Proposed Gun Law Changes by Students:

[Conker]

Or maybe it's because handling a gun is riskier than juggling air.  I'd have to imagine that's it.

agree 100%. it's a myth that guns in general "protect" . in reality gun owners, their families and those living in areas with lots of guns, die of a violent death more frequently than the rest of the population.

The story of MSM.
 
if it's just a media story, who would you say was responsible for getting the dickey amendment implemented? pro gun or anti gun lobbyists?

[Las Vegas]

agree 100%.

Yes.  Just now trying to think of something that's not, but I'm at a loss.

it's a myth that guns in general "protect"

Do you believe they may protect a LE officer?

in reality gun owners, their families and those living in areas with lots of guns, die of a violent death more frequently than the rest of the population

If you mean the ghetto, then guns are the least of their problems.  And don't think for one minute that the elderly residents there aren't served by their guns.  Will you tell them they can't have their peace?  How will you explain it to them?

if it's just a media story, who would you say was responsible for getting the dickey amendment implemented? pro gun or anti gun lobbyists?

I don't know.  If it's (really and truly) a mystery waiting for federal money to be solved, then how could anyone judge a motive?

[Conker]

Yes.  Just now trying to think of something that's not, but I'm at a loss.

but it happens to be guns that are the choice instrument for the bi weekly random massacres in your schools and other public places and also for the vast majority of homicides.

Do you believe they may protect a LE officer?

in a country where there are more guns than citizens i would imagine it's a must. in the UK the vast majority of cops aren't armed and they kill way fewer civilians than in the states. also there a way fewer fatal attacks on cops, per capita. strange, how unarmed cops in the UK are safer than armed cops in the US...i wonder why??

If you mean the ghetto, then guns are the least of their problems.  And don't think for one minute that the elderly residents there aren't served by their guns.  Will you tell them they can't have their peace?  How will you explain it to them?

no i didn't mean ghettos . the studies i cited i believe were talking about areas with a high prevalence of legal guns. as i said, anecdotally guns are great for protection. but the statistics show otherwise

I don't know.  If it's (really and truly) a mystery waiting for federal money to be solved, then how could anyone judge a motive?

well when you have so many violent deaths and injuries caused by gun use, you would think it would be seen as a public health issue(?) in which case you would expect at least some proportion of public money would be allocated to researching that issue, no?

regardless of whether you think research is needed or not, who do YOU think lobbied for the dickey amendment, the anti or pro gun crowd?

[Las Vegas]

but it happens to be guns that are the choice instrument for the bi weekly random massacres in your schools and other public places and also for the vast majority of homicides

Is that new? 

If so: we need to look at what the fuck's going on.  We know guns have been around for quite some time.

If not: then why this uproar, now?

in a country where there are more guns than citizens i would imagine it's a must. in the UK the vast majority of cops aren't armed and they kill way fewer civilians than in the states. also there a way fewer fatal attacks on cops, per capita. strange, how unarmed cops in the UK are safer than armed cops in the US...i wonder why??

Then why shouldn't a citizen see things in the same way?

no i didn't mean ghettos . the studies i cited i believe were talking about areas with a high prevalence of legal guns. as i said, anecdotally guns are great for protection. but the statistics show otherwise

Then it naturally follows to say that offenses by others should be lower in those areas -- increasing, by contrast, the appearance of events you mention.

well when you have so many violent deaths and injuries caused by gun use, you would think it would be seen as a public health issue(?) in which case you would expect at least some proportion of public money would be allocated to researching that issue, no?

Health is indeed linked with a peacefulness in mind, as well, knowing one shan't easily become subject to the will of a criminal.  With murderous maniacs running around, at the center of the anti-gun argument: how can it be seen in any other way?

regardless of whether you think research is needed or not, who do YOU think lobbied for the dickey amendment, the anti or pro gun crowd?

I'd first have to envision what may be revealed by the magic of fed money, that has left us in the dark all these years, in any attempt to judge it.  I can't possibly imagine that information exists, let alone what it could be.

