Ghost Guns Are Everywhere in California

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

https://www.thetrace.org/2019/05/ghost-gun-california-crime/

Feds say nearly a third of firearms recovered in the state are homemade, unserialized, and untraceable.
...
A ghost gun is a firearm manufactured outside of the traditional supply chain. It can be printed on a 3-D printer, or assembled with parts sold by the dozens of companies that create nearly completed firearms — known as “80 percent receivers,” which require no background check to sell.
...
The majority of America’s guns begin their life with a stream of paperwork mandated by the federal government. These weapons, each with a unique serial number, enter the civilian market through licensed firearms dealers, which require background checks. Over time, every additional sale is recorded, providing a log of a gun’s life that can be a little tricky to piece together, but an absolutely critical tool to criminal investigations.

A ghost gun subverts this system entirely — because it doesn’t automatically get stamped with a serial number, isn’t sold by a federally licensed dealer, and doesn’t generate paperwork.

[sharedvalues]

1. Nice! Gun fetishists putting our kids at risk.

More guns, more deaths.

Great.


At least ghost guns don’t put money into the hands of the NRA - which is a terrorist organization that advocates for getting our kids killed at schools.

[Straw Man]

2. Wrong on multiple levels.

First of all, a "ghost gun" is no more of a threat than a gun that started out in the traditional supply chain and ended up in malevolent hands. The serial number, the paperwork, all that stuff does nothing to prevent the crime -- it only serves to facilitate apprehension of the criminal after the fact. Spree killers don't give a crap about any of that; they intend to end up dead or in custody anyway.

Secondly, what makes you think that the suppliers of all the various bits and bobs that are required in order to turn a "ghost" receiver into a functioning firearm are not NRA-supporting members of the gun industry?

Finally, please show us where in the NRA has advocated for the killing of school children. Verbatim citations only, please.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. Some folks manufacture guns

Some folks manufacture sound bites.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Pious fraud is part and parcel of gun control advocacy. That was merely the latest example.

I thought it worthy of inclusion here:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/11729858

The diligent (and strong-stomached) reader will find many, many examples of "Donald Trump speech" levels
of accuracy amongst the inane, hateful, and sometimes unhinged posts immortalized there.

[MarvinGardens]

6. Wow, that's a long thread!

It seems this group used to be super active.

[sharedvalues]

7. NRA is a terrorist organization

Finally, please show us where in the NRA has advocated for the killing of school children. Verbatim citations only, please.

Sure!

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/gunned-down/transcript/
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/03/05/the-nra-lobbyist-behind-floridas-pro-gun-policies
https://changetheref.org/grieving-parents-of-teen-killed-in-parkland-school-shooting-use-graphic-activism-to-confront-the-nra/
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/10/21/when-kids-pull-trigger-who-responsible-507656.html
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-are-schools-still-accepting-nra-money/
https://www.storybasedstrategy.org/blog-full/2012/10/18/the-nra-kills-our-kids

https://slate.com/technology/2014/06/gun-deaths-in-children-statistics-show-firearms-endanger-kids-despite-nra-safety-programs.html

Guns Kill Children
The overwhelming evidence that pediatricians are right and the NRA is wrong.

The overwhelming empirical evidence indicates that the presence of a gun makes children less safe; that programs such as Eddie Eagle are insufficient; and that measures the NRA and extreme gun advocates vehemently oppose, such as gun safes and smart guns, could dramatically reduce the death toll. Study after study unequivocally demonstrates that the prevalence of firearms directly increases the risk of youth homicide, suicide, and unintentional death. This effect is consistent across the United States and throughout the world. As a country, we should be judged by how well we protect our children. By any measure, we are failing horribly.

The NRA advocates for policies that get kids killed. Verbatim.

And before you come back to me with lies spouted by the NRA: no, don't argue with the facts above. They are correct and you are lied to by the gun industry. Don't give me gun industry and Republican lies.

Here's the truth.

The overwhelming empirical evidence indicates that the presence of a gun makes children less safe

Don't even think about arguing with that. Don't give me lies and propaganda from the gun industry.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. None of which substantiate your original claim. We've seen this sort of thing before:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168909

On processed pork shoulder meat in a can, and why we're getting it

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172168909#post9

IMO, the reason you have this fake store shenanigan and the MSM-promulgated crap studies
is because the controllers have given up on any hope for gun control within the political and judicial realm, and are in full-fledged agit-prop mode; I mean ANYTHING goes.

But that's OK, amirite? After all, it's for the children:





https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172205521#post77

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Gross_oversimplification

Gross oversimplification

Scapegoating is one form of gross oversimplification: treating a complex problem, which requires patient reasoning and analysis, as if it results from one simple cause or can be solved by one simple cure. For example, Huey Long claimed that all of the U.S.'s economic problems could be solved just by "sharing the wealth".[10] Hitler claimed that Germany had lost World War I only because of a "Stab in the Back".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue#Fearmongering

Fearmongering

Many demagogues have risen to power by evoking fear in their audiences, to stir them to action and prevent deliberation.

Claiming to be concerned about children has always been a popular tactic to use on the
weak-minded:

[gejohnston]

9. I know I'm old when

I recognize Anita Bryant.

[jimmy the one]

10. nra indirectly condones death by guns

icon: None of which substantiate your original claim. We've seen this sort of thing before:

The predicate to counter the 'original claim' from sharedvalues:

straw man: please show us where in the NRA has advocated for the killing of school children. Verbatim citations only, please.

Not directly does the nra advocate killing of school children, but they do condone it by both their inaction and arguments against proven methods of reducing gun violence amongst children. As does the republican congress via inaction of background checks & countering gun control in general.
Sharedvalues links do demonstrate this demented nra policy.

What the eff is the smoke & mirrors with pork shoulder crap, your typical duplicitous method of distraction, icon.
Heads up to icon, a very small percentage read or care about the silly nilly you post there.

[gejohnston]

12. If the Parkland asshole

used a weapon he didn't legally obtain, like an automatic weapon or something stolen from the cops, do you think the corporations, including cable "news", and virtue signaling celebrities would give a rat's ass about what happened? No, they wouldn't.

[Straw Man]

14. Ah, "indirectly" ...

Not directly does the nra advocate killing of school children...

So you agree that sharedvalues has engaged in misleading hyperbole? Good to know.

... but they do condone it by both their inaction and arguments against proven methods of reducing gun violence amongst children.

Lexical foul for misuse of the words "condone" and "proven."

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. Some truly believe that mere repetition of a claim is a sign of veracity...

...while others are doing their level best to persuade their *audience* to believe it.

I leave it to the disinterested reader to parse this thread for examples of both...

[guillaumeb]

28. Would you prefer the term "willingley facilitates"?

The NRA is a willing funnel for Russian money, and an organization that advocates for the weapons industry. And the inevitable result is death.

[Straw Man]

48. Not at all.

The NRA doesn't "advocate for the weapons industry." They advocate for gun owners. You must be thinking of the NSSF.

[guillaumeb]

58. The modern NRA is a front organization for the weapons industry.

And for Russian money.

The NRA promotes a fear based narrative to drive gun sales. And that narrative drives the fearful to buy more guns.

[Straw Man]

59. Correction.

The NRA promotes a fear based narrative to drive gun sales.

The NRA promotes a fear-based narrative to drive memberships and donations. Obviously they share a common goal with most (not all) gun manufacturers, but to call them a "front organization" is hyperbolic and inaccurate.

