Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America - Page 11
Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 162

Thread: Fully automatic Submachineguns should be reinstated in America

  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    Nice Picture Bo
    Semper Fi

  2.   
  3. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    You can't use that report to support that " logical" conclusion because of the disconnect between the report and the "logical" conclusion:

    The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.
    Ha! Ha! Ha! You can use the report to say that a very anti-gun bunch couldn't manufacture or misrepresent the data enough to make the claim that the gun laws were effective. Combine this data with the data from Lott and Mustard's study and you have a pretty good basis for the conclusion that less gun control is associated with less crime and violence and more gun control can not be shown to be effective.

    Your's is the argument of the hoplophobes who are desperate to maintain their claim for the need to disarm our citizens. There is no basis to support the "reasonableness" of most (if not all) gun laws.

    The report then takes that raw data and claims that the higher deaths are attributable to higher rates of gun ownership, which sounds logical, until you read in the middle of the report that "no study that is a snapshot of the U.S. over a short period of time can prove causation..." Bingo. Everything after that is mere speculation. Same as if they found statistics that there are more DWI deaths in states with more hours of sunshine, and then concluded that the sun causes DWI deaths.
    I suspect that the report is even more dishonest than you are saying. Rarely do anti-gun "studies" support what the conclusions of the "study" say and often they support the opposite. Even more often they do not properly (honestly) set up the study in the first place. Having read a number of anti-gun "studies" the first conclusion that one should come to, is that it is most likely dishonest based on the percentage of such studies that are.

    So you can argue "science" all you want about "causation" but at some point science is going to have to conclude that when the statistics are overwhelmingly one way, it might actually be what it appears to be.

    You need to spend less time with the Brady Bunch and more time reading Kleck, Kates, and Lott and the more honest science.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  4. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    Beyond cartoons, reading and comprehension is a skill acquired through practice:

    The report’s lead author, Dr. Robert Hahn of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says “it is critical to note” that the review does not mean that gun laws are ineffective.

    “We mean simply that we do not yet know what effects, if any, the laws have” on gun-related violence, Hahn says, and that the Task Force does not recommend that current laws be changed in any way “until effectiveness can be demonstrated one way or the other.”
    Gee, that must be because there hasn't been enough time for the oppressive gun laws to work. I mean heck, what's a few decades. It clearly is just a fluke that as more and more states go to "Shall Issue" CCW laws their crime and violence go down or at worst remain the same. It must be a fluke that as we've added large numbers of new guns in the hands of the public since BO's election crime has gone down.

    If there is no proof that a gun law reduces crime/violence, then the 2nd Amendment, if we are to maintain any semblance of actually following the Constitution, must prevail, "shall not be infringed". The Constitution doesn't get much clearer.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  5. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by maybejim View Post
    Gee, that must be because there hasn't been enough time for the oppressive gun laws to work. I mean heck, what's a few decades. It clearly is just a fluke that as more and more states go to "Shall Issue" CCW laws their crime and violence go down or at worst remain the same. It must be a fluke that as we've added large numbers of new guns in the hands of the public since BO's election crime has gone down.

    If there is no proof that a gun law reduces crime/violence, then the 2nd Amendment, if we are to maintain any semblance of actually following the Constitution, must prevail, "shall not be infringed". The Constitution doesn't get much clearer.
    The quoted material is from the lead author of the report - he is simply stating that the conclusion of his study is that there is no evidence either way with respect to gun control laws.

    We might all wish that there was a study that concluded that gun control laws don't work, just as he other side would wish that there was a study concluding that gun control laws do work. But the report that was proffered concludes no such study exists.

    I was just pointing that out so that no one makes the mistake of offering that study up as proof that gun controls do not work, because such a claim would easily shot down by the quote from the lead author of the report.

    As to "shall not be infringed" it never has meant that there can be no limitations on a specified right. That simply is not the way our Constitution was designed or construed. the Majority opinion makes that very clear in Helller.

    Just as an example, you will never be able to legally carry a gun into the United States Supreme Court. Your right to posses a gun will always be "infringed" at the doors to the Supreme Court, the Capitol and just about every other federal building.

    Protecting 2nd amendment rights needs constant attention, but trying to protect versions of such a right that simply don't exist takes resources and energy away from the effort to protect rights that do exist.

  6. #105

    Actually... There are a lot of studies to prove gun control does not reduce crime…

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post


    Recently in the State of California, whom has the most prohibitive firearms laws in the Country, bar none; 4 police officers were shot, 3 were killed by a recently paroled, career felon, whom could not only not legally purchase the weapon he used to kill 3 of the 4 officers, neither could any individual in the entire state of California, that was not associated with on-duty police work or military or hears the kicker, a member of the government...
    Three police officers killed in Oakland shootings - CNN.com

    GUN CONTROL DOES NOT REDUCE CRIME...