[IronMagazine.com]

-Raise the firearm purchase age to 21

they forgot "increase minimum age to join military to 21" if they're going to add this one.

[Conker]

Is that new? 

If so: we need to look at what the fuck's going on.  We know guns have been around for quite some time.

If not: then why this uproar, now?

i don't think the uproar has just arrived. i'm sure the gun debate has been going for quite some time. considering the amendment to stop funding research was introduced in 1996, it's been going since at least then, and no doubt way before that. it's probably that the whole random massacre thing seems to be getting more frequent, that is bringing the gun debate more to fore at present

Then why shouldn't a citizen see things in the same way?

i didn't say cops should be armed because of the way they "see" things. it's just an obvious necessity in a country where civilians are so heavily armed.

you live in a democracy so it should be how society as a whole "see" things. if society wants cops armed then they should be. if society wants stricter gun control, then there should be

Then it naturally follows to say that offenses by others should be lower in those areas -- increasing, by contrast, the appearance of events you mention.

because gun owners and those in high gun areas are at a heightened risk of violent death, why should it naturally follow that offenses by "others" would be lower?
all it shows is that the more/closer you're around guns the more chance you have of violent death, statistically.

Health is indeed linked with a peacefulness in mind, as well, knowing one shan't easily become subject to the will of a criminal.  With murderous maniacs running around, at the center of the anti-gun argument: how can it be seen in any other way?

I'd first have to envision what may be revealed by the magic of fed money, that has left us in the dark all these years, in any attempt to judge it.  I can't possibly imagine that information exists, let alone what it could be.

with the bolded you've highlighted exactly why you need research. there's a common misconception that owning a gun protects you from criminals. plenty of people are in the dark blindly believing that. i suppose it's intuitive to think "if i own/walk around with a lethal weapon i'm obviously safer".

when in reality statistics show as a gun owner you and you're family are more likely to meet a violent end than non gun owners.
when you have a public health issue that's as hotly contended and debated as the "gun issue" you would expect that some public money would be put into researching it.

[Moontrane]

with the bolded you've highlighted exactly why you need research. there's a common misconception that owning a gun protects you from criminals. plenty of people are in the dark blindly believing that. i suppose it's intuitive to think "if i own/walk around with a lethal weapon i'm obviously safer".

when in reality statistics show as a gun owner you and you're family are more likely to meet a violent end than non gun owners.
when you have a public health issue that's as hotly contended and debated as the "gun issue" you would expect that some public money would be put into researching it.

Already been done.  The findings weren't consistent with the media's narrative, so it they weren't widely reported.

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted

'The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."'

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative/

[NarcissisticDeity]

Already been done.  The findings weren't consistent with the media's narrative, so it they weren't widely reported.

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted

'The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."'

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative/

Great link , stupid Conker keeps repeating the anti-gun mantra but as usual facts are NOT on his side. He's a proud little man and thinks by sticking to his bullshit that will save him from the embarrassment of his lies.

[Desolate]

These kids, including that punk Hogg, are over.

Their fifteen minutes have now come and gone.

Nobody cares.

[Las Vegas]

i don't think the uproar has just arrived. i'm sure the gun debate has been going for quite some time. considering the amendment to stop funding research was introduced in 1996, it's been going since at least then, and no doubt way before that. it's probably that the whole random massacre thing seems to be getting more frequent, that is bringing the gun debate more to fore at present

Meaning you believe it is a new thing.  But guns aren't new. 

So, do you have an idea of what's changed? 

i didn't say cops should be armed because of the way they "see" things. it's just an obvious necessity in a country where civilians are so heavily armed.

Because they shouldn't have to face it unarmed.  Is that fair way to describe your opinion?

you live in a democracy so it should be how society as a whole "see" things. if society wants cops armed then they should be. if society wants stricter gun control, then there should be

Interesting.  I didn't know that. 

Does it extend to everything, or...?

because gun owners and those in high gun areas are at a heightened risk of violent death, why should it naturally follow that offenses by "others" would be lower?
all it shows is that the more/closer you're around guns the more chance you have of violent death, statistically.