[guillaumeb]

63. We disagree. eom

[Straw Man]

64. Yes, we do.

And I still maintain that your characterizations are hyperbolic to the point of absurdity. Take, for example, your use of the phrase "weapons industry" to describe the gun manufacturers that supply the civilian market. Their total revenue was $17 billion in 2018. Michael Bloomberg, with a net worth of $54 billion, could purchase their entire output and drop it in the ocean if he saw fit.

Compare this with $226.6 billion for the producers of military arms, who have no need or use for the lobbying efforts of the NRA. That's the "weapons industry" in the United States. That's the behemoth that your term of art more properly describes.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

65. And we're back

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172207986

Education on the technical terms is needed but agreement on the simple terms would be nice.

[jimmy the one]

70. flapdoodle in the straw

I wrote: Not directly does the nra advocate killing of school children...

straw man: So you agree that sharedvalues has engaged in misleading hyperbole? Good to know.

You did not specify 'direct' advocation by the nra, as in proclaiming 'yeah ok to kill children'. Groups can indirectly advocate by actions & words, using clever sophistry & casuistry (you should now for sure of this, being a subscriber of these two approaches yourself).
Even so I personally would not put it that the nra truly advocates for the killing of children - they more or less accept it as part & parcel of the almighty gifted right of being able to keep & bear arms, guns, ar15s, silencers, & formerly, bump stocks.

What straw man wrote: Finally, please show us where in the NRA has advocated for the killing of school children. Verbatim citations only, please.

-----------------------------------

I wrote: . but they {nra} do condone it by both their inaction and arguments against proven methods of reducing gun violence amongst children.

straw man replied: Lexical foul for misuse of the words "condone" and "proven."

Huh? not really casuistry, nor sophistry, just flapdoodle.

[Straw Man]

73. Let me make it clearer for you.

To "condone" something is to knowingly allow and approve it. "Proven" means empirically verified beyond doubt. You suggest that the NRA acknowledges the efficacy of gun control methods (it does not), yet opposes them anyway.

That's the "flapdoodle."

[sharedvalues]

13. You didn't address: NRA is a terrorist organization

[img][/img]

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Not that I disagree- but mere repetition of a claim is no indicator of truth

Something many antigun posters have yet to learn...

[sharedvalues]

18. The NRA is a terrorist organization, though.

You didn’t address my point so I wanted to make sure you saw it, amongst the mass of distraction you posted.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. "You didn't address my point" Said 'point' is merely a repeated claim, made with much handwaving...

... little to no direct evidence, and a definition of 'terrorist' so elastic it would impress the makers of Silly Putty.

Then again, authoritarians of all stripes do love to label people 'terrorists' and 'enablers':


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/01/sacramento-rally-fbi-kkk-domestic-terrorism-california

FBI investigated civil rights group as 'terrorism' threat and viewed KKK as victims

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/20/keystone-pipeline-protest-activism-crackdown-standing-rock

'Treating protest as terrorism': US plans crackdown on Keystone XL activists

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/professor-flight-delay-terrorism-equation-american-airlines

Professor: flight was delayed because my equations raised terror fears

American Airlines says woman expressed suspicion about University of Pennsylvania economics professor, who was solving a differential equation

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/anti-muslim-group-act-for-america-holding-nationwide-marches-on-saturday/

Anti-Muslim Group ACT For America Holding Nationwide Marches On Saturday

...In a video publicizing the marches, ACT founder Brigitte Gabriel tells supporters, “This is your chance to show the fake news media what you think of their open-borders zealotry, to show spineless D.C. politicians what you think of their P.C. pandering, to show President Trump that you stand behind his necessary travel ban from terror-ridden nations.”

Gabriel tells activists that this is their “chance to show lame-stream media and anti-American terrorist enablers like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU that we will not be silenced”...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027947454

ACLU's Most Recent Statement on No Fly No Buy Lists.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america


UPDATE: On June 22nd, the ACLU sent this letter to the Senate opposing Sen. Collins’ (R-Maine) proposed legislation. We had hoped that the Collins Amendment would correct the problems with the earlier Cornyn and Feinstein amendments, but as we describe in the letter, the Collins Amendment would instead cause even more serious problems.

In the wake of the attack on LGBTQ Americans in Orlando, gun control is again at the forefront of the national conversation. It is also the subject of proposed legislation in Congress. We at the ACLU, like many other Americans, are appalled by the Orlando tragedy. We have deep concerns, however, about legislative efforts to regulate the use of guns by relying on our nation’s error-prone and unfair watchlisting system.

That’s why we sent a letter today to the Senate, opposing legislation from Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas), which uses the watchlisting system as a predicate for gun regulation, and also opposing a proposal by Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.), which does not rely on mere presence on watchlists, but nevertheless raises issues of fundamental fairness.

The letter explained to senators the ACLU’s position on gun control:

We believe that the right to own and use guns is not absolute or free from government regulation since firearms are inherently dangerous instrumentalities and their use, unlike other activities protected by the Bill of Rights, can inflict serious bodily injury or death. Therefore, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, maintaining the peace, environmental protection, and public health. At the same time, regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy.

And we explained why we oppose Sen. Cornyn’s legislation, which uses the watchlist system as a starting point for regulating guns. It may sound appealing to regulate firearms by using the government’s blacklisting system for what it calls “known or suspected terrorists,” but we have long experience analyzing the myriad problems with that system, and based on what we know, it needs major overhaul. As we told the senators:

Our nation’s watchlisting system is error-prone and unreliable because it uses vague and overbroad criteria and secret evidence to place individuals on blacklists without a meaningful process to correct government error and clear their names.

That’s why we have argued that if the government chooses to blacklist people, the standards it uses must be appropriately narrow, the information it relies on must be accurate and credible, and its use of watchlists must be consistent with the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. This is not what the government is doing, though. Instead, as we explained to the Senate using the No Fly List as an example:

The government contends that it can place Americans on the No Fly List who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime, on the basis of prediction that they nevertheless pose a threat (which is undefined) of conduct that the government concedes “may or may not occur.” Criteria like these guarantee a high risk of error and it is imperative that the watchlisting system include due process safeguards—which it does not. In the context of the No Fly List, for example, the government refuses to provide even Americans who know they are on the List with the full reasons for the placement, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.

It is unsurprising that a system like this is not just bloated, but applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.

By relying on the broken watchlist system, Sen. Cornyn’s proposal would further entrench it. Sen. Feinstein’s gun control proposal, on the other hand, has moved away from a previous version that expressly relied on watchlisting standards. Her new proposal does not rely on the mere presence of an individual on a watchlist as a basis for denial of a firearm permit. Still, her new proposal uses vague and overbroad criteria and does not contain necessary due process protections. It also includes a new notification requirement that could result in a “watchlist” that is even broader than any that currently exists — so broad that it would include even people long ago cleared of any wrongdoing by law enforcement.

[sharedvalues]

22. The NRA gets our kids killed. Therefore it enables terrorism.

Domestic terrorism.

Do you deny the NRA is responsible for child deaths?
If your kid gets killed by shooting at school, their blood is on Wayne LaPierre’s hands. He takes money from gun CEOs to push gun fetishism so gun CEOs can sell more guns. The NRA is a bunch of criminals getting kids killed for money.

The above is just self evident truth.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Any solution in mind ? n/t

[sharedvalues]

24. Solution to NRA getting kids killed: disband the NRA

Step 1: every patriotic American telling everyone they know that
1. The NRA gets kids killed
2. The NRA gets kids killed to enrich wealthy gun CEOs and get votes for rightwing billionaires
3. The NRA is thus a terrorist organization.