    Killed in Virginia-Tech Gun Free Zone:










    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...pen-watch.html

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...ree-zones.html

    Yep, certainly appears we have a couple of forum infiltrators, who do not understand...
    The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government:
    Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

    There is not one single tangible piece of evidence or statistics that has not been manipulated that supports in the history of the world, that firearm and weapon control, regulation, registration, etc., had reduced crime...





    John Lott's Website

    More guns, less crime: FBI reports crime rates continue to decline:
    NRA-ILA :: More guns, less crime: FBI reports crime rates continue to decline

    Crime & Criminal Justice
    More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2008
    Gun Ownership at All-Time High, New FBI Report Shows, Violent Crime at a 35-Year Low, Murder at a 43-Year Low:

    NRA-ILA :: More Guns, Less Crime (Again) in 2008

    70 Million More Guns…38% Less Violent Crime:
    NRA-ILA :: 70 Million More Guns?38% Less Violent Crime

    Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives:
    Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

    More Guns, Less Crime in '09:
    American Thinker: More Guns, Less Crime in '09

    The NRA Has Lost Its Way:
    Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

    NRA President's Testimony During Congressional Debate
    of the National Firearms Act of 1934:

    1934 NFA HEARINGS

    NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934
    In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."

    Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

    YouTube - Gun Control Does Not Reduce Crime

    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/2nd-a...fiscation.html




    Kidnapping Capital of the U.S.A. – Phoenix Arizona:
    Kidnapping Capital of the U.S.A. – Phoenix Arizona : Homeland Security News

    Gun Control Does Not Reduce Crime :: Argumentative Persuasive Essays

    Crime and Criminals Gun Control Laws Do Not Reduce Crime

    Fort Hood Victims List
    NOGODS, et.al. ... Try reading... you just might LEARN something...

    Two things in the history of the world that firearm/weapon control has proved...

    1. firearm/weapon control does not reduce crime.
    2. firearm/weapon control has always led to total confiscation.

    REPEAL USC 18 922(o)

    "The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion." - Edmund Burke

  7. If there is no evidence to support that a restriction on all citizens' freedom will serve any useful purpose, why would you do it? I think the burden of proof is on those who want to take rights away, not reinstate them. Thus, that CDC report is still a perfect anti-gun control argument.

  8. #107
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceFrank View Post
    If there is no evidence to support that a restriction on all citizens' freedom will serve any useful purpose, why would you do it? I think the burden of proof is on those who want to take rights away, not reinstate them. Thus, that CDC report is still a perfect anti-gun control argument.
    Why would you try to make sense? You have to think like a hoplophobe. Make a law. If it doesn't do any good, add another law. Keep doing that until no one can follow the laws and then just arrest those you don't like.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

  9. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    NOGODS, et.al. ... Try reading... you just might LEARN something...

    Two things in the history of the world that firearm/weapon control has proved...

    1. firearm/weapon control does not reduce crime.
    2. firearm/weapon control has always led to total confiscation.

    REPEAL USC 18 922(o)
    And your basis for those claims?

    The cited reported to which I was commenting makes it clear that it concluded there were no conclusive studies either way. You may wish it said otherwise but it did not.

    Eventually all forum discussions revert to some reference to Hitler as predicted by the Godwin rule.

  10. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by SpaceFrank View Post
    If there is no evidence to support that a restriction on all citizens' freedom will serve any useful purpose, why would you do it? I think the burden of proof is on those who want to take rights away, not reinstate them. Thus, that CDC report is still a perfect anti-gun control argument.
    I agree, it could be used for that purpose. that does make logical sense.

    If the burden of proof is on one making an affirmative assertion (e.g., "guns should be controlled by laws to protect people") then yes, the study is useful for disputing such a claim.

    But it can't be used to assert that gun control laws don't work.

  11. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalifornia & Idaho
    Posts
    1,052
    Quote Originally Posted by nogods View Post
    And your basis for those claims?

    The cited reported to which I was commenting makes it clear that it concluded there were no conclusive studies either way. You may wish it said otherwise but it did not.

    Eventually all forum discussions revert to some reference to Hitler as predicted by the Godwin rule.
    Gee, you still ignore that if there is no evidence that a gun control law works then there is no logical way to claim that it is a reasonable law. Gun control laws only restrict law abiding citizens. Our Founding Fathers believed in liberty not laws restricting liberty with no basis for need.
    Maybejim

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member CRPA
    Life Member SASS

    What you say isn't as important as what the other person hears

Page 11 of 17 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. America as the Last Man Standing Against Islam
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 02:37 PM
  2. Obama & The Progressives Planned Destruction of America...
    By Bohemian in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2010, 05:57 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-08-2010, 07:32 PM
  4. The Communist Takeover of America
    By HK4U in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 10:05 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 09:34 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast