Error?
I have you pegged. Thats how I sniffed out your highly emotional posting style when you tried to go incognito under KingsFanWithNoName after you emotionally claimed you would no longer post under TSA, just like your hero DMC.

[TSA]

Because of the lack of research on the effects of guns, all we have is raw data on homicides and suicides as well as biased data from the NRA or the Brady campaign. I simply want unbiased scientific research into the effects of guns and gun violence so that we can make more informed policy decisions. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Why do you insist on me answering your chimp question?

The CDC is researching the effects of guns again and I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion as their last study.

[TSA]

I have you pegged. Thats how I sniffed out your highly emotional posting style when you tried to go incognito under KingsFanWithNoName after you emotionally claimed you would no longer post under TSA, just like your hero DMC.Tried to go incognito........:lol, now that is funny. It was obvious to anyone with a brain I was mocking DMC's farewell, you have to be retarded to not see that, which apparently you are.

You do realize all decisions are based on emotion, every single one of them.

[TSA]

Incorrect. You specifically said Blake (I believe) had a moral obligation...I'm not taking the time to find the post.




Sorry. You said the bus driver had a moral obligation, not Blake. Still emo.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220910&p=6796847&viewfull=1#post6796847


:lmao

[Th'Pusher]

Tried to go incognito........:lol, now that is funny. It was obvious to anyone with a brain I was mocking DMC's farewell, you have to be retarded to not see that, which apparently you are.

i was we'll aware you were "mocking" DMC with your farewell post. That really has nothing to do with your attempt to go incognito with an account you'd been sitting on for 7 years.


You do realize all decisions are based on emotion, every single one of them.

Some, like you, rely more heavily on emotion and eschew logic and reason.

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao

He had a moral obligation to intervene...

:downspin:

[TSA]

i was we'll aware you were "mocking" DMC with your farewell post. That really has nothing to do with your attempt to go incognito with an account you'd been sitting on for 7 years.
fuck you're dense, I wasn't trying to be incognito. Plenty of people here already know me by that name. If I wanted to be incognito I would as I always do. I've had plenty of conversations with you under a different handle in a different section of the forum and you've had no clue it was me :lmao Check your pm's dude :lmao I wasn't attempting anything other than holding up my end of the deal I mocked.


.

[TSA]

He had a moral obligation to intervene...

:downspin:

I'm laughing at you stating you're not going to take the time to find the post and then you take the time to find the post. :monkey

[Th'Pusher]

I've had plenty of conversations with you under a different handle in a different section of the forum and you've had no clue it was me :lmao
This is an obviously lie as I haven't had any interaction outside of the political forum.


Check your pm's dude :lmao I wasn't attempting anything other than holding up my end of the deal I mocked. [/QUOTE]

I don't have any PMs dude and your weak attempt to find an emotional post from me in favor of gun control was horrid. As CD mentioned, the post was not emo or advocating one position over the other.

[TSA]

I'm not going to take the time to find it. And I mean it when I say it.

I'm out for the day. Thanks for playing this month's episode of more guns=less gun crime! Boutons is still a coward. See ya next month.

[Th'Pusher]

I'm not going to take the time to find it. And I mean it when I say it.

I'm out for the day. Thanks for playing this month's episode of more guns=less gun crime! Boutons is still a coward. See ya next month.
:tu I look forward to another emotional outburst from you. They're always amusing.

[DMC]

You come up with a poor analogy. He does not have to be an advocate of either policy direction to make fun of those that are advocates. This should be obvious. My making fun of Michael Jackson does not make me a Prince fan either.

In order to scoff at a position you are either disingenuous or you hold an opposing viewpoint. Your MJ/Prince analogy is a bad one because there are other forms of music.

If I were a MJ fan and you scoffed at it, I could safely assume you're not a fan of MJ, and not only that, but you are somewhat opposed to MJ. That means you don't hold a neutral position.

Although it's convenient to back into a shadow after supporting or attacking a viewpoint, you cannot honestly claim neutrality by doing so.

[DMC]

Not what I'm doing. I simply think the CDC should be allowed to study the impact of guns on society so that we can make better informed policy decisions.

The Center for Disease Control should study gun related fatalities?

[DMC]

Lol. I'm attacking TSA for being an emotional gun nut you moron.

You mean like "cold dead hands crew"? Wasn't aware one person could be a crew.

You're too much of a mental midget to be of any threat, you're barely entertaining and you're too intellectually cowardly to remain in the ring long enough to make a good showing. Fuck off.

[Th'Pusher]

You mean like "cold dead hands crew"? Wasn't aware one person could be a crew.

You're too much of a mental midget to be of any threat, you're barely entertaining and you're too intellectually cowardly to remain in the ring long enough to make a good showing. Fuck off.
I gotta say this is particularly amusing coming from someone who thought referring to me as a first grader was going to be good. Ive seen you're bullshit. You're an intellectually dishonest rabble rouser who finds his confidence behind the anonymity of the Internet.

[DMC]

I gotta say this is particularly amusing coming from someone who thought referring to me as a first grader was going to be good. Ive seen you're bullshit. You're an intellectually dishonest rabble rouser who finds his confidence behind the anonymity of the Internet.

