Jump to content
TrumpBGoneSoon

A Serious Discussion about Gun Violence.

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

You first.  Can we stop the mass shootings?  

 

At what cost, infant?

 

The 2nd Amendment...?

 

You have an infantile, irrational obsession with something inanimate... that scares you.

 

The Reality is - you should be afraid of rocks, instead.

 

 

Guns... not Murderers.

f97a6effb08270ccc92150ef9cba65fa--cartoo

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

A lot of places are gun free zones.   A person can be denied access to said soft target if they bring a gun, regardless of their intentions.  Most employers have a gun free policy.

 

Disingenuous myopic hypocrite.

 

- Democrat National Socialism -

Screen-Shot-2016-07-10-at-Sunday-July-10

 

 

2 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

 

liberal-Whiners-3.jpg

 

 

Ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60de27163ff7980e2180e9075e14c36b--george

 

 

13 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

:amen

 

Just by virtue of eliminating high capacity magazines, how many lives might that have saved in Vegas's mass murder?

 

 

"So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire
by people who don't even know that fire is hot."

- George Orwell -

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/14/2018 at 4:58 PM, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Lets clear the air here.  I won't address any personal attacks nor will I make any in this thread.

 

I don't oppose people buying handguns for self defense.  Experts recommend it.

I don't oppose people buying rifles for hunting and target practice.  Shoot as much as you want at the range.

 

However, Guns are cheap and plentiful and often falling into the hands of people who abuse them to the point of getting a lot of other people killed.  

 

There's a lot of talk about flagging folks with mental illness.  But its hard to pinpoint the actual shooters until they have done the act.  We talk about training teachers to use guns.  Teachers may not want to have that additional responsibility.   Any effort to restrain access to guns is often defeated by the NRA.   Classic NRA is very different from the Modern NRA.   It's about money.  

 

 However, I'm not opposed to armed security in our public schools.  

 

I don't want to win this problem, I want to solve it.  

Since there is already a glut of assault rifles already in circulation we really need to concentrate on the crazies. Anyone with a mental should not be around guns, this would include ADD, depression, bi polar, mental retardation, schizophrenia, paranoid schizophrenia, drug addition, alcoholism, and the personality disorders.  These people are easily identified. The second amendment calls for a well regulated militia. You can't have a well regulated militia with crazy people in it.

 

Anyone on a psychotropic medication is unfit to own a firearm. Most mass shootings involve psychiatric medications.

 

The NRA is in a shambles and they are losing members and clout. 

 

At this point we need armed security in our schools but we need cops out of out schools. Today's cops are thugs. The school administration should be enforcing discipline and not Blue ISIS. 

 

Weapons of war need to be gone. All assault rifles need to be confiscated and if the gun fondlers resist with deadly force, go full Waco on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RussianDisinformation said:

...Weapons of war need to be gone. All assault rifles need to be confiscated...

 

sandyhook.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RussianDisinformation said:

...Weapons of war need to be gone. All assault rifles need to be confiscated and if the gun fondlers resist with deadly force, go full Waco on them. 

 

Full... Waco...!?!

 

76_ABEEA8-685_A-4711-_AA11-_D361_C7_D992

 

Ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Can we stop mass shootings?

 

Yes.  By shooting back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person I greatly respect asked a legitimate question today. Why do I so adamantly defend the right to bear arms? It's a fair question. People sometimes do evil with guns. It's rare (far more rare than the media would have us believe), but it does happen. The answer is simple. I make my decisions based on logic and statistics. The math shows that we are far better off with an armed society than without.

 

From the perspective of personal defense, I have yet to see a study that shows as many murders as self defense with firearms. In fact, it's not even close. If you exclude gang related shootings, there are only about 2,200 murders with a firearm in the US each year. This is out of a population of well over 300 million. In contrast, estimates for self defense use of a firearm vary from 50,000 to over one million, depending on who's doing the study. There's no question that the 2,200 people lost is tragic. However, there are from 25 to as many as 500 self defense uses of a firearm for every one tragedy.