You can do that today- tell everyone you know.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. You're aware that the lobbying org is the ILA right? n/t

[sharedvalues]

43. You're aware how much gun and ammo CEOs funnel to the NRA right?

You’re aware of NRA TV, right?

I hope you do not belong to an org that gets kids killed like the NRA.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. I wasn't aware that CEOs funnel any guns or ammo to the NRA.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. "Disband the NRA" by mindlessly parroting your claims to everyone we know?

Who will naturally 'see the light and hear the call' and do the same, thus inducing a nationwide chain reaction
of your memes.

Presumably, (given a sufficient number of mobs chanting The Sayings Of Chairman Sharedvalues), the members of the NRA will just up and quit when they realize how gosh-darned bad they've been

You lot were already prone to slacktivism, and this has to be one of the slackest things yet.

Right up there with the 'gun control' site that claimed to have given away thousands of gun locks, but
never delivered any:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172176193#post11

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. You have to admit without the NRA, the only guns left would be muskets & Colt SAAs

[sharedvalues]

42. You seem to misunderstand how politics works.

Hint: read about gay marriage.

Keep doing you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Gay marriage was achieved by action, not mindless repetition of slogans...

...towards a vague end. "Disband the NRA"? Define 'disband'.

'Marriage' is well defined, and both opponents and advocates knew very well what they were fighting for.
You have offered up no suggestions for actions, no examples other than mere wear on a keyboard.

Yours is the attitude of John Bolton and Werner Erhard- iow:

"*I'm* the one with the great ideas, it's *your* duty to bring them about.

And stop asking those pesky questions!"


http://www.wernererhard.net/thpsource.html

[sharedvalues]

66. Willful misunderstanding.

[friendly_iconoclast]

74. Some of us understand empty sloganeering quite well...

[Straw Man]

47. Denial.

Do you deny the NRA is responsible for child deaths?

Yes, I do. Nowhere have I seen them advocate for child murder, nor would such crimes cease if the NRA ceased to exist.

You are aware, I hope, that gun accidents involving children have gone way down in the past 30 years. One of the reasons for this is increased public awareness of gun safety -- real gun safety, not the kind that says that we shouldn't educate our children about guns because that "normalizes" gun ownership. And do you know who the largest purveyor of gun safety education materials is? I know that you do.

[Straw Man]

15. I see no advocacy of the killing of school children ...

... in any of those links. Advocating for the killing of children would be something along the lines of a public statement by the NRA saying "Go out and kill some school children." Verbatim.

No, what I'm seeing in most of those articles is case after case of bad parenting. Surely you can't blame the NRA for that. By the way, you are aware, I'm sure, that accidental shootings have fallen considerably since the 1980s, even as there are more and more guns in circulation. To what would you attribute that? Could it be ... safety training?

No points for attempted well-poisoning.

[wasupaloopa]

30. God the bull shit never ends does it. Bad parenting? Combined with a fucking GUN!

[Straw Man]

45. Yes -- bad parenting.

Meaning not keeping your children away from dangerous things, like cars, booze, hot stoves, pills, swimming pools, and ... guns.

[jimmy the one]

71. less gun ownership rates the reason for less shootings

straw man: .. you are aware, I'm sure, that accidental shootings have fallen considerably since the 1980s, even as there are more and more guns in circulation. To what would you attribute that? Could it be ... safety training?

The large reason for the decrease in firearm shootings & gun deaths (suicides, homicides, accidents) since the 1980's (actually early 90's better said) has been a decline in gun ownership rates during the clinton years, which have remained relatively stable under gbush & obama, slight upticks.
Gee, national gun ownership rates declined ~30% during clinton & violent crime rates declined ~30%, what a correlation eh? by you must be safety training eh? Quelle surprise (what surprise) - less gun ownership rates, less gun death.
Total national gunstock has increased since early 1990's, as you say above, but the guns generally did not go to new gun owners, but rather moreso to existing gun owners.

3 reputable polls that show gun ownership RATES have fallen over the past 20 years: Gallup, Pew, & GSS (general social survey).
https://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/

1) Gallup: .. even Gallup's numbers show a decline in gun ownership since the early 1990s, from 54% of households in late 1993 to 43% as of this fall. http://www.gallup.com/poll/186236/americans-desire-stricter-gun-laws-sharply.aspx

2) General Social Survey (GSS) .. data show a substantial decline in the shares of both households and individuals with guns... 1973, 49% reported having a gun or revolver in their home or garage. In 2012, 34% said they had a gun in their home or garage.
.. personal gun ownership in 1980, 29% said a gun in their home personally belonged to them. This stands at 22% in the 2012 GSS survey. http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
3) ... The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our Dec 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A Jan 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of {GSS}.

Now you know the rest of the story. According to all 3 polls above, personal & household gun ownership rates fell dramatically during the same 8 yr time period as when violent crime & total crime rates fell dramatically, ~1992 - 2000.
National gunstock increased during that time period as well, also to now, but is demonstrably shown that a solid portion of those guns went to existing gun owners rather than creating any increase in the rate of gun owners.
The clinton crime initiative went into effect in 1994, which also had an affect on declining violent crime rates, but wouldn't've affected 1992, 93, 94.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=178997

[Straw Man]

72. Clinton-era declines are a red herring.

The drop in accidental firearms death began in the 1980s, in the dark heart of the Reagan era.

[jimmy the one]

90. red herring in the straw

straw man: Clinton-era declines are a red herring.

Being part & parcel of the very time frame you argue, more flapdoodle in the straw.

straw man: The drop in accidental firearms death began in the 1980s, in the dark heart of the Reagan era.

The drop in firearm deaths 'began in the 80's' he says, as if that in itself meant the 'clinton era declines' were irrelevant.

~2016: "In 1981, the National Vital Statistics System recorded 1,871 unintentional firearm deaths nationwide. Over the next three decades, that number would steadily decline — down to 1,441 in 1991, 802 in 2001 and 591 in 2011. The annual tally leveled off around the high 500s in 2008, but the reduction that preceded it is impressive, mysterious, and almost never discussed, even among gun policy experts." https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-accidents/

Ergo, from 1981 to 1991, call it the 'reagan era', unintentional/accidental firearm deaths dropped 23%; from 1991 to 2001 (clinton era) accidental firearm deaths dropped by 44.3%; from 2001 to 2011 the bush era, accidental FA deaths dropped 26%.
The largest accidental firearm death declines came during the clinton era from 1991 to 2001, consistent with the drops in firearm homicides & suicides from the gallup, pew & gss surveys which showed ~30% drops in firearm ownership rates during the clinton era, linked in my previous post.
The drops during the bush era are also reflective of the drops in firearm ownership rates sustained during the clinton years, tho there was some fluctuations & upticks.
So the predominance of the declines in accidental firearm death & death rates came during during or after the clinton years, where an approx 30% decline in firearm ownership rates occurred, both personal & household.

straw man's original premise: ... you are aware, I'm sure, that accidental shootings have fallen considerably since the 1980s, even as there are more and more guns in circulation. To what would you attribute that? Could it be ... safety training?

[friendly_iconoclast]

91. Feh. Chronic logorrhea in the service of bluster

[Straw Man]

92. Relevance.

Ergo, from 1981 to 1991, call it the 'reagan era', unintentional/accidental firearm deaths dropped 23%; from 1991 to 2001 (clinton era) accidental firearm deaths dropped by 44.3%; from 2001 to 2011 the bush era, accidental FA deaths dropped 26%.

