Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Two extremely tragic stories, but the most troubling thing for me is the type of person upon reading an article like this who runs onto a rock bands forum and mocks those involved. I truly hope these children get the help they are going to need and support from adults that do not find enjoyment in their adversity.
Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Two extremely tragic stories, but the most troubling thing for me is the type of person upon reading an article like this who runs onto a rock bands forum and mocks those involved. I truly hope these children get the help they are going to need and support from adults that do not find enjoyment in their adversity.
Agreed.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Two extremely tragic stories, but the most troubling thing for me is the type of person upon reading an article like this who runs onto a rock bands forum and mocks those involved. I truly hope these children get the help they are going to need and support from adults that do not find enjoyment in their adversity.
You seem more concerned with a poster posting on a rock band's website than preventing the tragedies of "responsible" gun owners. What should their punishment be and how would you go about trying to reduce the number of kids killing because of unsecured firearms?
"Enjoyment in their adversity?" That's a fucking leap.
Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Two extremely tragic stories, but the most troubling thing for me is the type of person upon reading an article like this who runs onto a rock bands forum and mocks those involved. I truly hope these children get the help they are going to need and support from adults that do not find enjoyment in their adversity.
You seem more concerned with a poster posting on a rock band's website than preventing the tragedies of "responsible" gun owners. What should their punishment be and how would you go about trying to reduce the number of kids killing because of unsecured firearms?
"Enjoyment in their adversity?" That's a fucking leap.
Is it? I am responsible for the protection of those who have access to my firearm. I do not pretend to have the authority on sentencing or preventing others from these tragedies, or any other for that matter. Again, I find it troubling that you consider copying and pasting articles only to mock them as being groundbreaking stuff on your part. Forgive me if I missed your sentiment of affection for these children who will bear the weight of this mistake, I have read your comment a few times and it doesn't seem to shed that light.
Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Two extremely tragic stories, but the most troubling thing for me is the type of person upon reading an article like this who runs onto a rock bands forum and mocks those involved. I truly hope these children get the help they are going to need and support from adults that do not find enjoyment in their adversity.
You seem more concerned with a poster posting on a rock band's website than preventing the tragedies of "responsible" gun owners. What should their punishment be and how would you go about trying to reduce the number of kids killing because of unsecured firearms?
"Enjoyment in their adversity?" That's a fucking leap.
Is it? I am responsible for the protection of those who have access to my firearm. I do not pretend to have the authority on sentencing or preventing others from these tragedies, or any other for that matter. Again, I find it troubling that you consider copying and pasting articles only to mock them as being groundbreaking stuff on your part. Forgive me if I missed your sentiment of affection for these children who will bear the weight of this mistake, I have read your comment a few times and it doesn't seem to shed that light.
We have been round and round. Halifax ain't budging. We all tried, lol.
Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Two extremely tragic stories, but the most troubling thing for me is the type of person upon reading an article like this who runs onto a rock bands forum and mocks those involved. I truly hope these children get the help they are going to need and support from adults that do not find enjoyment in their adversity.
You seem more concerned with a poster posting on a rock band's website than preventing the tragedies of "responsible" gun owners. What should their punishment be and how would you go about trying to reduce the number of kids killing because of unsecured firearms?
"Enjoyment in their adversity?" That's a fucking leap.
Is it? I am responsible for the protection of those who have access to my firearm. I do not pretend to have the authority on sentencing or preventing others from these tragedies, or any other for that matter. Again, I find it troubling that you consider copying and pasting articles only to mock them as being groundbreaking stuff on your part. Forgive me if I missed your sentiment of affection for these children who will bear the weight of this mistake, I have read your comment a few times and it doesn't seem to shed that light.
We have been round and round. Halifax ain't budging. We all tried, lol.
And neither are you gun nutters. For it is you that has more power and the voice to change things so children killing people with guns becomes less common and maybe someday non-existent. Its the way you vote, oppose sensible gun control legislation and support the NRA and their agenda, on top of throwing your hands in the air and responding, "nothing can be done."
What is more difficult to accomplish? Passing and enforcing requirements and laws and holding those accountable to them or bringing someone back from the dead and providing the child who killed with a firearm with mental health care?
"Ground breaking stuff?" To quote tempo, more like "common knowledge."
Not trying to get anyone to change their position, but I would like to see more meaningful discussion without the dramatic horse shit.
We are all aware that gun violence is a problem in the US.
People on here could contribute to the discussion without the............horse shit, if they chose to. That would earn more respect from me than the typical jabs and cynicism that show up in this thread regularly.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Not trying to get anyone to change their position, but I would like to see more meaningful discussion without the dramatic horse shit.