 

Then there's the 900 pound gorilla in the room. Somewhere between 100 million and 260 million people have been killed by their governments in the last century, depending on whose definition you use. This is the real purpose of our 2nd Amendment. If you read the Federalist Papers, the clear intention of our Founding Fathers was to have the states stronger than the federal government, and the people stronger still. They didn't hate government, just as I don't. They saw it as a necessary evil, as I do. They also saw the armed citizens as a source of recruits in the time of conflict. We are supposed to be a valuable resource.

 

This brings us to the question of what firearms are covered by the 2nd Amendment. In the time of need, citizens were expected to show up with a firearm equivalent or identical to the current military issued one. They were expected to be proficient with it, and have sufficient ammunition for it. Bringing a handgun was better still. Every army today uses semi-automatic rifles and/or machine guns. The M4 (automatic version of the AR15) and AK47 are the current standards, so these would fit the definition perfectly. The handgun is harder to define, but a 1911, Beretta, Glock, Sig, or any of the other military issued pistols would qualify.

 

So where does that leave us? We are at a point where these firearms and the magazines and ammunition for them are just barely legal. In some areas, they are already illegal. This is why I've personally drawn a line in the sand. We have "compromised" to the point where the original intent is nearly lost. In a true compromise, both parties give and get something. What do gun owners get when we compromise? Nothing. Criminals are unaffected, and law abiding gun owners lose more freedoms.

 

If you're still reading this and you're for more gun restrictions, please bear with me for a few more sentences. If you had 22,000 local and national laws about where and how you can vote, would you be upset? If you had to present a photo identification, pay a fee, wait two weeks, and forfeit your medical and psychological privacy to vote, would you be upset? If the state wanted to put you in a database that showed every time you voted, and everything you voted for and against, would you be upset? This is what gun buyers deal with when they buy a gun here and try to travel with it. This is why we cringe at your suggestion of "common sense gun laws". We're pretty infringed upon already.

 

Please think back to this when you see a call for more gun laws. Please consider the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Please understand how expensive and inconvenient it already is to buy a firearm, and understand that adding another law to the 22,000 already in place will not do any good. Those of us who choose to own firearms are not the enemy. Quite the opposite. We give up our time, money, and privacy so that we can be prepared for all the things we hope will never happen.

 

We are the good guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

I'm still here so that is false statement.  Now, Can we stop mass shootings or not?

 

Is because you were here does not mean you are reasonable. As a matter fact, on this topic you are anything but reasonable.

 

To answer your question, again, no. You are not going to eliminate a few random shootings that you are so uptight about without unleashing tyranny across the land

 

I’ve said this to you many times. Why are you making me repeat myself? That is not “reasonable”

 

 

7 hours ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

nope,

but we can do things to limit them.

 

 He is not looking for a serious answer. He’s trying to make a case for disarming the population 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

A lot of places are gun free zones.   A person can be denied access to said soft target if they bring a gun, regardless of their intentions.  Most employers have a gun free policy.

 

Do you believe in disarming the population, as in law abiding citizens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chairmanOFTB said:

 

Do you believe in disarming the population, as in law abiding citizens?

No, Because that would be a violation of the 2nd and the 4th Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

No, Because that would be a violation of the 2nd and the 4th Amendment.

 

What then, exactly, do you expect? ...besides what you want... which is decidedly Unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Spartan said:

A person I greatly respect asked a legitimate question today. Why do I so adamantly defend the right to bear arms? It's a fair question. People sometimes do evil with guns. It's rare (far more rare than the media would have us believe), but it does happen. The answer is simple. I make my decisions based on logic and statistics. The math shows that we are far better off with an armed society than without.

 

From the perspective of personal defense, I have yet to see a study that shows as many murders as self defense with firearms. In fact, it's not even close. If you exclude gang related shootings, there are only about 2,200 murders with a firearm in the US each year. This is out of a population of well over 300 million. In contrast, estimates for self defense use of a firearm vary from 50,000 to over one million, depending on who's doing the study. There's no question that the 2,200 people lost is tragic. However, there are from 25 to as many as 500 self defense uses of a firearm for every one tragedy.