Let's be precise, shall we? Reagan left office in 1989. Clinton didn't enter the White House until 1993. G.W. Bush left office in 2009. If you're going to cherry-pick data, please don't do it with a bulldozer. And please explain why the decline began under Ronny and what you think it was that Bill Clinton did to accelerate it.

Experts attribute the decline to a mix of gun safety education programs, state laws regulating gun storage in homes and a drop in the number of households that have guns.

--https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-accidental-gun-deaths-20180101-story.html

One, two, three causal factors. Your favorite comes last. Care to comment?

[jimmy the one]

93. strawker forgets gun control & decline in gun ownership rates

straw man posted: Experts attribute the decline {accidental gun deaths since 1980's} to a mix of gun safety education programs, state laws regulating gun storage in homes and a drop in the number of households that have guns. While the improvement occurred in every state, those with the most guns and the fewest laws continue to have the most accidental shooting deaths.

straw man remarked: One, two, three causal factors. Your favorite comes last. Care to comment?

I certainly will reply to your non sequitur; there is no weighting expressed nor implied in the above sentence's wording, since it clearly refers to a 'mix', with no quantification.
BTW, I have two favorites, 'state regulatory gun control' as well as the decline in gun ownership rates.
You do however make my point and rebut your own, from your previous post #15 when, unaware what the underlying reasons were for the decline, you wrote:

post 15 strawman: By the way, you are aware, I'm sure, that accidental shootings have fallen considerably since the 1980s, even as there are more and more guns in circulation. To what would you attribute that? Could it be ... safety training?

To some extent safety training, but per your source to some extent state laws regulating gun storage (aka GUN CONTROL) and a DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH GUNS. As well as a decline in the number of personally owned firearms.

I also point out this from the LA Times article you posted (thanks so much, enjoyed the factoids):

While the improvement occurred in every state, those with the most guns and the fewest laws continue to have the most accidental shooting deaths

Example of gun control efforts improving a bad situation, in states that listen.

[Straw Man]

94. Implication.

I certainly will reply to your non sequitur; there is no weighting expressed nor implied in the above sentence's wording, since it clearly refers to a 'mix', with no quantification.

In journalistic style, items are generally presented in order of diminishing importance. In the absence of modifiers such as "most importantly," the assumption is that the most important and reliable information comes first.

[jimmy the one]

96. egg face foot mouth syndrome

In journalistic style, items are generally presented in order of diminishing importance. In the absence of modifiers such as "most importantly," the assumption is that the most important and reliable information comes first

Bulloffal in this case. Pathetic rebuttal, as if it proves anything except you try to protect your own gigantic ego. You blow smoke & tapdance. And not necessarily, as in this case, when it's prefaced as being a 'mix' of reasons. Alphabetic order sometimes takes preference, sometimes randomly. There are so many exceptions to that rule you should be thoroughly ashamed of trying to pass it off as a serious rebuttal.

Furthermore, how dare you assign priority when your own LA Times article had this to say about it, acknowledging they do not know which reason the more influential:

Researchers say uncertainty over what is driving the decline also stems from a lack of federal funding to study the issue.
In 1996, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the so-called Dickey Amendment, which stipulated that money appropriated to the CDC could not “be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The provision remains in place.

Doesn't really matter, though, twas expected of you. I'm well familiar with your specious style of malarky, tap dancing the night away when you're faced with your faulty reasoning, or trapped by your own devices.
You have been shown to be ignorant of the true reasons for the decline in firearm deaths & accidents since the 1980's & more dramatically since the early 90's, and you simply tried to foist upon readers an alternate reality that it was due to increased gun owner's safety training measures alone, discounting gun control & declining gun ownership rates
Go get a napkin wipe the egg off your face.

[Straw Man]

97. It took you a while ...

... to get to the ad hominem, but what you lacked in promptness you made up for with virulence.

Feel free to malign me and my motives to your heart's content, but please don't misrepresent what I said.

you simply tried to foist upon readers an alternate reality that it was due to increased gun owner's safety training measures alone

I never said that it was "alone," nor did I deny the other causal factors. What I did say was that the source placed your pet causal factor -- decline in the number of gun-owning households -- last in what I assume to be an order of importance, based on standard journalistic practice. In all of your bluster, you seem to have honestly misinterpreted or deliberately misquoted me. I'll give you the courtesy of assuming it was the former. Why, I don't know -- I guess I'm just feeling charitable.

Furthermore, how dare you assign priority when your own LA Times article had this to say about it, acknowledging they do not know which reason the more influential:

Researchers say uncertainty over what is driving the decline also stems from a lack of federal funding to study the issue. In 1996, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the so-called Dickey Amendment, which stipulated that money appropriated to the CDC could not “be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The provision remains in place.

The very uncertainty to which they refer would undermine anyone's determination of priority -- yours as well as mine. And let me remind you that the Dickey Amendment only denies funding to studies whose goal is "advocacy" rather than pure research. Science that starts with an agenda and looks for data to support it is junk science.

You claim to be able to do something that the authors of the article cannot: determine to a certainty what the prime cause for the decline in firearms deaths is. Your flurry of random statistics is about as persuasive as a crystal ball.

[jimmy the one]

98. LA Times article was pro gun control

straw man's initial premise: By the way, you are aware, I'm sure, that accidental shootings have fallen considerably since the 1980s, even as there are more and more guns in circulation. To what would you attribute that? Could it be ... safety training? No points for attempted well-poisoning.

to which I remarked: you simply tried to foist upon readers an alternate reality that it was due to increased gun owner's safety training measures alone

straw man flaps in the wind: I never said that it was "alone," nor did I deny the other causal factors.

Clever tap dancing. By omission of the several 'other causal factors', & by power of suggestion you misled readers to believe gun owners were responsible for the decline in accidental firearm casualties since the 1980's. Which is not true, as demonstrated by your LA Times article which stated:
Experts attribute the decline to a mix of gun safety education programs, state laws regulating gun storage in homes and a drop in the number of households that have guns.

Then your absurd rationale that since 'gun safety education programs' is listed first - meaning by you it was most influential - is faulty due to the word 'mix'. Had mix not been included you'd have more of an argument, but not absolute either. You cling to a weak limb, citing grammatical protocol which may or may not apply. And doesn't in this case.
Your contention diametrically flies in the face of this LA Times factoid:
States that have high rates of gun ownership and strong traditions of hunting have the highest rates of accidental deaths.

The LA Time article you cited is a pro gun guntrol article, you gaffed big time. Other gems from LA Times which strawman obviously does not want to mention:

Jon S. Vernick, co-director at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, .. says that a decline in the share of homes with guns probably plays a major role in the decrease. While Americans continue to purchase guns at all-time highs, they are concentrated in fewer households.

The rates for males under 15 was far lower, perhaps due to so-called child access prevention laws, which allow for criminal or civil charges to be filed against a gun owner if a child gains access to a firearm that is not securely stored.

Hunting accidents may also be down, he said, as the share of Americans who hunt appears to have declined.

Some experts caution that the national drop could also reflect, at least in part, changes in how medical examiners classify deaths — determinations that the CDC relies on for its data. “Intent is not always obvious in the case of self-inflicted gunshot wounds … {whether accidental or intentional}

How can increased 'gun safety programs' be compared with the dramatic decline by 30% of american gun ownership rates over 30 years? Thirty to 40 million less gun owners today, yet strawman clings to the notion that increased gun safety training is the primary reason for a decline of perhaps 15,000 accidental gun deaths over the same 30 year time period. Maturing is as much a factor as gun safety training.
The firearm homicide rate has also fallen by about half during that 30 year time period when gun ownership rates declined by ~30%, was that due to gun safety training too?