We are all aware that gun violence is a problem in the US.
People on here could contribute to the discussion without the............horse shit, if they chose to. That would earn more respect from me than the typical jabs and cynicism that show up in this thread regularly.
It is that very reason, the horseshit, that I changed my stance to "do nothing" about the laws.
Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Two extremely tragic stories, but the most troubling thing for me is the type of person upon reading an article like this who runs onto a rock bands forum and mocks those involved. I truly hope these children get the help they are going to need and support from adults that do not find enjoyment in their adversity.
You seem more concerned with a poster posting on a rock band's website than preventing the tragedies of "responsible" gun owners. What should their punishment be and how would you go about trying to reduce the number of kids killing because of unsecured firearms?
"Enjoyment in their adversity?" That's a fucking leap.
Is it? I am responsible for the protection of those who have access to my firearm. I do not pretend to have the authority on sentencing or preventing others from these tragedies, or any other for that matter. Again, I find it troubling that you consider copying and pasting articles only to mock them as being groundbreaking stuff on your part. Forgive me if I missed your sentiment of affection for these children who will bear the weight of this mistake, I have read your comment a few times and it doesn't seem to shed that light.
We have been round and round. Halifax ain't budging. We all tried, lol.
And neither are you gun nutters. For it is you that has more power and the voice to change things so children killing people with guns becomes less common and maybe someday non-existent. Its the way you vote, oppose sensible gun control legislation and support the NRA and their agenda, on top of throwing your hands in the air and responding, "nothing can be done."
What is more difficult to accomplish? Passing and enforcing requirements and laws and holding those accountable to them or bringing someone back from the dead and providing the child who killed with a firearm with mental health care?
"Ground breaking stuff?" To quote tempo, more like "common knowledge."
It's common knowledge that I don't want gun reform anymore.
Not trying to get anyone to change their position, but I would like to see more meaningful discussion without the dramatic horse shit.
We are all aware that gun violence is a problem in the US.
People on here could contribute to the discussion without the............horse shit, if they chose to. That would earn more respect from me than the typical jabs and cynicism that show up in this thread regularly.
You mean like dismissing A RAND study out of hand and comments about penis size?
Not trying to get anyone to change their position, but I would like to see more meaningful discussion without the dramatic horse shit.
We are all aware that gun violence is a problem in the US.
People on here could contribute to the discussion without the............horse shit, if they chose to. That would earn more respect from me than the typical jabs and cynicism that show up in this thread regularly.
You mean like dismissing A RAND study out of hand and comments about penis size?
The study was inconclusive and it said as much.
Comments about penis size? Isn't that what posters say is the reason for people to own guns? More than once I have seen that here.
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
Another “responsible” gun owner. I wonder if they ran out and bought them when gun stores were deemed “essential” and they had to prep for the civil unrest sure to come because of covid? Fear and paranoia.
Two extremely tragic stories, but the most troubling thing for me is the type of person upon reading an article like this who runs onto a rock bands forum and mocks those involved. I truly hope these children get the help they are going to need and support from adults that do not find enjoyment in their adversity.
You seem more concerned with a poster posting on a rock band's website than preventing the tragedies of "responsible" gun owners. What should their punishment be and how would you go about trying to reduce the number of kids killing because of unsecured firearms?
"Enjoyment in their adversity?" That's a fucking leap.
Is it? I am responsible for the protection of those who have access to my firearm. I do not pretend to have the authority on sentencing or preventing others from these tragedies, or any other for that matter. Again, I find it troubling that you consider copying and pasting articles only to mock them as being groundbreaking stuff on your part. Forgive me if I missed your sentiment of affection for these children who will bear the weight of this mistake, I have read your comment a few times and it doesn't seem to shed that light.
We have been round and round. Halifax ain't budging. We all tried, lol.
And neither are you gun nutters. For it is you that has more power and the voice to change things so children killing people with guns becomes less common and maybe someday non-existent. Its the way you vote, oppose sensible gun control legislation and support the NRA and their agenda, on top of throwing your hands in the air and responding, "nothing can be done."
What is more difficult to accomplish? Passing and enforcing requirements and laws and holding those accountable to them or bringing someone back from the dead and providing the child who killed with a firearm with mental health care?
"Ground breaking stuff?" To quote tempo, more like "common knowledge."
If owning a shotgun that was given to me as a graduation present some 20 years ago makes me a "gun nutter" so be it. I'm just a citizen of a country who has the choice to own a gun, and I personally don't feel compelled to go around telling people how they should exercise their rights.
Not trying to get anyone to change their position, but I would like to see more meaningful discussion without the dramatic horse shit.
We are all aware that gun violence is a problem in the US.