Stop trying to elevate to my level and be happy with your barely mediocre offerings.

[Th'Pusher]

Stop trying to elevate to my level and be happy with your barely mediocre offerings.
Edit. Nice job. You look cool and smart and barely old. . :tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In order to scoff at a position you are either disingenuous or you hold an opposing viewpoint. Your MJ/Prince analogy is a bad one because there are other forms of music.

If I were a MJ fan and you scoffed at it, I could safely assume you're not a fan of MJ, and not only that, but you are somewhat opposed to MJ. That means you don't hold a neutral position.

Although it's convenient to back into a shadow after supporting or attacking a viewpoint, you cannot honestly claim neutrality by doing so.

I realize that you require easy categories so as to try and understand something but not everything fits into to your simpleminded dualism. You don't get to decide everyone's paradigm and you making them does not make it so.

[ElNono]

There's two distinct issues at play here: gun ownership rights on one hand and TSA's paranoia on the other (which, granted, isn't circumscribed just to him).

Personally, I have no problem with gun ownership rights. I think any citizen should have the right to gun ownership as mandated by the constitution (I might prefer certain extras such as mandatory background checks on every sale, but overall, no problem).

On the other hand, I find the paranoia side scoff-worthy at times, and in general, unwarranted.

While the talk of gun ownership rights feeds into the paranoia, they're not necessarily the same thing. There's certainly plenty of citizens concerned about gun rights, but not all of them feel passionate enough about it to go concocting theories of how government is out to get your guns.

[TSA]

There's two distinct issues at play here: gun ownership rights on one hand and TSA's paranoia on the other (which, granted, isn't circumscribed just to him).

Personally, I have no problem with gun ownership rights. I think any citizen should have the right to gun ownership as mandated by the constitution (I might prefer certain extras such as mandatory background checks on every sale, but overall, no problem).

On the other hand, I find the paranoia side scoff-worthy at times, and in general, unwarranted.

While the talk of gun ownership rights feeds into the paranoia, they're not necessarily the same thing. There's certainly plenty of citizens concerned about gun rights, but not all of them feel passionate enough about it to go concocting theories of how government is out to get your guns.

From.
My.
Cold.
Dead.
Hands.

:lol




In all seriousness though, I'm not worried about confiscation at the moment, but 50 years from now, who knows.

I live in CA and have to deal with some of the Nations's strictest gun laws. I don't get to shoot every day in my backyard like CosmicCowboy. I don't get 30 round magazines. I don't get suppressors. I don't get shall issue concealed carry permits.
I get 10 round clip, bullet buttons, and indoor pistol only gun ranges. It sucks and I come here to vent/troll the gun debate, it's entertaining for me.

[DMC]

I realize that you require easy categories so as to try and understand something but not everything fits into to your simpleminded dualism. You don't get to decide everyone's paradigm and you making them does not make it so.

You didn't argue against my points.

[TSA]

I'll look. No guarantee there is one online.

So you don't think pro gun groups compile debate guides?

Yes or no.

Any luck?

[scroteface]

lol living in a pussified state. no fucking way would i ever live in california with all those weirdos.

[TSA]

lol living in a pussified state. no fucking way would i ever live in california with all those weirdos.
I can get to the the beach, desert, and mountains in an hour. San Diego ain't bad.

[scroteface]

you can have the beach, i'll take 30 round clips, less queers, and jobs tbh

[TSA]

you can have the beach, i'll take 30 round clips, less queers, and jobs tbh

You don't have a firearm that accepts a 30rd clip though.

[scroteface]

You don't have a firearm that accepts a 30rd clip though.


lol wut? i just bought this baby

http://www.spartanimports.com/IMAGES/AEG/kaag541.jpg

even added the same backup troy iron sights tbh

[TSA]

Anyone can post a stock picture from the Internet.

Again, you don't have anything that accepts a 30rd magazine.

[scroteface]

oh i dont teenk you can find this one online

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/930/fcpd.jpg

[TSA]

oh i dont teenk you can find this one online

http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/930/fcpd.jpg
http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/IMG_0147_zps1b5fdc07.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/thefuzzylumpkins/media/IMG_0147_zps1b5fdc07.jpg.html)

[scroteface]

niiiice scrah, i didn't post the rest of my collection though, just the mentioned m&p. i want the m&p 10 next tbh...that's a real gun :hat

[TSA]

niiiice scrah, i didn't post the rest of my collection though, just the mentioned m&p. i want the m&p 10 next tbh...that's a real gun :hat

I've got some more as well, this is what's in the bedroom.

Here's what I have on its way.

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/bigbore/1895SBL.asp

All sorts of fun.

This is what a gun control thread should turn into....pictures of guns and the dickless not returning.

[ElNono]

^ stop eating peanut butter while typing on the keyboard, tbh :lol

[scroteface]

I've got some more as well, this is what's in the bedroom.

Here's what I have on its way.

http://www.marlinfirearms.com/Firearms/bigbore/1895SBL.asp

All sorts of fun.