[Straw Man]

99. NSS.

Did I ever claim the LA Times article wasn't pro gun control? Yet they still stopped short of reaching the conclusions that you seem to find so self-evident.

Let's look at the qualifiers in your quoted material:

"... probably plays a major role ..."

"... perhaps due to ..."

"... may also be down ..."

"... could also reflect ..."

In other words, it's speculation. Lacking your crystal ball, these professional journalists are reluctant to make unsupported claims. Pay attention and learn.

... yet strawman clings to the notion that increased gun safety training is the primary reason for a decline ...

Nowhere did I make such a claim. I believe that it's an important reason, but neither I nor you have the data to conclusively determine the relative importance of the various causes.

I'm no longer inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt on your misrepresentations. Let's call them something else, shall we? How about prevarication?

[jimmy the one]

100. not speculation

strawman cited: ..probably plays a major role .. perhaps due to .. may also be down .. could also reflect

strawman remarked: it's speculation. Lacking your crystal ball, these professional journalists are reluctant to make unsupported claims. Pay attention and learn.

Pay attention to who, you? yyms already, have for years, don't give me sickening advice alongside.
You take the above 4 fragments out of context & make another of your pathetic specious fractured reasonings.

In context, strawman's out of context fragments, in english vernacular, do not support his inane interpretations:

.. a decline in the share of homes with guns probably plays a major role in the decrease.
...males under 15 was far lower, perhaps due to so-called child access prevention laws

Here's the real kick in the *** for strawman. He says he cited 'speculation', but there is no speculation in the following case, where hunting accidents are truly down, no doubt about it. Big gaffe for mr english expert.

Hunting accidents may also be down, he said, as the share of Americans who hunt appears to have declined.

.. the national drop could also reflect, at least in part, changes in how medical examiners classify deaths

Strawman ignores the qualifier 'at least in part' which once again negates the twist of reason strawman tried to create.

--------------------------------------------------

I wrote: strawman clings to the notion that increased gun safety training is the primary reason for a decline ...

strawman replied: Nowhere did I make such a claim. I believe that it's an important reason, but neither I nor you have the data to conclusively determine the relative importance of the various causes.

Yes you did make such a claim, first through implying, then by doubling down that the order of listing made gun owner safety training the dominant factor. If you hadn't doubled down you could say that, but you doubled down, twice:

strawman first wrote: accidental shootings have fallen considerably since the 1980s, even as there are more and more guns in circulation. To what would you attribute that? Could it be ... safety training

straw mans first double down: One, two, three causal factors. Your favorite comes last. Care to comment?

strawman's second double down: In journalistic style, items are generally presented in order of diminishing importance. In the absence of modifiers such as "most importantly," the assumption is that the most important and reliable information comes first.

Strawman then says: .. neither I nor you have the data to conclusively determine the relative importance of the various cause

Yet that's exactly what you tried to do, establish 'relative importance' conclusively for your own view, by citing your priority rule of english grammar. Bulloffal to that.

[Straw Man]

101. Yes, speculation.

I speculated, and you speculated. You seem to think your speculation carries the weight of fact. It doesn't.

I posed a question: "Could it be ... safety training?" You were unable to disprove this contention. Nevertheless, you pretended that you had done so.

All I did with the "relative importance" claim was establish the fact that some neutral observers gave credence to my view. You tried to deny this. You failed.

[wasupaloopa]

29. What does the NRA do to prevent school shootings? Actually they work toward more

killing by not reducing the amount of guns available. No amount of “guns don’t kill” bull shit is ever going to persuade reasonable people from working to end gun violence.

The thing at work here is a building of a critical mass where voices such as yours will not be listened too.

[gejohnston]

40. What does Bloomberg do?

Nothing. If the Parkland killer used an automatic weapon or homemade flame thrower, do you seriously think corporations, virtue signaling celebrities, or the likes of Shannon Watts or Bloomberg would give a rat's ass? No.

[Straw Man]

49. Expecting the NRA ...

... to work toward "reducing the amount of guns available" is like expecting AAA to work toward reducing the number of cars available. It's not their mission.

Ending gun violence is a noble aim, but a focus on the tool -- a tool which has other very important and legitimate uses -- is wrongheaded and doomed to failure. Restrictive gun laws are obeyed only by those who mean no harm in the first place. If you are in the camp who believe that total disarmament of the American public is the way to do it, I can only say "Good luck with that." It's the mother of all wedge issues, and can only lead to more chaos in our political system.

[wasupaloopa]

52. No no no no the tool is made for killing and is used to kill children in school. That you

don’t care about it is so fucking sad and your useful tool will be used to kill more children in a few weeks time.

Give up you fucking tool for the children’s sake

[Straw Man]

61. Don't presume ...

... to tell me what I do and don't care about. I'm telling you that your approach is doomed to failure. Apparently you believe that total disarmament of the American population is achievable and desirable. It isn't.

No points for the blatant Lovejoy.

[gejohnston]

19. ...........

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Sometimes the best one can hope for...

...is comic relief.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

26. Guns make us safer!

At least that's what the NRA tells me. I mean, just imagine what the carnage in Las Vegas might have been if more people had had guns. Or at Parkland. Or at Sandy Hook.

[wasupaloopa]

31. The fact that we have the second amendment that has been interpreted

to permit a mass shooter to have weapons manufactured and to kill as fast and as often as possible is what is getting school children and citizens killed.

Remove those two and we will be safer. And no I don’t give a shit about gun rights. I care about the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In a country that has as many mass shootings as we have, gun rights need to be curtailed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. re: "...the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

You are aware that the Bill of Rights exists to protect those liberties right?

[MarvinGardens]

36. "I care about the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Me too. What would you change about our gun laws, if the 2nd Amendment were not a concern?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

38. Right. When gun advocates say out loud (and they do) that

their right to a gun, and implicitly to murder me or anyone else, is more important than my right to life, that's when I start saying we should confiscate the guns. The other thing I'm inclined to say invariably gets me alerted on, which hardly seems right since it's my sincere belief, but I will be more discrete. Other than to say my right to stay alive, to not be maimed by gunshots, ought always to be greater than someone else's right to a gun.

[gejohnston]

41. implicitly to murder me or anyone else, is more important than my right to life

80 percent of all murders are criminals killing each other with black market weapons.

Other than to say my right to stay alive, to not be maimed by gunshots, ought always to be greater than someone else's right to a gun.

The only people affected by gun laws are not a problem for you, unless you pose an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury to the shooter.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

44. Really? I am affected by non existant gun laws if I

or anyone at all gets killed or maimed by gunshots.

Note that New Zealand took less than a month to ban the kind of guns used in the recent mosque shooting. And Australia did something similar some years back after a mass gun shooting. I suppose it's sheer coincidence that no more mass shootings have occurred in that country. Unlike, say, this country. Where mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting after domestic violence shooting after random non mass shooting occurs every single day.

It's not as though the only people that get shot are posing an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury to the shooter. Or did all those kids at Parkland or Sandy Hook or in Las Vegas pose such a threat? Really? Are you sure about that.

Maybe I'm delusional, but I think that in those cases, and most every other case we can think of, it was the shooter that posed a grave bodily threat to innocent people, not the other way around.

So yeah, let's take the guns away and see what happens.