People on here could contribute to the discussion without the............horse shit, if they chose to. That would earn more respect from me than the typical jabs and cynicism that show up in this thread regularly.
You mean like dismissing A RAND study out of hand and comments about penis size?
The study was inconclusive and it said as much.
Comments about penis size? Isn't that what posters say is the reason for people to own guns? More than once I have seen that here.
You brought that up in the “bullshit” conversation that I was trying to have and you dismissed what I was saying as "a cloud of my predetermined bias." How's that for dismissive bullshit?
From the RAND study conclusion:
Considering these findings, we conclude that there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase total homicide rates but inconclusive evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime.
Firearm homicides. We identified six qualifying studies that estimated the effects of stand-your-ground laws on firearm homicide rates. Two studies found that these laws have uncertain effects on firearm homicides at the state level (Munasib, Kostandini, and Jordan, 2018; Webster, Crifasi, and Vernick, 2014). Humphreys, Gasparrini, and Wiebe (2017) and Guettabi and Munasib (2018) found a significant effect suggesting that, after the law's introduction, firearm homicides increased in Florida. Two other studies found that stand-your-ground laws were associated with significant increases in firearm homicide rates (Crifasi et al., 2018b; McClellan and Tekin, 2017). Considering these findings, we conclude that there is supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase firearm homicides.
This is not the damning "evidence" that you seem to believe it is. And yes, I do feel that your views on the subject have influenced the way you interpret the results.
What specifically do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US?
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
This is not the damning "evidence" that you seem to believe it is. And yes, I do feel that your views on the subject have influenced the way you interpret the results.
What specifically do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US?
Meh, there’s 564 pages of my thoughts on the subject at hand. Feel free to start on page one and catch up.
And because we know via statistics that more guns equal more gun deaths and that states with higher rates of gun ownership and lax gun laws, your chances or odds of dying by firearms is higher. But “my predetermined bias.”
This is not the damning "evidence" that you seem to believe it is. And yes, I do feel that your views on the subject have influenced the way you interpret the results.
What specifically do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US?
Meh, there’s 564 pages of my thoughts on the subject at hand. Feel free to start on page one and catch up.
And because we know via statistics that more guns equal more gun deaths and that states with higher rates of gun ownership and lax gun laws, your chances or odds of dying by firearms is higher. But “my predetermined bias.”
Have a great day!
Edited comment. I can do better. Sorry for contributing to the negativity.
Post edited by dudeman on
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
This is not the damning "evidence" that you seem to believe it is. And yes, I do feel that your views on the subject have influenced the way you interpret the results.
What specifically do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US?
Meh, there’s 564 pages of my thoughts on the subject at hand. Feel free to start on page one and catch up.
And because we know via statistics that more guns equal more gun deaths and that states with higher rates of gun ownership and lax gun laws, your chances or odds of dying by firearms is higher. But “my predetermined bias.”
Have a great day!
Duly noted. No interest in not bringing douchy behavior into the discussion. Got it.
Have a great day!
Go back a couple of pages and look at your douchy response to the exact same question I had asked of you before you started complaining about bullshit. Would you like me to link to it? Pot meet kettle.
This is not the damning "evidence" that you seem to believe it is. And yes, I do feel that your views on the subject have influenced the way you interpret the results.
What specifically do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US?
Meh, there’s 564 pages of my thoughts on the subject at hand. Feel free to start on page one and catch up.
And because we know via statistics that more guns equal more gun deaths and that states with higher rates of gun ownership and lax gun laws, your chances or odds of dying by firearms is higher. But “my predetermined bias.”
Have a great day!
Duly noted. No interest in not bringing douchy behavior into the discussion. Got it.
Have a great day!
Go back a couple of pages and look at your douchy response to the exact same question I had asked of you before you started complaining about bullshit. Would you like me to link to it? Pot meet kettle.
Have a great day!
No need to link. I'm kind of a dick. Still would like you to answer the question.
If you recall, I answered yours. Need me to link that for you?
If hope can grow from dirt like me, it can be done. - EV
This is not the damning "evidence" that you seem to believe it is. And yes, I do feel that your views on the subject have influenced the way you interpret the results.
What specifically do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US?
Meh, there’s 564 pages of my thoughts on the subject at hand. Feel free to start on page one and catch up.
And because we know via statistics that more guns equal more gun deaths and that states with higher rates of gun ownership and lax gun laws, your chances or odds of dying by firearms is higher. But “my predetermined bias.”
Have a great day!
Duly noted. No interest in not bringing douchy behavior into the discussion. Got it.
Have a great day!
