Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The supposed "debunking" of Lott's studies takes the form of leftists guessing madly that his statements aren't accurate, backed up by other leftists who also admit they cannot find any evidence (without mentioning whether they tried very hard) to support it.
Since then, many other studies have backed up Lott's claims that there are millions of defensive gun uses by law-abiding gun owners every year. In most of then, the gun was never fired, and sometimes not even brandished. The number of aggressors killed is very small.
Aritcle on study done by the Obama administration: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ It also shows that far more people used guns to ward off attacks by robbers, rapists, murderers, and people threatening them, that at ever used to commit crimes.
Gun-right-haters, knowing well how dismal the results of their attempts at reducing shootings by making more laws, are desperate to attack the studies that prove guns themselves to help more people and save more lives from murderers, rapists, robbers etc. Once again, they find themselves on the wrong side of the truth, as well as the welfare of law-abiding Americns.
The Founders wrote the 2nd amendment because of the time they lived in. Militias were very important on the frontier out of necessity and there was no resemblance of law enforcement in the modern sense.
I'd bet the Founders would have been appalled by what's happened with gun ownership in these modern time. I hunt and go to the range about once a month, but "gun nuts" have multiplied like rabbits lately it seems.
The second amendment was put in place to protect the first amendment and to protect against enemies both foreign and domestic from rising up and taking the rights of the people.
When you consider the weapons of the day they were single shot flintlock rifles that both the military and the civilian used. Today it is ludicrous to think that a civilian militia armed with even the most modern arms allowed by our gov could possibly stand up to what an invading army would be using against them. This is not even considering drones and such.
The founding Fathers could never foresee the development of modern arms and something else they could have never foreseen is someone shooting their fellow man over nothing but the desire to kill.
We could also argue about the FF and the First amendment and they having no clue that something like the internet would be invented.
What I think is the most ridiculous when it comes to the Gun Grabbing Libs that would destroy every last gun in the country except those that the Gov has to "protect" us of course. There was a man not that long ago who seized firearms from the public under the guise that it was for their protection and his name was Adolph. I think it is ironic that the Libs want to take the guns while they call Trump Hitler.
It doesn't matter where they were smuggled in from. What matters is that they were smuggled in. We have looser gun laws than Jamaica, but Jamaica is a more violent country than the USA. Sounds like the problem is more about criminals, about individuals who don't value life, individuals who refuse to obey laws, and people who believe in solving disputes with violence.
I never said they didn't think about technological advances. My point is that even with the Kalthoff repeater, it took over a hundred years before something came along to out fire it.
Technology moved slowly. I still maintain, that if they had known the fire power and the amount of weaponry and it's uses, in the US today, they wouldn't be happy.
However whether or not they knew, didn't know, or cared is not important. What IS important is what is actually happening today, and what should be done about it.
Interesting links by the way
So although you claim nobody can be in their head, you are going to keep telling us what was in their head?
Its still a moot point. They were not discussing specific weaponry, the underlying premise is to be able to protect yourself from someone committing violence against you. You need a weapon comparable to their own, that is the core issue, not the technology.
There are gangs in every country, i.e. Yakuza in Japan, Triad in China. But these societies are under strict gun control. They also have their share of gang wars. But with weapons primarily like knife, the casualty is much lower and hardly any collateral damage like innocent pedestrians hit by stray bullets as in U.S.
Well, Jamaica has strict gun control too. Hasn't stop criminals from getting their hands on guns and killing people. Hasn't stopped carnage from taking place.
As I've stated ad nauseam, AS A FOREIGNER YOU'VE GOT NO BUSINESS BUTTING INTO OUR AFFAIRS. I'm gonna' have to leave it at that.
So, with four Canadian dead in this shooting at the hands of an American, when would you say it would entitle us to an opinion on an open forum and become "our business"?
Six dead, ten, or never.
You're certainly correct with the "nauseum" part though.
So, with four Canadian dead in this shooting at the hands of an American, when would you say it would entitle us to an opinion on an open forum and become "our business"?
Six dead, ten, or never.
You're certainly correct with the "nauseum" part though.
ex ny, i have to agree with brusan here. just because he is canadian, doesnt mean he cant express his opinion on an open forum like this. if people are allowed on this forum, regardless of what country they live in, they have a right to express their opinion. after all isnt that what we americans are constantly pushing for? freedom of expression? is brusan opinion any less important than those of us that live in this country?
while he is in canada, the US constitution doesnt apply to him, or anyone else in any country other than the US. but that doesnt limit his right to speak here.
The supposed "debunking" of Lott's studies takes the form of leftists guessing madly that his statements aren't accurate, backed up by other leftists who also admit they cannot find any evidence (without mentioning whether they tried very hard) to support it.
Since then, many other studies have backed up Lott's claims that there are millions of defensive gun uses by law-abiding gun owners every year. In most of then, the gun was never fired, and sometimes not even brandished. The number of aggressors killed is very small.
Aritcle on study done by the Obama administration: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ It also shows that far more people used guns to ward off attacks by robbers, rapists, murderers, and people threatening them, that at ever used to commit crimes.
Gun-right-haters, knowing well how dismal the results of their attempts at reducing shootings by making more laws, are desperate to attack the studies that prove guns themselves to help more people and save more lives from murderers, rapists, robbers etc. Once again, they find themselves on the wrong side of the truth, as well as the welfare of law-abiding Americns.
Lott? Who used to use a phony ex student to plug his own comments? That Lott?
The guy who bragged on the cited site about his peer reviewed article not bothering to note that it was refused? That Lott?
The Lott who has been caught again and again cheating on his statistics? That Lott?
Your phony article cite from CNS(another famous fake news source) is nonexistent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