The somewhat sad thing is that we will not be able to point to a specific gun massacre that doesn't occur. All we will know is that now gun massacres aren't happening. Which won't be that terrible, I promise.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

55. Just some general discussion

To begin, thanks for participating in, as Samuel Adams called it, "the animating contest of freedom".

...I think that in those cases, and most every other case we can think of, it was the shooter that posed a grave bodily threat to innocent people, not the other way around.

A splendid idea! To refine your thought a bit, "...let's take the guns away...from the unstable and the violent criminal.

I like and trust our system of government. (It's been pointed out here that one of the greatest detriments posed by the incumbent GOP [great orange plague] is the effects on the federal court system.) I realize that New Zealand's system is more efficient than ours but efficiency can be the enemy of freedom.

New Zealand's legislature is sovereign and their Bill of Rights is just another law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Parliament#Sovereignty
New Zealand's legislators can, simply vote to add, change or remove parts or all of NZ-BoR. To employ some hyperbole in explaining, 61 of the 120 of New Zealand's legislators can vote to roast and eat the other 59 and there would be no other part of the government to overrule such a decision.

Part of my problem with what is termed "gun-control" is the terminology. I view control as a myth. In any free society, the effectiveness of "controls" depend on the time, effort and resources a criminal would decide to employ. I also point out the, to date, the Bath School disaster is the worst mass murder at a school. I believe a few were shot but 45 were killed and over 50 were injured. The Winchester Model 54 used was a bolt action rifle holding 5 rounds in a non-detachable magazine.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are not perfect. But they are the beginning by clear example of the best current means toward maintaining freedom.

Since that seventeenth day of September 1787, a one-document constitution has been deemed an essential characteristic of nationhood. Today,of the 192 independent nations of the world, all but a very few have such a constitution or are committed to having one. Among the exceptions are the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Israel—democratic nations with sophisticated constitutional jurisprudence but no one specific document that can be called a constitution.

In my not so humble opinion, a Constitution incorporating a Bill of Rights is THE PATH from monarchy or tyranny to freedom. Ours was the beginning of the worldwide acknowledgement of that. It should not be lightly changed or disparaged and the Founders saw to that in its design.

Having said that I would point out that firearm restrictions are a bit like the CIA; the successes remain mostly unknown or at least untraceable but the failures become widespread news. It's obvious that the current background check system is flawed and somewhat inconsistently applied. Work is need. As far as confiscating guns without individual court verdicts or determinations, I'm not onboard.

[gejohnston]

57. actually, there are thousands of gun laws in the US

Last edited Sun May 26, 2019, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

There are currently at least seven federal gun control laws. California has 110.

Note that New Zealand took less than a month to ban the kind of guns used in the recent mosque shooting. And Australia did something similar some years back after a mass gun shooting. I suppose it's sheer coincidence that no more mass shootings have occurred in that country. Unlike, say, this country. Where mass shooting after mass shooting after mass shooting after domestic violence shooting after random non mass shooting occurs every single day.

NZ's PM acted like a dictator, and NZ has zero freedom of press and speech. If the Censor office says you can't read it, you go to prison for reading it. Parliamentary systems, like all democracies, devolved into authoritarian oligarchies, like NZ and Australia. There have been just as many mass shootings in Australia before as after, and just as many people killed in mass murder.

It's not as though the only people that get shot are posing an immediate threat of death or grave bodily injury to the shooter. Or did all those kids at Parkland or Sandy Hook or in Las Vegas pose such a threat? Really? Are you sure about that.

I said 90 percent. Per capita, we are 12th when counting only European countries.

So yeah, let's take the guns away and see what happens.

They did in Mexico and Brazil. How did that work out? The consensous among criminologists are clear, there is no evidence gun control laws affect crime rates. Crime rates were lower in Western Europe when they had no gun control laws at all. Gun control laws, including UK, were passed because the ruling elites don't like the masses being armed. UK started passing laws in the 1920s because the upper classes were afraid of the many working class men, who didn't have the right to vote but were still drafted, returning from World War One.

Maybe I'm delusional, but I think that in those cases, and most every other case we can think of, it was the shooter that posed a grave bodily threat to innocent people, not the other way around.

Yes, and as the many mass shootings and mass stabbings in other parts of the world clearly show, it is delusional to think laws will stop anyone. It is also delusional to think that a policy, not based on fact or logic, but on demonetization, emotional manipulation, logical fallacies, and made up bullshit will actually be effective.

Local NZ media reported he left the second mosque after someone returned fire.
The reason for support is always highest immediately after a mass murder and goes back down afterward. People are reacting on emotion. Once people put their critical thinking caps back on, they realize the ideologues and propagandists were full of shit. The PM took advantage of the emotions to pass what she could not get through parliament before, or two months afterward, it also played into the killer's hands. That is what he wanted, he said that is the only reason he used legally obtained firearms, or really firearms at all. Of course, the average NZ person isn't allowed to know that. Downloading or possessing a copy of the rant will get you ten years in prison, 14 years for passing it.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

88. BTW, about the lands down under

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-48510881
Darwin shooting: Four killed in northern Australia


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44099994
Margaret River shooting: Grandfather 'planned' Australia deaths


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-47924270
Melbourne nightclub shooting leaves one dead, three injured


https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/gunsmith-leon-james-baird-jailed-for-manufacturing-supplying-firearms-able-to-shoot-up-to-600-rounds-a-minute/news-story/f8f17d439488313548ae3274442284a2
Gunsmith Leon James Baird jailed for manufacturing, supplying firearms able to shoot up to 600 rounds a minute

[Straw Man]

46. Odd ...

Right. When gun advocates say out loud (and they do) that

their right to a gun, and implicitly to murder me or anyone else, is more important than my right to life, that's when I start saying we should confiscate the guns.

I have never heard a gun rights advocate proclaim the right to murder anyone. Implicitly? Murder is explicitly forbidden by the criminal code.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

53. Wasn't it Joe the Plumber

(and I'm sure he's not the only one) who was quoted as saying other people's lives simply didn't matter as much as his right to a gun? I realize that he's not directly claiming the right to murder others, but it is saying that the right of gun owners to kill and maim with those guns is more important than anyone else's right to life. And not to be crippled by a gun shot or several.

[Straw Man]

60. Joe the Plumber? Please.

I realize that he's not directly claiming the right to murder others, but it is saying that the right of gun owners to kill and maim with those guns is more important than anyone else's right to life.

I repeat: There is no "right to kill and maim." There is a right to own a weapon. The question is this: Do we take away rights from all because some abuse them?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

95. Just a few fine points here

Your straw man here depends on these statements that are inaccurate and oversimplified. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a Liberty Right. The Right to Life is a Claim Right.

Liberty rights and claim rights are the inverse of one another: a person has a liberty right permitting him to do something only if there is no other person who has a claim right forbidding him from doing so; and likewise, if a person has a claim right against someone else, that other person's liberty is thus limited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_rights_and_liberty_rights

The scope of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a part, is about the six basic objectives written in the Preamble:

-form a more perfect Union
-establish Justice
-insure domestic Tranquility
-provide for the common defence
-promote the general Welfare
-secure the Blessings of Liberty

To that end Amendments I, II, IX and X list specific liberties and protect others not specifically detailed. The other Amendments list Claim Rights which depend on the respect of both the government and the whole of the People to be enjoyed.

Saying that the right to a gun includes implicitly the right to murder is your straw man.

You do absolutely have the right to life and anyone who murders you is engaging in a crime. However, just as prior restraint (censorship) is not allowed by the First Amendment, wholesale confiscation and prohibition is not allowed by the Second.