This is what a gun control thread should turn into....pictures of guns and the dickless not returning.

that's a badass gun, looks like a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. if i was made of money i'd collect some of those old classics, maybe some day. where do you get ammunition though? will california allow you to buy ammo online

[boutons_deux]

Epidemic: Guns kill twice as many kids as cancer does


In 2010, 15,576 children and teenagers were injured by firearms — three times more than the number of U.S. soldiers injured in the war in Afghanistan, according to the defense fund.

Nationally, guns still kill twice as many children and young people than cancer, five times as many than heart disease and 15 times more than infection, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

"We see guns as much of a threat in their life as we used to see bacteria and viruses," said Dr. Judith S. Palfrey, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the co-author of the New England journal report. "If you look at what's actually killing children and disabling children, guns is one of the major things."

Accidental firearms injuries have been on the decline nationwide. In 2001, 5,091 children ages 19 and under were injured by a firearm. Those numbers steadily decreased through 2009, when 3,587 children under 19 were reported injured by a firearm, according to the defense fund.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/

All dead young people because NRA and gun industry, and you gun fellators in support, have flooded, FOR PROFIT, the country with 300M+ guns.

[scroteface]

:sleepboutons kills more people than both combined of boredom :lol

[boutons_deux]

:sleepboutons kills more people than both combined of boredom :lol

Like TB :lol and other assholes, scrotum face has nothing to say when bitch slapped.

[scroteface]

Like TB :lol and other assholes, scrotum face has nothing to say when bitch slapped.

there's nothing really to say to your garbage. you're a traitor and whenever patriots take back the republic, you'll be hanged.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You didn't argue against my points.

I argued against the basis of your points. You are arguing whether or not the two ships are red or green and I am arguing that there are more than two ships and that nobody needs be on a ship in the first place.

[DMC]

I argued against the basis of your points.

No you didn't. Saying you did doesn't make it so.

You are arguing whether or not the two ships are red or green and I am arguing that there are more than two ships and that nobody needs be on a ship in the first place.Another poor analogy made without so much as an attempt to address the points I made. Just interject and take it whichever way you feel fuzzy about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've got no dog in this hunt. My sole purpose in this debate is to mock the likes of TSA for being an emotional Obama/California gonna steal my guns propaganda pussy.


You are the dog in then hunt. You're the one barking. You cannot attack from a neutral position. Not sure you realize that, maybe you don't have the key data.


You come up with a poor analogy. He does not have to be an advocate of either policy direction to make fun of those that are advocates. This should be obvious. My making fun of Michael Jackson does not make me a Prince fan either.

Parroting me does not change the fact that he does not need to have a particular viewpoint (red boat) to make fun of someone who has a particular viewpoint (blue boat).

All you are trying to do is characterize his motive as if you have any basis for doing so ie saying it does not make it so.

[DMC]

Parroting me does not change the fact that he does not need to have a particular viewpoint (red boat) to make fun of someone who has a particular viewpoint (blue boat).

All you are trying to do is characterize his motive as if you have any basis for doing so ie saying it does not make it so.

You cherry picked a starting point in your quotes as if that's where the conversation started.

I never addressed his motive. I said he's not neutral, regardless of his motive. Neutral parties don't attack. He thinks is silly for TSA to be zealous about gun ownership and paranoid about the government's drive to remove that right. That's a position, that's a dog in the hunt.

[Th'Pusher]

You cherry picked a starting point in your quotes as if that's where the conversation started.

I never addressed his motive. I said he's not neutral, regardless of his motive. Neutral parties don't attack. He thinks is silly for TSA to be zealous about gun ownership and paranoid about the government's drive to remove that right. That's a position, that's a dog in the hunt.

So this point that you wanted addressed so badly was acknowledgement that I did in fact have a dog in the gun control debate in that I ridicule people who feel passionately about the gun control debate :tu. that was worth it...

As I clearly stated, I actually do have a dog in the hunt. I take issue with the gun lobby suppressing research on the effects of guns and gun violence which prevents us from making better informed policy decisions.

[johnsmith]

Parroting me does not change the fact that he does not need to have a particular viewpoint (red boat) to make fun of someone who has a particular viewpoint (blue boat).

All you are trying to do is characterize his motive as if you have any basis for doing so ie saying it does not make it so.

I haven't read this thread, but rather just the past few posts....while I agree that you don't have to pick a side to make fun...I also think that people that do that are generally pussies....pick a side for God sake.

[DMC]

So this point that you wanted addressed so badly was acknowledgement that I did in fact have a dog in the gun control debate in that I ridicule people who feel passionately about the gun control debate :tu. that was worth it...

Not necessarily the gun control debate, but then that's not what you're arguing about. Whatever you're arguing about, you have a dog in the hunt. It's dishonest to claim neutrality while attacking someone for their position. It's cowardly as well.


As I clearly stated, I actually do have a dog in the hunt. I take issue with the gun lobby suppressing research on the effects of guns and gun violence which prevents us from making better informed policy decisions.
So then you have a dog in the hunt. Grow a pair and stop hiding in the shadows of neutrality when you're obviously not neutral.