Unless you can offer a reason how criminals may happen upon only those without arms in those locations (Can you?), then it's the only logical conclusion to be drawn.

with the bolded you've highlighted exactly why you need research. there's a common misconception that owning a gun protects you from criminals. plenty of people are in the dark blindly believing that. i suppose it's intuitive to think "if i own/walk around with a lethal weapon i'm obviously safer".

It's not a misconception to anyone who has experienced it.  To those who have: What would you say, and would you look them in the eye while saying it?  (honest question)

when in reality statistics show as a gun owner you and you're family are more likely to meet a violent end than non gun owners.
when you have a public health issue that's as hotly contended and debated as the "gun issue" you would expect that some public money would be put into researching it.

The statistics don't say that, no matter what a presentation surrounding them may say.  Statistics can't possibly say that, since it would require seeing into the future to know what crime may or may not have happened if it was allowed to carry out -- and in every such incident it may apply.  If anything, it'd be downright dangerous and irresponsible for anyone to present them conclusively, especially while claiming concern for life.

[Las Vegas]

Already been done.  The findings weren't consistent with the media's narrative, so it they weren't widely reported.

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted

'The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."'

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative/

Sweet, Moontrane.  Thanks, will look.

Conker: Were you aware of this?

[Conker]

Meaning you believe it is a new thing.  But guns aren't new. 

So, do you have an idea of what's changed? 

no,not a new thing just "seems" to be happening more often. if more research was taking place maybe it'd be easier to work out's what changed(?)

Because they shouldn't have to face it unarmed.  Is that fair way to describe your opinion?

no. they are paid by the public to "police" it would be very difficult to police a heavily armed population without being armed. civilians are not paid to police and in the vast majority of cases i would imagine lack the training to do so.

Interesting.  I didn't know that. 

Does it extend to everything, or...?

you have a representative democracy (like most of developed world). so you don't get to vote on every issue, you vote for the party that's policies most represent you. but for very contentious issues where there is very strong public opinion, you could hold a referendum. like in the UK with brexit.

Unless you can offer a reason how criminals may happen upon only those without arms in those locations (Can you?), then it's the only logical conclusion to be drawn.

the data i quoted showed that those with guns (and those living in high gun areas) die violently, more frequently than non gun owners and people in low gun areas. explain from that how you conclude this must mean that criminals are happening upon only those without arms in those locations.
as you have completely lost me there with your "logic".



It's not a misconception to anyone who has experienced it.  To those who have: What would you say, and would you look them in the eye while saying it?  (honest question)

i would just tell them the facts (as i've said several times) .anecdotally guns are great for protection. in reality the statistics show that gun owners are more at risk of harm. and that fact does not change even if you personally have used a gun 10 times successfully in self defence.

The statistics don't say that, no matter what a presentation surrounding them may say.  Statistics can't possibly say that, since it would require seeing into the future to know what crime may or may not have happened if it was allowed to carry out -- and in every such incident it may apply.  If anything, it'd be downright dangerous and irresponsible for anyone to present them conclusively, especially while claiming concern for life.

the statistics do say that. i think you are confused with how statistics are used in this context.

what these studies have done (simply speaking) is track different sample groups eg. gun owners and non gun owners ,then record how many from each group die of a certain type of death or whatever. when these studies are done using the proper methods and controls, the findings(statistics) can be used to assess (usually quite accurately) certain future risks. i.e the health risks of gun ownership. bear in mind the studies i cited were peer reviewed and published in medical journals and there are lots of these studies that have come up with similar findings.

[Conker]

Already been done.  The findings weren't consistent with the media's narrative, so it they weren't widely reported.

CDC Gun Violence Study's Findings Not What Obama Wanted

'The study, which was farmed out by the CDC to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, also revealed that while there were "about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008," the estimated number of defensive uses of guns ranges "from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year."'