The fact that there is an item or some bit of knowledge is a means to commit a crime does not authorize its confiscation by the government. I have a checkbook. If I write a check for $5,000,000 and try to cash it, that's a crime. This is not a justification for the government to take my checkbook.

[sharedvalues]

77. The 2nd Amendment only applies to MILITIAS. And Scalia got bought by gun companies

Scalia died on a rightwing-billionaire-funded gun junket.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

82. Have a link:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172207514#post44

In balance, laws and decisions and opinions on legal matters must devolve from a hierarchy of foundational principles, precedents and other laws. Title 10 § 246 of the US Code was obviously formulated such that the unorganized militia exists and, by name, is the militia or a part thereof. Holding the opinion that members of the unorganized militia are not part of the militia when they are so named by law in 1903. Surely the Justice's decision in Miller could not have missed the relevance of this law written in their lifetimes.

I would further suggest that the text of the Second Amendment and the 1903 law both agree that the RKBA is an individual right. As Chief Justice Marshall said, "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect...". The effect of "the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is rather clear. Trying to suggest that this protection of the RKBA is somehow undone by the prior clause mentioning the militia is to suggest that what the Founders wrote and that what the states ratified was not clear. And that further, in 1903, Congress again recognized the people in general as the unorganized militia with no purpose or effect in mind.

[sharedvalues]

83. That's just false. Here's some truth for you.

You’ve been lied to by gun CEOs that want to make money and don’t care if they get Americans kids killed.
Don’t be a useful idiot for the gun lobby.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.
By MICHAEL WALDMAN May 19, 2014

Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is the author of The Second Amendment: A Biography.
“A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

84. Enjoy the flat earth while you can n/t

[sharedvalues]

85. I'm sorry you choose to persist in bad-faith arguments

I'm sorry you choose to persist in bad-faith arguments that deny the truth.

Have an excellent weekend!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. re: bad-faith

Bad-faith is typically defined:
"double mindedness or double heartedness in duplicity, fraud, or deception. It may involve intentional deceit of others, or self-deception." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith
"Acting in bad faith is an act of intentional dishonesty that occurs from someone violating the basic principals of honesty in their dealings with others." https://www.upcounsel.com/acting-in-bad-faith

So my options here are, (a) infer you mean that I am somehow double minded on an issue, or (b) infer that you mean I'm just lying.

I say, right now, that both of these are just a bunch of crap. A list here from your statements in this thread:
1 "...the NRA...is a terrorist organization that advocates for getting our kids killed at schools."
2 "The overwhelming empirical evidence indicates that the presence of a gun makes children less safe"
3 "The NRA gets our kids killed. Therefore it enables terrorism."
4 "Solution to NRA getting kids killed: disband the NRA"
5 "You're aware how much gun and ammo CEOs funnel to the NRA right?"
6 "You’re aware of NRA TV, right?"
7 "I hope you do not belong to an org that gets kids killed like the NRA."
8 "The 2nd Amendment only applies to MILITIAS."
9 "You’ve been lied to by gun CEOs..."
10 "Here's a picture of all the kids the NRA, and everyone who subsidizes them by buying guns and ammo, got killed at Sandy Hook."
11 "The NRA advocated for no gun restrictions and the shooter ended up with access to guns."

My pointed replies for these:
1, 3, 7, 10 and 11- Repeatedly asserting something about the NRA does not prove your point nor does it really convince anyone who hasn't already been to your kool-aid tasting and liked it. This IS a hallmark of propaganda to simply repeat claim.
7- No I am not a member. I've never been a member. I have competed in private and college level shooting events. My home range in college was sponsored by the Army ROTC. I've also shot at a range owned by the PA National Guard. I've never contributed to the NRA.
2- A rather vague generality the wording of which makes a conclusion about its veracity impossible. I could make the same statement about stairs and swimming pools. Responding that guns are worse than stairs and pools does not change the statistics. According to the CDC for the 2017 (the most recent year available) there were 290 drowning deaths and 284 shooting deaths for ages 0 to 12 years. [ https://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html ] This tool lets you explore real statistics from the CDC. You remember the CDC. It that group that is supposedly prohibited from collecting this type of information.
4- I'm really uncertain what to infer from this. It's apparent you dislike the NRA. Maybe you believe that without them tyrannical gun restrictions would proceed unimpeded. I will take this opportunity to reinforce the point I made with the post that started this entire thread:

When I quoted, "Ghost Guns Are Everywhere in California" I did so with a purpose. California has some very restrictive gun laws. Many pro-restriction folks point to CA laws as an example of what should be law in other areas. In starting this thread, I am calling attention to the absolute fact that, regardless of ever-evolving laws, guns are still present. The cliche "close a door and a window opens" comes to mind. The same pattern is true of organizations. If you remove one (somehow) like the NRA, another will appear to take its place. Many litigations have been financed, at least partly, by the Second Amendment Foundation.

5- I infer that was a comment on corporate control money being donated to the NRA. I will point to my statement above and conclude that your cause is no better off if that cash goes to an equivalent group doing the same thing.
6- Yes I am. I've read on this site people writing about it. That's about it.
8- The militia in this country consists of pretty much everyone. Read the law. [ https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172207963#post82 ]
9- Impossible. I've not read anything written by them nor spoken to them nor listened to any speeches they may have made.

Simple economics dictates that cost of anything is determined by supply and demand. If you make it illegal for a convicted violent criminal to walk into a store and buy what he needs to engage in further crime, he will obtain that item some other way. Maybe a straw purchase or a theft is what is needed. Let me point out that Australia has restrictions but:
[ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-11/homemade-submachine-gun-and-weapons-parts-toowoomba-raid/10709378 ]

I don't think restrictive gun laws do anything but send a message. I am tolerant of these laws but I make the point again and again that "control" is a myth. The OK Corral was about gun-"control" and that event itself amply demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the such laws.

Don't mistake my tolernance of these ineffective laws for my approval of any of them.
To quote Andrew Niccol: "Where there's a will, there's a weapon."

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. An obvious (and clumsy) propagandist lecturing others about 'bad faith'?

Oookay...

[sharedvalues]

75. Guns get our kids killed

Just wanted to go on record, I know you agree.

[guillaumeb]

27. Guns are designed to kill.

And these ghost guns represent defiance of any attempt at controlling or regulating weapons.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1262&pid=11339

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. I might accept that sniper rifles are designed to kill but guns in general? Not so much other guns.

Last edited Sun May 26, 2019, 07:37 PM - Edit history (1)

[guillaumeb]

37. Guns are designed to kill.

They can be used as paper weights, but that is not the intent of gun designers.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

39. If guns in general aren't designed to kill, then what are they designed for?

Last edited Sat May 25, 2019, 11:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Providing something warm to snuggle up to? To be used as a flashlight in a dark forest? To sing lullabies to babies? Help me out here.

[Straw Man]

50. This gun ...

... was designed to knock flying clay discs out of the air. It's really not much good for anything else.



This one was designed to put little holes in paper. Ditto on its relative uselessness.



This one was designed to kill ... deer. Some may have a problem with that, but I don't.



The military consider this one to be a "personal defense weapon" -- their weapons that are "designed to kill" are generally larger and more formidable.



Was that helpful at all?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

54. I bet if you get in front of a gun designed

to knock clay disks out of the air, you won't come away unscathed. Although perhaps the one only designed to punch holes in paper won't do much damage, but those examples are essentially meaningless. The vast majority of guns are designed to kill.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. Just to make a point:

I bet if you get in front of a Renault Midlum cargo truck, designed to move freight, you won't come away unscathed.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

67. Once again, with rare exceptions guns are designed to kill living things.

Cargo trucks are not.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

68. A difference without a distinction

The 86 people are just as dead.