[johnsmith]

Also, my opinion is almost completely based on sports. I fucking hate when someone that doesn't care about either team in a game and will just try to get under the skin of anyone in the room.


Usually this is done by women who claim to be "real sports fans".

[DMC]

Then you have the "I don't have a dog in the hunt" followed by "I actually do have a dog in the hunt".

Kerry supporters.

[Th'Pusher]

Not necessarily the gun control debate, but then that's not what you're arguing about. Whatever you're arguing about, you have a dog in the hunt. It's dishonest to claim neutrality while attacking someone for their position. It's cowardly as well.

So then you have a dog in the hunt. Grow a pair and stop hiding in the shadows of neutrality when you're obviously not neutral.

I had commented extensively on the suppression of research. Wy were you suggesting I was attacking from a point of neutrality?



Originally Posted by DMC
That's all done on paper for a reason that you wouldn't get


try me, bubba.


Seems you owe boutons an answer...

[DMC]

I had commented extensively on the suppression of research. Wy were you suggesting I was attacking from a point of neutrality?
Seems you owe boutons an answer...


I've got no dog in this hunt. My sole purpose in this debate is to mock the likes of TSA for being an emotional Obama/California gonna steal my guns propaganda pussy.

I explained it already.

Seems you're confused.

[Th'Pusher]

I explained it already.

Seems you're confused.

Now you're just talking in circles. Either answer boutons questions or be on your way oh elevated one :lol

[TSA]

You've had the whole weekend online, still haven't found anything similar?



I'll look. No guarantee there is one online.

So you don't think pro gun groups compile debate guides?

[DMC]

Now you're just talking in circles. Either answer boutons questions or be on your way oh elevated one :lol

I did. National database/right/ad nauseum.

You should worry about deciding if you've got a dog in the hunt.

[DMC]

Ever heard of FOPA?

Probably not.

[DMC]

Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

[DMC]

You've had the whole weekend online, still haven't found anything similar?

He's right though. We lean heavily on the Bill of Rights.

[Th'Pusher]

Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

thank you for providing an example of the type of laws that the gun industry successfully lobbied for and had enacted to suppress the type of data necessary to perform the research necessary to make better informed policy decisions.

Now explain why said law is necessary. I'll see you at the bottom of the slippery slope where you claim a national registry will lead to confiscation.

[TSA]

I'll see you at the bottom of the slippery slope where you claim a national registry will lead to confiscation.

Are you claiming it won't? Do you trust your government? Do you think your government will not abuse it's powers?

[scroteface]

lmfao "registry doesn't lead to confiscation"

seriously, what are you a naive 2 year old?

[ChumpDumper]

You've had the whole weekend online, still haven't found anything similar?You think I've been looking for this?

[TSA]

You think I've been looking for this?

You said you would and I took your word for it.

[TSA]

lmfao "registry doesn't lead to confiscation"

seriously, what are you a naive 2 year old?
Th'Pusher is obviously okay with his Government spying on it's citizens as well.

[ChumpDumper]

You said you would and I took your word for it.I looked after I said I would. Found the same one that was posted. The mere volume of talking point sites made up for the lack of a 180 page pdf.

[TSA]

I looked after I said I would. Found the same one that was posted. The mere volume of talking point sites made up for the lack of a 180 page pdf.

The same one that was posted contained data and facts, and was nothing like the fear mo getting manual I posted. I see why you didn't mention it yourself.

You can just admit you couldn't find a similar manual and be done with it.

[ChumpDumper]

The same one that was posted contained data and facts, and was nothing like the fear mo getting manual I posted. I see why you didn't mention it yourself.

You can just admit you couldn't find a similar manual and be done with it.I already said I didn't think I could find one online. It's simply stupid to think such documents simply don't and could never exist with all the gun lobbyists out there.

[scroteface]

I said I didn't think I could find one online. It's simply stupid to think such documents simply don't exist with all the gun lobbyists out there.

well go ahead prove they exist. we can already prove the reverse..

[ChumpDumper]

well go ahead prove they exist. we can already prove the reverse..Don't you have a Jew to blame for your life right now?

[scroteface]

Don't you have a Jew to blame for your life right now?

i think it's more like, don't you have a German to blame for the plight of your ancestors right now? remember teh septillion :cry

[ChumpDumper]

i think it's more like, don't you have a German to blame for the plight of your ancestors right now? remember teh septillion :cryUh, no. What are you talking about?

[scroteface]

Uh, no. What are you talking about?

You're Jewish.

[ChumpDumper]

You're Jewish.Oh, that's what you think.

lol

Life's gotta be terribly frustrating for you.

[scroteface]

nope

[ChumpDumper]

Well, it isn't difficult for you to find someone to blame for your problems, for sure.

[scroteface]

no problems other than shitfaces like you and your terrible political opinions

[ChumpDumper]

Nice. Why don't you threaten me again, tough guy?

[TSA]

I already said I didn't think I could find one online. It's simply stupid to think such documents simply don't and could never exist with all the gun lobbyists out there.

It's simply stupid to believe these documents wouldn't be available online, considering there are more gun lobbyists.