 

Then there's the 900 pound gorilla in the room. Somewhere between 100 million and 260 million people have been killed by their governments in the last century, depending on whose definition you use. This is the real purpose of our 2nd Amendment. If you read the Federalist Papers, the clear intention of our Founding Fathers was to have the states stronger than the federal government, and the people stronger still. They didn't hate government, just as I don't. They saw it as a necessary evil, as I do. They also saw the armed citizens as a source of recruits in the time of conflict. We are supposed to be a valuable resource.

 

This brings us to the question of what firearms are covered by the 2nd Amendment. In the time of need, citizens were expected to show up with a firearm equivalent or identical to the current military issued one. They were expected to be proficient with it, and have sufficient ammunition for it. Bringing a handgun was better still. Every army today uses semi-automatic rifles and/or machine guns. The M4 (automatic version of the AR15) and AK47 are the current standards, so these would fit the definition perfectly. The handgun is harder to define, but a 1911, Beretta, Glock, Sig, or any of the other military issued pistols would qualify.

 

So where does that leave us? We are at a point where these firearms and the magazines and ammunition for them are just barely legal. In some areas, they are already illegal. This is why I've personally drawn a line in the sand. We have "compromised" to the point where the original intent is nearly lost. In a true compromise, both parties give and get something. What do gun owners get when we compromise? Nothing. Criminals are unaffected, and law abiding gun owners lose more freedoms.

 

If you're still reading this and you're for more gun restrictions, please bear with me for a few more sentences. If you had 22,000 local and national laws about where and how you can vote, would you be upset? If you had to present a photo identification, pay a fee, wait two weeks, and forfeit your medical and psychological privacy to vote, would you be upset? If the state wanted to put you in a database that showed every time you voted, and everything you voted for and against, would you be upset? This is what gun buyers deal with when they buy a gun here and try to travel with it. This is why we cringe at your suggestion of "common sense gun laws". We're pretty infringed upon already.

 

Please think back to this when you see a call for more gun laws. Please consider the real purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Please understand how expensive and inconvenient it already is to buy a firearm, and understand that adding another law to the 22,000 already in place will not do any good. Those of us who choose to own firearms are not the enemy. Quite the opposite. We give up our time, money, and privacy so that we can be prepared for all the things we hope will never happen.

 

We are the good guys.

Well spoken, but I would like to see that study you described.   From what I've read, Guns are more likely to kill innocent people instead of saving them.

Here's one of my links.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense

 

The latest data show that people use guns for self-defense only rarely. According to a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, people defended themselves with a gun in nearly 0.9 percent of crimes from 2007 to 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

I would like to see that study you described.   From what I've read, Guns are more likely to kill innocent people instead of saving them. 

Here's one of my links.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense

 

 

This is why you are a fraud and  a  liar  and  why this thread is  not a  "serious discussion"

 

You are a troll  who keeps  ignoring  data you don't like and  pushes lies.

 

 

FBI:  Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time

 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view

 

 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/activeshooterincidentsus_2014-2015.pdf/view

 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

 

 

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ACJS_Today_March_2015.pdf

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/09/new-fbi-report-claims-that-8-of-active-shooter-attacks-during-2014-17-were-stopped-or-mitigated-by-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-but-misses-at-least-half-the-cases/

 

 

injuries-and-accidents.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAKE NO MISTAKE,     TBGS HAS SEEN THIS DATA AND IGNORES IT AND PRETENDS IT DOESN'T  EXIST SO HE CAN  KEEP HIS PATHETIC  LOSER THREAD  ALIVE.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

This is why you are a fraud and  a  liar  and  why this thread is  not a  "serious discussion"

 

You are a troll  who keeps  ignoring  data you don't like and  pushes lies.

