Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns When Gun Control Freaks Go Wild:-)

We just did that, Allen. The last 8 years. My owning a little hand gun or even a big 357magnum wouldn't have changed that.
Or even something Greger referred to that could be dragged from the back of my car.

I got a citation recently inches from my front door for not dragging my seat belt on quick enough. I always wear my seat belt(since I tried to eat a steering wheel more that 20 years ago) I just hadn't got it clicked on yet. I was incensed.
Should I have blown his brains out?
I just drove through parts of Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina. I don't know what's going on but the police presence was unbelievable in all three states. Blue lights everywhere. Look out everybody. I think states are trying to make some money.
God, I hate it. The atmosphere is terrible.
But I can't change that with a gun or an arsenal.

I know what you're saying Allen. Truly I do. It's why I vote third party and believe so much in trying to change the system.
That and my choices come from living with a gun toting paranoid man for many years early in my life.
And he was somebody to be frightened of.
No, I'll take my chances now.

I've got relatives like that too, Emma.

Yes Feinstein and Schumer are hypocrites.

The existence of critics does not itself invalidate his work. The points made by his critics certainly raises legitimate questions about that work.

Even without those questions, one would want some dgree of addidional studies that confirm his results. After all, what might YOU say if all the evidence for Global CLimate change rested upon one single study? Wouldn't you ask for supporting research?

If the single study on Global climate change came from a researcher who created an imaginary student to praise his own work... wouldn't you judge the researcher as questionable?

I was just having some fun with modern 'lib' speak, EmmaG. Referring to others as "haters" is popular with some modern 'libs' who use it against those who hold a political or social position contrary to theirs. To be more precise, I could have written, "and does it ever upset those who are intolerant and contemptuous of the lawful conduct of their neighbors, and wish to use the violence of the state to force them to conform to their will". Or I could have written, "and does it ever upset those who have a bigoted view of those persons who elect to exercise their right to the private ownership and use of firearms. But, I didn't.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Here's something for everyone to consider:

If you don't believe that the simple fact that someone might be armed is indeed a deterrent and if you'd never own a gun then I suggest you encourage others to do the same by doing the following:

Wear a shirt or a pin that says something to the effect that you do not support gun ownership and that you are not armed.

Place a sticker on you car window saying that the occupants do not support gun ownership and are not armed.

Place a sign in your window at home saying that you do not support gun ownership and that there are no guns in the house.

Would you do it? I damned sure wouldn't. I doubt anyone here would. I doubt anyone here will respond and admit that they wouldn't dare do it. The simple fact is that you could be armed is a deterrent. Everyone here knows that, whether you want to admit it or not.

It may be "related" in the same way a third cousin twice removed by marriage is "related", but that quickly fell away when you made general claims concerning the defensive use of firearms, stereoman.
Yours,
Issodhos

I'm impressed. You selected some sources that are critical of another prof's work. It would maybe be relevant if I were defending John Lott's work in this thread, or if I was using it to support an argument I was making, but i am not. But, it does make a good red herring.;-)

As to WND vs MotherJones, neither is a favorite of mine.
Yours,
Issodhos

Anyone advocating a prohibitive tax on ammunition that would result in only the wealthy few being able to use a firearm, are engaged in supporting a defacto ban of firearms, stereoman. I believe you have advocated that in this forum, as well a others. The recently overturned ban on private handgun usage and ownership by the District of Columbia was a gun ban for the vast majority of DC residents, so that was a concrete example not requiring a reliance on a "national level discussion". Chicago still has a handgun ban in effect. But, of course, we will not artificially restrict the conversation to an ill-defined "national level discussion". You can also do a google search if you wish to find organizations that support gun bans.
Yours,
Issodhos

I would be happy to have more studies confirm his findings, Ardy. I would also be happy to have other studies that would correct any inacurracies that may be in his work. In short, I prefer studies that are correct in their findings.
Yours,
Issodhos

*Laughs* Is that true, Pondering? [/quote]

Answering for him, no, it is not true.:-)


Was there a purpose to you making this false claim, Greger?
Yours,
Issodhos

Oh. I should have realized that you would create your own definition, since no generally accepted definition would fit. My bad.

Handguns are suddenly the only type of firearm?

So you brought up Lott's study as a red herring. Ah, good. Glad to have that out of the way.

It may be much more closely related, but I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that. Nor do I expect you to actually respond to the arguments I raise. No one is required to do that on this board. They stand as offered.