[ChumpDumper]

It's simply stupid to believe these documents wouldn't be available online, considering there are more gun lobbyists.Not really. I'm sure there is more than one for the gun control side.

[TSA]

Not really. I'm sure there is more than one for the gun control side.

Again, find one that compares.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, find one that compares.Again, can you not read?

[TSA]

Again, can you not read?

Can you not find one?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

Can you not find one?

Yes or no.Asked and answered, but if you want to argue that the one you linked is the only one in existence, that's OK.

[TSA]

Asked and answered, but if you want to argue that the one you linked is the only one in existence, that's OK.

Nah I'm good. Not going down your other route.

[Th'Pusher]

Originally Posted by TSA


Are you claiming it won't? Do you trust your government? Do you think your government will not abuse it's powers?




lmfao "registry doesn't lead to confiscation"

seriously, what are you a naive 2 year old?

DMC doesn't want to jump in the confiscation clown car with these two tea potty patriots?

[DMC]

Not true. There exists a law against having a government database for registering guns. That's not the same as saying "records of guns". You can find all kinds of gun records on the ATF database, just nothing that registers a particular gun with the purchaser. That's all done on paper for a reason that you wouldn't get since the only freedom you seem to value is the one to run your mouth.


thank you for providing an example of the type of laws that the gun industry successfully lobbied for and had enacted to suppress the type of data necessary to perform the research necessary to make better informed policy decisions.

Now explain why said law is necessary. I'll see you at the bottom of the slippery slope where you claim a national registry will lead to confiscation.

I never said it was necessary. I said "for a reason".

A reason is for a basis or a cause. In this case, the basis is the statute I showed you.

Necessary means essential, indispensable. Were I to presuppose an outcome, I'd then be able to call an action or law necessary.

If you have a problem with the USC, take it up with your congressman.

Can you see the difference? Now would you like to even attempt some integrity with your responses or are you going to continue looking like a tool?

[DMC]

DMC doesn't want to jump in the confiscation clown car with these two tea potty patriots?

I have no reason to go beyond the present. Presently laws exist that prohibit a national gun registry. That's really all that matters.

[boutons_deux]

"Presently laws exist that prohibit a national gun registry"

and it's a totally bullshit law, NRA promoted for totally bullshit reasons, suckering gun fellators into believing their bullshit to be true!

[TSA]

DMC doesn't want to jump in the confiscation clown car with these two tea potty patriots?

Do you think your government would not abuse the powers of a National gun registry, yes or no.

[Th'Pusher]

I never said it was necessary. I said "for a reason".

A reason is for a basis or a cause. In this case, the basis is the statute I showed you.

Necessary means essential, indispensable. Were I to presuppose an outcome, I'd then be able to call an action or law necessary.

If you have a problem with the USC, take it up with your congressman.

Can you see the difference? Now would you like to even attempt some integrity with your responses or are you going to continue looking like a tool?

To Boutons You said, "that's all done on paper for a reason you wouldn't get..." What specifically is the reason that boutons would not get since he is only concerned about the freedom to run his mouth? Are you suggesting Boutons is incabable of understanding that a law simply exists?

Ive seen your schtick. You'll say anything to engage in an Internet debate that amounts to nothing.

You'd prefer to dissect my language as opposed to offering your view on the matter.

I wouldn't have climbed into that clown-car with those two douchebags either.

[TSA]

Do you think your government would not abuse the powers of a National gun registry, yes or no.

Too difficult to answer?

[Th'Pusher]

Do you think your government would not abuse the powers of a National gun registry, yes or no.

Safegards can be enacted to prevent govt abuse of the data. The potential benefits far outweigh the potential abuses IMO.

I, in no way think it would lead to govt confiscation...not without an outright appeal of the second amendment which is obviously not going to happen.

[TSA]

Safegards can be enacted to prevent govt abuse of the data. The potential benefits far outweigh the potential abuses IMO.

I, in no way think it would lead to govt confiscation...not without an outright appeal of the second amendment which is obviously not going to happen.Guess that is where we disagree. I feel it would be abused, regardless of what safeguards were put in place.

[Th'Pusher]

Guess that is where we disagree. I feel it would be abused, regardless of what safeguards were put in place.
THats because you make decisions based on emotion, not logic and reason.

[TSA]

THats because you make decisions based on emotion, not logic and reason.Logic and reason say the Government will abuse it's power, as it always does.

[boutons_deux]

logic and reason say strict registration of titles to guns in a computerized national database does not automatically, or even probably, lead to forced confiscation of guns. That's nothing but gun industry fomented paranoia among the gullible gun fellatin rabble.

[Th'Pusher]

Logic and reason say the Government will abuse it's power, as it always does.
Government always abuses its power? A little hyperbolic there, no? This is the type of emotional response to which I am referring. You just can't help yourself.

You place limits on government. Is there still potential for abuse? Absolutely. That's when you perform a cost benefit analysis and see if the potential benefits outweigh the costs.

The fact that your mind shuts down when you hear the word government is telling.