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/cdc-gun-violence-study-goes-against-media-narrative/

well that could well be the case. as i said earlier i have no idea how guns used to prevent a crime is quantified. but regardless of how many crimes are prevented, it doesn't change the statistical fact that gun owners and their families die violently more frequently.

here's some more quotes from the study you quote

“By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem."

defensive gun use is " common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed."  "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field,"

"and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."


so your study says that the gun issue is a by it's "sheer magnitude" is a "pressing public health issue"  the numbers are disputed and more research is needed.

yet the NRA and co are still blocking public money being used to carry out that needed research....i wonder why?

[NarcissisticDeity]

well that could well be the case. as i said earlier i have no idea how guns used to prevent a crime is quantified. but regardless of how many crimes are prevented, it doesn't change the statistical fact that gun owners and their families die violently more frequently.

here's some more quotes from the study you quote

“By their sheer magnitude, injuries and deaths involving firearms constitute a pressing public health problem."

defensive gun use is " common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed."  "The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field,"

"and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration."


so your study says that the gun issue is a by it's "sheer magnitude" is a "pressing public health issue"  the numbers are disputed and more research is needed.

yet the NRA and co are still blocking public money being used to carry out that needed research....i wonder why?

yet the NRA and co are still blocking public money being used to carry out that needed research....i wonder why?

God you just don't fucking get it. Dummy , that study was funded with public money. Stop repeating this blatant lie. It's like the feminists who keep harping about the " Gender pay gap "

The CDC is allowed public money to research guns , they are however NOT allowed to advocate for gun control get it? wait , no you don't get it. That's the whole problem , you're speaking on a subject you know absolutely NOTHING about , using an anti-gun bias to do the talking for you.

[Powerlift66]

https://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/419451006-Cop-shares-gunfight-lessons-from-ISIS-inspired-Draw-the-Prophet-terrorist-attack/

[Conker]

God you just don't fucking get it. Dummy , that study was funded with public money. Stop repeating this blatant lie. It's like the feminists who keep harping about the " Gender pay gap "

The CDC is allowed public money to research guns , they are however NOT allowed to advocate for gun control get it? wait , no you don't get it. That's the whole problem , you're speaking on a subject you know absolutely NOTHING about , using an anti-gun bias to do the talking for you.

back from the dead! you've already been beheaded, had your body dismembered and disposed of in this thread.

the amendment may not have been worded as a ban but for all intents and purposes it served as a ban. by warning off the relevant agencies from carrying out any more gun research for fear of being stripped of their funding. why do you think there was a sudden halt in research from 1996? the study in 2013 only took place because obama ordered it following one mass shooting or another.

if it hasn't served as a ban why do you think the author of the amendment jay dickey , himself said he regretted the amendment passing as it led to a huge shortage of data and evidence in an area of public health where it's greatly needed.
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447098666/ex-rep-dickey-regrets-restrictive-law-on-gun-violence-research

now fk off zombie and stay fked off.

[NarcissisticDeity]

back from the dead! you've already been beheaded, had your body dismembered and disposed of in this thread.

the amendment may not have been worded as a ban but for all intents and purposes it served as a ban. by warning off the relevant agencies from carrying out any more gun research for fear of being stripped of their funding. why do you think there was a sudden halt in research from 1996? the study in 2013 only took place because obama ordered it following one mass shooting or another.

if it hasn't served as a ban why do you think the author of the amendment jay dickey , himself said he regretted the amendment passing as it led to a huge shortage of data and evidence in an area of public health where it's greatly needed.
https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447098666/ex-rep-dickey-regrets-restrictive-law-on-gun-violence-research

now fk off zombie and stay fked off.

You already bailed out multiple times in this thread , you should have bowed out because you wouldn't keep getting your nose rubbed in your own shit.

Keep repeating lies , they won't change no matter how many times you keep typing them

That CDC study BACKFIRED it was publicly funded , you're owned 

[Conker]

You already bailed out multiple times in this thread , you should have bowed out because you wouldn't keep getting your nose rubbed in your own shit.

Keep repeating lies , they won't change no matter how many times you keep typing them

That CDC study BACKFIRED it was publicly funded , you're owned 

i see you avoided giving your thoughts on why jay dickey himself regretted the amendment (if it didn't serve as a ban)

stick to arguing about who had the biggest ball sack.,  dorian...or... ronnie(?)  your little pea  brain is not advanced enough to debate issues such as this.

[NarcissisticDeity]

i see you avoided giving your thoughts on why jay dickey himself regretted the amendment (if it didn't serve as a ban)

stick to arguing about who had the biggest ball sack.,  dorian...or... ronnie(?)  your little pea  brain is not advanced enough to debate issues such as this.

Your erroneously claimed the NRA is stopping the CDC from researching guns , you are flat out wrong. You're a liar , plain and simple because you've been proven wrong and continue to stick to your bullshit.

Pay attention LIAR 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#1a1f4fc05edc

Currently, the federal government’s Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is restricted by Congress from using tax money to promote gun control (although not from conducting research into gun-related violence).

They are restricted from using tax money to promote gun control and NOT I repeat for dishonest retarded fucking Croc wearing dolts like you , NOT from conducting research into gun related violence. And good thing too the CDC is anti-gun like you

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc

Check mate 

[Conker]

still avoiding to answer why you think the author of the dickey amendment himself expressed regret about it passing.

good tactic 

[NarcissisticDeity]

still avoiding to answer why you think the author of the dickey amendment himself expressed regret about it passing.

good tactic 

It's totally irrelevant , I don't fucking care of God regretted it. You're a proven LIAR and not a very bright one at that and this pathetic attempt to save face has FAILED like everything else you type. 

Do you feel stupid? Because you sure as fuck look it 

Check Mate , thanks for playing. We have a lovely pair of Crocs for you as a parting gift.

[Conker]

not relevant ? lol

so the author of the amendment himself has said he regretted it because it has served to halt much needed research from being done on gun violence since 1996...

but our resident "narcissistic dipsht" says otherwise...OK 

[NarcissisticDeity]

yet the NRA and co are still blocking public money being used to carry out that needed research....i wonder why?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#1a1f4fc05edc

Currently, the federal government’s Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is restricted by Congress from using tax money to promote gun control (although not from conducting research into gun-related violence)

LIAR 

Why would they block the CDC from promoting gun control? IGee I fucking wonder why?

Many gun rights advocates are wary of such research, fearing it will be used to fuel a partisan political agenda. Dr. Timothy Wheeler of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership has noted that CDC has a track record of anti-gun bias. In the 1990s, one CDC official even stated that his goal was to create a public perception of gun ownership as something “dirty, deadly — and banned.”

They've accomplished that deed and you bought it.

Let's continue kicking your Croc wearing ass from one corner of the web to the other 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#46961c6b282d

Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding

Ouch , does it hurt?  This just demolishes ANYTHING you've typed.

[NarcissisticDeity]

not relevant ? lol

so the author of the amendment himself has said he regretted it because it has served to halt much needed research from being done on gun violence since 1996...

but our resident "narcissistic dipsht" says otherwise...OK 

See above dumbass it lays out in exact detail HOW and WHY the CDC should NOT be trusted , they're emotional anti-gun morons just like you.

And again , your words and they are proven soundly wrong. 

yet the NRA and co are still blocking public money being used to carry out that needed research....i wonder why?

Currently, the federal government’s Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is restricted by Congress from using tax money to promote gun control (although not from conducting research into gun-related violence)

Don't fucking try it son , I told you before you better know what they fuck you're talking about on this subject if you're even going to attempt to type a response to me because I will bash you over the head with facts 

[Conker]

from the forbes article you linked:


"In 1996, the Congress axed $2.6 million allocated for gun research from the CDC out of its $2.2 billion budget, charging that its studies were being driven by anti-gun prejudice. While that funding was later reinstated, it was re-designated for medical research on traumatic brain injuries.

There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#46961c6b282d

see you fkin retard. even your own cited articles admit the amendment served as a ban on further gun violence studies.

now fk off. you're just embarrassing yourself now.