 

 

FBI:  Armed Citizens Are Successful 94% Of The Time

 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-incidents-us-2016-2017.pdf/view

 

 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/activeshooterincidentsus_2014-2015.pdf/view

 

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

 

 

https://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ACJS_Today_March_2015.pdf

 

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/09/new-fbi-report-claims-that-8-of-active-shooter-attacks-during-2014-17-were-stopped-or-mitigated-by-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-but-misses-at-least-half-the-cases/

 

 

injuries-and-accidents.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAKE NO MISTAKE,     TBGS HAS SEEN THIS DATA AND IGNORES IT AND PRETENDS IT DOESN'T  EXIST SO HE CAN  KEEP HIS PATHETIC  LOSER THREAD  ALIVE.

 

 

This data doesn't prove me wrong.  Less than 1% of guns are used in self defense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

This data doesn't prove me wrong.  Less than 1% of guns are used in self defense.  

 

 

IT DOES ,   YOU TROLL. 

 

YOUR SPECIOUS STATISTIC DOES NOTHING  TO DEBUNK  THE  HARD FACTS OF THE   FBI,  YOU DISHONEST Bad word

 

THERE ARE 400 MILLION GUNS IN THE  USA,  SO  WHAT IS 1% OF 400 MILLION?

 

ITS 4 MILLION.

 

THANK YOU FOR   PROVING THAT  4 MILLION  GUNS HAVE BEEN  USED  FOR SELF DEFENSE.

 

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

IT DOES ,   YOU TROLL. 

 

YOUR SPECIOUS STATISTIC DOES NOTHING  TO DEBUNK  THE  HARD FACTS OF THE   FBI,  YOU DISHONEST Bad word

 

THERE ARE 400 MILLION GUNS IN THE  USA,  SO  WHAT IS 1% OF 400 MILLION?

 

ITS 4 MILLION.

 

THANK YOU FOR   PROVING THAT  4 MILLION  GUNS HAVE BEEN  USED  FOR SELF DEFENSE.

 

YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG

Your link doesn't contradict what NPR posted.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Your link doesn't contradict what NPR posted.   

 

Yes  it does.

 

It definitively proves you  wrong.

 

You are comparing the  FBI to NPR, about  gun stats regarding  self defense

 

Tell me about the  4 million  guns  used in self defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, EltonJohnson said:

 

Yes  it does.

 

It definitively proves you  wrong.

 

You are comparing the  FBI to NPR, about  gun stats regarding  self defense

 

Tell me about the  4 million  guns  used in self defense

Not really.  It was Harvard, Not NPR that did the study.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

Not really.  It was Harvard, Not NPR that did the study.  

 

Prove the  FBI is wrong.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrumpBGoneSoon said:

This data doesn't prove me wrong.  Less than 1% of guns are used in self defense.  

 

There are a lot of politically motivated studies out there.

 

But, when you look at the number of firearms out there, 1% of guns equates to 3.4 MILLION guns.  Less than one percent perfectly aligns with the findings of lawful self-defense with firearms happening as often as 1.5 to 2 million times a year.... which means more people use guns to fend off criminals every year than are victimized by them.

 

Many researchers, including those of the CDC, have produced similar findings.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#37290a92299a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Spartan said:

 

Yes.  By shooting back.

What if you shoot someone else by accident?  Not everyone is an elite sniper who hits hit target every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spartan said:

when you look at the number of firearms out there, 1% of guns equates to 3.4 MILLION guns.

 

 

Sorry, but why do you think he is going to be honest with  you as you crush his specious nonsense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RollingRock said:

What if you shoot someone else by accident?  Not everyone is an elite sniper who hits hit target every time.

 

You don't have to be "an elite sniper".  Everyday Americans are highly successful in self defense every year.

 

Of course, I am very highly trained and capable of extreme accuracy; even under the stress of a violent encounter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

What if you shoot someone else by accident?  Not everyone is an elite sniper who hits hit target every time.

 

 

FBI Study says......

injuries-and-accidents.jpg

 

 

 

More  facts to crush  your narrative 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...