[Th'Pusher]

logic and reason say strict registration of titles to guns in a computerized national database does not automatically, or even probably, lead to forced confiscation of guns. That's nothing but gun industry fomented paranoia among the gullible gun fellatin rabble.

Perfect description of TSA, scroteface, etc

[TSA]

Government always abuses its power? A little hyperbolic there, no? This is the type of emotional response to which I am referring. You just can't help yourself.

You place limits on government. Is there still potential for abuse? Absolutely. That's when you perform a cost benefit analysis and see if the potential benefits outweigh the costs.

The fact that your mind shuts down when you hear the word government is telling.

There is nothing emotional about saying the Government abuses it's power.

[Th'Pusher]

There is nothing emotional about saying the Government abuses it's power.
It's inacurate and shows decision making based on emotion to say the government always abuses its power.

[scroteface]

It's inacurate and shows decision making based on emotion to say the government always abuses its power.
Throughout history all governments have always assumed as much power as the people allowed them to have, it's human nature to give an inch take a mile etc. this is true for every group not just government, it's why we had checks and balances which are unfortunately crumbling away due to corruption.

[TSA]

The Government abuses it's power every single day in some way or another. Always has, always will.

And :lol at you thinking that putting "emotional" in every reply is some sort of insult.

[Th'Pusher]

Throughout history all governments have always assumed as much power as the people allowed them to have, it's human nature to give an inch take a mile etc.

which is why I suggested limits/safeguards. It's all about a laws implementation.

[Th'Pusher]

The Government abuses it's power every single day in some way or another. Always has, always will.

And :lol at you thinking that putting "emotional" in every reply is some sort of insult.

It's not an insult. It's simply how TSA and scroteface have been programmed to think and make decisions. You can work on that and try and be more analytical in your approach, but it doesn't sound as if you're terribly interested in that. Emotion based decision making seems to suit you just fine. To each his own.

[TSA]

which is why I suggested limits/safeguards. It's all about a laws implementation.If you truly believe the limits and safeguards would be followed, props to you. I wish I had as much faith in the Government as you.

[DMC]

To Boutons You said, "that's all done on paper for a reason you wouldn't get..." What specifically is the reason that boutons would not get since he is only concerned about the freedom to run his mouth? Are you suggesting Boutons is incabable of understanding that a law simply exists?

It seems he's not the only one. You don't even know if you have a dog in the hunt, or the difference between "reason" and "necessary".


Ive seen your schtick. You'll say anything to engage in an Internet debate that amounts to nothing.

It only amounts to nothing with people like you who don't know whether to shit or go blind.


You'd prefer to dissect my language as opposed to offering your view on the matter.

Your language? My words are right there for you to see and quote. You choose to change the wording then challenge me to explain your version as if I said it. I chose my words more carefully than you. It has nothing to do with your language, more to do with your laziness.



I wouldn't have climbed into that clown-car with those two douchebags either.
You're still out looking for your dog, last I heard.

[DMC]

It's inacurate and shows decision making based on emotion to say the government always abuses its power.

What fuels the push for more gun control if not emotion over random acts of violence? (I don't expect a sensible answer from you)

[Th'Pusher]

It seems he's not the only one. You don't even know if you have a dog in the hunt, or the difference between "reason" and "necessary".

It only amounts to nothing with people like you who don't know whether to shit or go blind.

Your language? My words are right there for you to see and quote. You choose to change the wording then challenge me to explain your version as if I said it. I chose my words more carefully than you. It has nothing to do with your language, more to do with your laziness.

You're still out looking for your dog, last I heard.

Answer the question or stfu old man.

[Th'Pusher]

What fuels the push for more gun control if not emotion over random acts of violence? (I don't expect a sensible answer from you)
Emotion, which is why I am not pushing for more gun control, but for unbiased research into the effects of guns and gun violence so that we can make better informed policy decisions.

[boutons_deux]

"What fuels the push for more gun control if not emotion"

100os of kids killed or injured in gun accidents per year

1000s of gun suicides

10,000s of gun murders and injuries

facts, not emotions

[scroteface]

Suicides dude, suicides!! Lol this should be intuitive to anyone.

[scroteface]

Gun murders are a meaningless stat whenever guns also save lives, prevent rapes, and prevent assaults and maintain property rights which are crucial to an economy. You have to look at the net result and not be intellectually dishonest.

[Th'Pusher]

Gun murders are a meaningless stat whenever guns also save lives, prevent rapes, and prevent assaults and maintain property rights which are crucial to an economy. You have to look at the net result and not be intellectually dishonest.

Which is why we need the data, so that we can look at the information from a holistic point of view identifying all of the net benefits and negatives. Unfortunately, our friends in the NRA have actively lobbied to not only prevent research, but to prevent the collection of data.

[boutons_deux]

Gun murders are a meaningless stat whenever guns also save lives, prevent rapes, and prevent assaults and maintain property rights which are crucial to an economy. You have to look at the net result and not be intellectually dishonest.

any evidence? data?

[TSA]

Which is why we need the data, so that we can look at the information from a holistic point of view identifying all of the net benefits and negatives. Unfortunately, our friends in the NRA have actively lobbied to not only prevent research, but to prevent the collection of data.