Go back a couple of pages and look at your douchy response to the exact same question I had asked of you before you started complaining about bullshit. Would you like me to link to it? Pot meet kettle.
Have a great day!
No need to link. I'm kind of a dick. Still would like you to answer the question.
If you recall, I answered yours. Need me to link that for you?
I’ll answer. I’ll quote and bold “agree,” “disagree” and/or expound my response after your point. Might be a while though.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
Over and over again for the last 563 pages of this thread I have shared my opinions. Here they are again:
Universal background checks should be required for all gun sales, private parties are not exempt. Agreed.
People should be held accountable for every single round that leaves their firearm. Agreed.
All privately owned firearms should be secured with locks and made inaccessible to children. Agreed and should be required with the purchase of a firearm and made part of the training, how to properly secure your firearms, the why and the potential consequences with autopsy photos of dead kids and adults with gunshot wounds from kids, scare them straight style.
Live fire and safety training should be required for first time buyers and proficiency training at intervals for current owners. Agreed, firearm proficiency and safe handling and storage testing overtime with any recent changes in laws/requirements included.
Nationally recognized concealed carry should be adopted with requirements for proficiency and pending deeper screening standards. I'd give on state reciprocity if there were minimum federal standards for registration, licensing, insurance coverage, training, etc. Without that, states rights, pound sand.
I do find value in having an armed civilian population, for both political and personal protection purposes. Disagree for political reasons, that's paranoia talking. Home/personal protection with restrictions and requirements above, I'd agree.
Currently adopted firearms laws should be enforced instead of focusing efforts on banning a particular type of firearm that is used in a very small percentage of overall, criminal gun deaths. Civilians don't need weapons of war to defend themselves. Serves no other purpose than to kill as many people as quickly as possible. If you cant stop the threat with a 10 round clip, you're not proficient or have the wrong type of weapon for your defense and need to train/practice for that threat that is most likely never to come or come from someone you know or are intimate with.
Suicide awareness and mental health services really need help in the US. Maybe the NRA should focus on that rather than supporting policies that exacerbate the issue of gun violence, as well as voters holding congress accountable to funding mental health initiatives.
Criminals do not obey gun laws and they don't read "Gun Free Zone" signs. And "responsible" gun owners are rarely held to account for their stupidity. Criminals are too easily able to obtain firearms via straw purchasers and "responsible" gun sellers driven by profit.
PEOPLE HAVE TO STOP WANTING TO KILL EACH OTHER. That'll never happen, humans are animals, they kill. We have to stop making it so easy to kill and easy access and possession of firearms directly contributes to the ease with which to kill. How many people who shot and killed someone in a robbery, fit of rage, mistaken identity, accident, etc. would beat or stab someone to death? Its too easy, "clean" and impersonal to shoot someone. You punch someone three times, you might stop. You shoot someone three times you might empty the clip.
That "could be" a start anyway.
ETA: All gun owners are not Trump supporters, rednecks, irresponsible, toothless, uneducated, socially inferior, paranoid, Republican or religious zealots. Please stop acting like they are. I was going to say something about manhood here but don't want to be a dick (its a joke).
The mere presence of weapons at a protest expresses a threat.
A man carrying a gun takes part in a “reopen” Pennsylvania demonstration in Harrisburg, Pa. (Nicholas
What is this about, really?
The spread of protests across a growing number of states expressing opposition to covid-19 pandemic quarantine policies reflects equal parts understandable frustration and disturbing militancy — and in some instances, armed militancy. In Idaho, for example, several hundred protesters at the state capitol were addressed by a speaker carrying an assault rifle, and gun-carrying has been a feature in several state protests, including in Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington and Ohio.
But why, exactly, include guns in the mix?
The short answer is because the mere presence of guns — and it only need be a few — in a collective protest setting is a way to express a threat by nonverbal means, especially when paired with the incendiary, insurrectionist rhetoric of far-right militant groups.
Those carrying guns to political events would be quick to deny any such effort to intimidate, emphasizing that they are simply exercising their rights. Strictly speaking, that’s right, as most states allow open gun-carrying, including at large gatherings. But what gun carriers refuse to admit is that they carry guns to these events because they are intimidating, whether they care to admit it or not.
Take a different but analogous example: police interrogation. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects being questioned while in police custody had to be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney. The reason police were required to provide these Miranda rights to those being interrogated was because, as the court said, “in-custody interrogation is inherently coercive,” and coerced confessions are by their nature unreliable and a violation of the protection against self-incrimination. In other words, custodial interrogation, by its very nature, is inherently coercive, regardless of the good intentions or friendly demeanor of the police.
The same can be said of the presence of guns in a political setting. The fact of gun-carrying outweighs the stated intention of the carrier.