Neither trucks nor guns are evil. Those who use them to murder are.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

69. Further

You seem to think that the ideas of the tools designer have some impact on their use for good or evil. I can't remember which (maybe Gatling or Hotchkiss) one designer thought his creation would help end wars because it was so deadly. That worked so well that within a century nuclear weapons were created.

The idea that the purpose the designer had in mind makes a device more or less evil is illogical. It would not be surprising to find that a handgun maker somewhere specifically designed a gun for use by the police. Since the duty of the police is 'to protect and to serve', I can't say that the approved use of a firearm by law enforcement is for killing. Law enforcement employs deadly force to protect the officers and general public. Many private citizens carry for the same reason. Last I read there are over a million folks with carry permits and several states require no permit at all.

By convention and treaty (1899 Hague) small arms such as the AK-47 and M-16, and specifically their ammunition, were designed to wound not kill. This accord requires soft lead bullets be jacketed with a hard metal to keep them from expanding and being more deadly and producing undue suffering in battle. A wound from a FMJ bullet tends to be cleaner and more easily repaired.

None of the aims of designers and those who carry guns preclude criminals from misusing guns or other tools for murder and evil.

Control is a myth. The most effective employment of control that I am aware of exists at ADX Florence in Colorado. The only real control in a free society is self-control. When you vote, vote to inspire actions of government to help decent folks and aid their ideals of self-control. Laws work better when they address the public adult to adult rather than parent to child.

[Alea]

78. You completely ignore self defense in all your replies

Since the first human walked this planet there have been humans that wrongfully kill for gain or because they are crazy, and there have been humans willing to kill to stop them. Killing in self defense is a inherent human right from day one. It doesn't matter if it's with a bone, or a rock, bare hands, or a gun. You're right about guns being made to kill, but they are not made or sold solely to murder. Murder with a gun is no different than murder with a car, rock, hammer, knife, bare hands, or any other object that can be used to attack and kill someone. When someone attempts to murder us, we have the inherent right to stop them, killing them if that's what it takes.

So when it comes to that argument that guns are specifically made to kill... yes, and thank god for it because I would have a pretty hard time defending myself against someone intent on killing me otherwise. Aside from war, the reasons the population of this Country have guns that kill, is for self defense killing. Out of the 300 plus million people in this country, only a small amount obtain a gun to murder, and no gun manufacturer or gun store sells guns for murder. The fact that they get used to murder is no different, zero, than a hammer used to murder with, even if a hammer is not specifically made to kill.

With that said, when was the last time you gave a shit about anyone killed with a car, or a hammer? When was the last time you cared enough about a whole family wiped out by a drunk driver enough to post about it on the internet like you post about killings with guns? Even though far more are killed with cars and hammers and drunk drivers. Yes it's tragic when 20 kids are killed in a school by a maniac. It makes the news and everyone cares and says we must do something. Yet in that same day more kids die in auto accidents. In that same week more kids are killed by drunk drivers. In that same year far more kids, and adults will be killed by cars, rocks, knives, or some other object that isn't a gun, and you won't care enough to post about it unless maybe one of those non gun deaths is someone close to you.

I'll bet you one thing. If someone you love and care about is about to be murdered, and they use a gun to kill their assailant, you will be glad they are alive and glad they had access to a gun. You may hate the fact that they had to do it, but you will be glad they killed in self defense with no other choice and are still with you. Don't even try to tell me with a straight face that you would rather have your loved one murdered than use a gun to save that life.

I'm not picking on you personally. The use of the word "you" is for anyone that tries to make the argument you are trying to make in this thread or anywhere else.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. re: "If someone you love and care about...

...is about to be murdered, and they use a gun to kill their assailant, you will be glad they are alive and glad they had access to a gun."

Reminds me of a quote: "If you’ve got to resist, you’re chances of being hurt are less the more lethal your weapon. If that were my wife, would I want her to have a .38 Special in her hand? Yeah." - Dr. Arthur Kellerman, (Health Magazine, March/April 1994).

[sharedvalues]

76. Evidence that the NRA is a terrorist organization.

This kind of attitude gets American kids killed.
This is no laughing matter.

Here's a picture of all the kids the NRA, and everyone who subsidizes them by buying guns and ammo, got killed at Sandy Hook. The NRA advocated for no gun restrictions and the shooter ended up with access to guns. It's a sin against any God and it's a sin against American children.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Authoritarians and moral panic-mongers love the "Won't somebody think of the children?" schtick

You're far from the first, BTW:

















https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

"Think of the children" -also "What about the children?"- is a cliché that evolved into a rhetorical tactic. Literally it refers to children's rights (as in discussions of child labor). In debate, however, it is a plea for pity that is used as an appeal to emotion, and therefore it becomes a logical fallacy.

Logical fallacy


In their 2002 book, Art, Argument, and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate, John Meany and Kate Shuster called the use of the phrase "Think of the children" in debate a type of logical fallacy and an appeal to emotion. According to the authors, a debater may use the phrase to emotionally sway members of the audience and avoid logical discussion. They provide an example: "I know this national missile defense plan has its detractors, but won't someone please think of the children?"Their assessment was echoed by Margie Borschke in an article for the journal Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, with Borschke calling its use a rhetorical tactic.

Ethicist Jack Marshall described "Think of the children!" as a tactic used in an attempt to end discussion by invoking an unanswerable argument. According to Marshall, the strategy succeeds in preventing rational debate. He called its use an unethical manner of obfuscating debate, misdirecting empathy towards an object which may not have been the focus of the original argument.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. You're not the first demagogue to sanctimoniously proclaim that you're trying to 'save' children...

...from harm, merely the latest in a very long line. Harry J. Anslinger, Anita Bryant and Charles Keating are good recent historical examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Keating

Charles Humphrey Keating, Jr. (December 4, 1923 – March 31, 2014) was an American athlete, lawyer, real estate developer, banker, financier, and activist best known for his role in the savings and loan scandal of the late 1980s.

Keating was a champion swimmer for the University of Cincinnati in the 1940s. From the late 1950s through the 1970s, he was a noted anti-pornography activist, founding the organization Citizens for Decent Literature and serving as a member on the 1969 President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography.

In the 1980s, Keating ran American Continental Corporation and the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, and took advantage of loosened restrictions on banking investments. His enterprises began to suffer financial problems and were investigated by federal regulators. His financial contributions to, and requests for regulatory intervention from five sitting U.S. senators led to those legislators being dubbed the "Keating Five".

When Lincoln failed in 1989 it cost the federal government over $3 billion and about 23,000 customers were left with worthless bonds. In the early 1990s, Keating was convicted in both federal and state courts of many counts of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy. He served four and a half years in prison before those convictions were overturned in 1996. In 1999, he pleaded guilty to a more limited set of wire fraud and bankruptcy fraud counts, and was sentenced to the time he had already served. Keating spent his final years in low-profile real estate activities until his death in 2014.

I call it the Harold Hill approach:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

81. Here's a link:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1172207963#post35
Here's the text: "I might accept that sniper rifles are designed to kill but guns in general? Not so much other guns."

I've read your anti-NRA campaign posts and don't follow you at all.
My post, which you replied to, was in answer to a claim that guns are designed to kill.
Go fight with yourself. I didn't mention the NRA. Try to keep on point here.