What data do you think is being hidden by the NRA and how would it affect the results?

Here is the most recent one Obama directed the CDC to report on.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R10

The data isn't favorable for pro-gun control.

[TSA]

any evidence? data?


http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...18319&page=R10


"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

[scroteface]

there were famous studies back in the 50s and 60s by prominent sociologists last time you guys tried this and the results were so convincing it totally took the issue off the table for 50+ years

[DMC]

Emotion, which is why I am not pushing for more gun control, but for unbiased research into the effects of guns and gun violence so that we can make better informed policy decisions.

Why do you want better informed policy decisions regarding gun control?

[DMC]

Which is why we need the data, so that we can look at the information from a holistic point of view identifying all of the net benefits and negatives. Unfortunately, our friends in the NRA have actively lobbied to not only prevent research, but to prevent the collection of data.

No we don't. Do we look at all the data for net benefits of the 1st Amendment? No. The point of a right is that it's not "net benefit" dependent. The right exists in the BoR and it doesn't require new data to remain valid. If anything, those of you who want to do away with or reinterpret the BoR need to learn to cope, because it's not going away in your lifetimes.

[DMC]

Answer the question or stfu old man.

I did, just not to your satisfaction.

[Th'Pusher]

Why do you want better informed policy decisions regarding gun control?

All policy decisions should be based on quantitative data IMO. Are you suggesting there should be no federal policy around gun ownership?

[Th'Pusher]

No we don't. Do we look at all the data for net benefits of the 1st Amendment? No. The point of a right is that it's not "net benefit" dependent. The right exists in the BoR and it doesn't require new data to remain valid. If anything, those of you who want to do away with or reinterpret the BoR need to learn to cope, because it's not going away in your lifetimes.
Is it your opinion that all rights granted in the BoR are unlimited?

[Th'Pusher]

I did, just not to your satisfaction.
Not really. What did you mean by 'that's all done on paper for a reason you wouldn't get'? I find it hard to believe you were simply referring to the fact that it is current law. What's not to get about the fact that it is current law? Your response suggests that you were referring to some concept boutons would be incapable of understanding.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?reco...18319&page=R10


"Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008."

with the gun industry blocking all federal research into gun violence to protect their profits, your data sucks.

when somebody actually kills or shoots a home invader or other, it usually make national news, and Spurstalk. Anybody see 500K to 3M such events or near-events per year?

[TSA]

with the gun industry blocking all federal research into gun violence to protect their profits, your data sucks.

when somebody actually kills or shoots a home invader or other, it usually make national news, and Spurstalk. Anybody see 500K to 3M such events or near-events per year?
In you first scenario the NRA is hiding key data and in your second scenario the NRA has the public lying to all National surveys and falsifying data. Am I following correctly?

[TSA]

Here is the most recent one Obama directed the CDC to report on.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R10

.

Will someone who is pro gun control at least read this and tell me what key data was hidden by the NRA that make this large set of data and findings false. Anyone find it odd Obama demanded this study be done after Newtown and once it was completed made no mention of its findings because it didn't fit his narrative, much like a few here are currently doing.

[boutons_deux]

the gun industry has blocked the ATF from computerizing gun records, so local police needing to trace gun are stuck with a days or weeks lone paper chase. iow. gun industry is soft on gun crime.

the gun industry has blocked the feds from doing research on gun violence, so the gun industry KNOWS they don't want that data researched. why?

like the police state and the govt, your beloved fucking gun industry wants the damage done by their products kept secrect, as well as how they sell guns to all comers, etc, etc.

[TSA]

the gun industry has blocked the feds from doing research on gun violence, so the gun industry KNOWS they don't want that data researched. why?


What have they blocked and what has it affected, be specific.

[scroteface]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/





5/14/2013 @ 8:00AM |87,430 views

Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet

Comment Now (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/#comment_reply) Follow Comments





http://b-i.forbesimg.com/larrybell/files/2013/05/300x1971.jpg (http://www.daylife.com/image/01KMfSl5Tm0hY?utm_source=zemanta&utm_medium=p&utm_content=01KMfSl5Tm0hY&utm_campaign=z1)(Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)


A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by theU.S. Department of Justice (http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616). The other was reported by the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/).
According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.


And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes. Between 70 percent and 80 percent of those firearm homicides involved a handgun, and 90 percent of non-fatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun. Males, blacks, and persons aged 18-24 had the highest firearm homicide rates.
The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization. More than 8 in 10 gun homicide victims in 2010 were men and boys. Fifty-five percent of the homicide victims were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population.
Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is “strikingly down” (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide) from 20 years ago (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide). In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.”Yet their survey found (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/07/gun-crime-drops-but-americans-think-its-worse/2139421/) that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/206475651.html).
The Pew survey found that while women and elderly were actually less likely to become crime victims, they were more likely to believe gun crime had increased in recent years. On the other hand, men, who were more likely to become victims, were more likely know that the gun rate had dropped.
Those gun crime rates certainly aren’t diminishing for lack of supply…at least not for law-abiding legal buyers. Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-usa-guns-record-idUSBRE9010H020130102) for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before. FBI checks for all of 2012 totaled 19.6 million, an annual record, and an increase of 19 percent over 2011.
Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall. Marked demand increases have been witnessed over the past five years thanks to the 2008 and 2012 elections of U.S. history’s most successful, if unintentional, gun salesman as president. The firearms market got a huge added boost after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut activated a renewed legislative frenzy.
If that gun-purchasing fervor has abated with the defeat of several congressional regulation proposals, as I’m sure it has, you surely wouldn’t have known it by witnessing the overwhelmingly enormous annual NRA convention in Houston earlier this month. Attendance was estimated to be more than 70,000 people from all over the country.
Those attendees weren’t all guys either…not by a long shot. Last year, theNational Shooting Sports Foundation reported (http://nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=011812.cfm&path=2012) that participation by women increased both in target shooting (46.5%) and hunting (36.6%) over the past decade. Also, 61% of firearm retailers responding to a NSSF survey reported an increase in female customers. A 2009 NSSF survey indicated that the number of women purchasing guns for personal defense increased a whopping 83 percent (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/hunting-fishing/rise-in-firearms-use-by-women-a-national-trend-293829/).
Is John Lott, the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” right? Does the rapid growth of gun ownership and armed citizens have anything to do with a diminishing gun violence trend? His expansive research concludes that state “shall issue” laws which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons do produce a steady decrease in violent crime. He explains that this is logical because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed target, so as more citizens arm themselves, danger to the criminals increases.
Whether or not you buy that reasoning, and it does make sense to me, what about the notion that tougher gun laws have or would make any difference? With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city’s murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois.
Up to 80 percent of Chicago murders and non-fatal shootings are gang- related, primarily young black and Hispanic men killed by other black and Hispanic men. Would tightening gun laws even more, or “requiring” background checks, change these conditions?
Gwainevere Catchings Hess, president of the Black Women’s Agenda (BWA), Inc., an organization that strongly advocates strict gun-control legislation, rightly points out that (http://news.yahoo.com/black-womens-agenda-announces-initiative-supporting-gun-control-161500651.html) “In 2009, black males ages 15-19 were eight times as likely as white males the same age, and 2.5 times as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed in a gun homicide.”
Those are terrible statistics, but here are some others. Today, 72% of black children are born out of wedlock (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/011713-641097-gun-violence-caused-by-fatherless-homes.htm?p=full), as are 53% of Hispanic children and 36% of white children. Back in 1965, 25% of black children were born out of wedlock, nearly one-third fewer. As a result, promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlers and street gang leaders are becoming ever more influential role models. It’s probably no big stretch of imagination to correlate such grossly disproportionate crime and victimization rates with comparably staggering rates of single-parent families, those without fathers in particular.





Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn’t noticed (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050913-655525-rising-tide-of-gun-violence-is-media-driven-myth.htm?ref=SeeAlso), we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don’t want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don’t imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.

[TSA]

Empirical data scroteface, EMPIRICAL DATA!!!!!!

[DMC]

All policy decisions should be based on quantitative data IMO. Are you suggesting there should be no federal policy around gun ownership?

What "policy decisions" are you referring to? You're presupposing policy needs to exist in regards to the 2nd Amendment. What about policies for the 1st Amendment? How about due process? Don't a lot of criminals get off on technicalities because of due process? Shouldn't that be examined using quantitative data?

The BoR isn't a policy.

[DMC]

Not really. What did you mean by 'that's all done on paper for a reason you wouldn't get'? I find it hard to believe you were simply referring to the fact that it is current law. What's not to get about the fact that it is current law? Your response suggests that you were referring to some concept boutons would be incapable of understanding.

Your ability to believe is your problem.

[DMC]

Is it your opinion that all rights granted in the BoR are unlimited?

Strawman. You deal with it.

Consider though: shall not be infringed upon

Find the limitations in that.

[TSA]

Strawman. You deal with it.

Consider though: shall not be infringed upon

Find the limitations in that.

It's already limited will be his retort.

[DMC]

Doesn't matter what he says. He's lost as fuck.

[Th'Pusher]

What "policy decisions" are you referring to? You're presupposing policy needs to exist in regards to the 2nd Amendment. What about policies for the 1st Amendment? How about due process? Don't a lot of criminals get off on technicalities because of due process? Shouldn't that be examined using quantitative data?

The BoR isn't a policy.

there are laws/legal precedent that frame the BoR and subsequent amendments to the constitution.

[Th'Pusher]

Your ability to believe is your problem.

Might I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time...

[Th'Pusher]

Strawman. You deal with it.

Consider though: shall not be infringed upon

Find the limitations in that.
It was a question, not a strawman. Would you like me to provide examples of where the 2nd amendment has been limited through law?

[boutons_deux]

gun regulation does not "infringe upon" anybody's right to own a gun, as long as they comply with regulations.

[TSA]

What have they blocked and what has it affected, be specific.

[Th'Pusher]

Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926


No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

[TSA]

What do you think this has affected concerning the research you want to see done?