Our own gun history reveals that our ancestors well understood this about guns. In fact, gun-carrying and display have long been subject to restrictions under the category of weapons “brandishing.”
In 1786, Massachusetts enacted a law giving law enforcement the power to disperse armed groups of 12 or more — and for no other reason. An 1859 Washington law criminalized the “exhibit” of a dangerous weapon “in a crowd of two or more persons.” An 1889 North Carolina law made it a crime “for any person to point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise,” regardless of whether the weapon was loaded. In 1910, South Carolina made it a crime to point any firearm at another person, whether loaded or unloaded. Oregon did the same in 1925.
All of these laws criminalized the mere display of firearms around others. Other brandishing laws did address the state of mind or intent of the gun carrier. Most commonly, these laws penalized any who would display a firearm “in a rude, angry and threatening manner,” as did Mississippi in 1840, or “for the purpose of frightening or intimidating,” as did Oklahoma in 1868. In all, at least 30 states enacted brandishing laws in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.
Closely related were restrictions on when and where people could carry guns, stretching back to the 17th century. These laws restricted gun-carrying in public places, communal gatherings, schools, churches, circuses or shows, parades (if the weapons were loaded), certain meeting places including legislative houses, entertainments, on Sundays or on Election Day. Separate measures commonly and strictly regulated firearm discharges. More common still were restrictions on mere gun-carrying. From the 17th through the start of the 20th centuries, 47 states restricted concealed (and in some cases open) gun-carrying.
Taken together, this body of law squarely contradicts the modern claim by a few gun owners that a person carrying a gun is no danger or source of intimidation to others if that person does not intend to do harm. A person carrying a gun to go hunting or target shooting is transporting the weapon to use for its lawful and intended purpose. Whether armed protesters admit it or not, gun-carrying to a political rally serves a different, disturbing and unnecessary purpose: intimidation. It is inherent in the act, putting it squarely at odds with vigorous, open and lawful political dissent. Our ancestors, it seems, understood this better than we do.
Comments
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Sounds like the proverbial, slam dunk smoking gun to me.
It appears that you read that article through a big fucking cloud of your own personal bias.
The children of gun owners kill the gun owners
Georgia 2-year-old shoots and kills father while handing gun | https://mynbc15.com/news/local/georgia-2-year-old-shoots-and-kills-father-while-handing-gun
https://www.denverpost.com/2020/04/21/3-year-old-shot-by-brother-westminster/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Anyone else read the article?
"Enjoyment in their adversity?" That's a fucking leap.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Someone paid them a lot of money to make up algorithms that agreed with their models.
What is more difficult to accomplish? Passing and enforcing requirements and laws and holding those accountable to them or bringing someone back from the dead and providing the child who killed with a firearm with mental health care?
"Ground breaking stuff?" To quote tempo, more like "common knowledge."
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
We are all aware that gun violence is a problem in the US.
People on here could contribute to the discussion without the............horse shit, if they chose to. That would earn more respect from me than the typical jabs and cynicism that show up in this thread regularly.
Just leave em be.
Nothing can be done? Sounds good to me!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Comments about penis size? Isn't that what posters say is the reason for people to own guns? More than once I have seen that here.
From the RAND study conclusion:
Considering these findings, we conclude that there is moderate evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase total homicide rates but inconclusive evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime.
Firearm homicides. We identified six qualifying studies that estimated the effects of stand-your-ground laws on firearm homicide rates. Two studies found that these laws have uncertain effects on firearm homicides at the state level (Munasib, Kostandini, and Jordan, 2018; Webster, Crifasi, and Vernick, 2014). Humphreys, Gasparrini, and Wiebe (2017) and Guettabi and Munasib (2018) found a significant effect suggesting that, after the law's introduction, firearm homicides increased in Florida. Two other studies found that stand-your-ground laws were associated with significant increases in firearm homicide rates (Crifasi et al., 2018b; McClellan and Tekin, 2017). Considering these findings, we conclude that there is supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase firearm homicides.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/stand-your-ground/violent-crime.html
Have a great day!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
This is not the damning "evidence" that you seem to believe it is. And yes, I do feel that your views on the subject have influenced the way you interpret the results.
What specifically do you think should be done to address gun violence in the US?
And because we know via statistics that more guns equal more gun deaths and that states with higher rates of gun ownership and lax gun laws, your chances or odds of dying by firearms is higher. But “my predetermined bias.”
Have a great day!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Have a great day!
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
If you recall, I answered yours. Need me to link that for you?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The mere presence of weapons at a protest expresses a threat.
What is this about, really?
The spread of protests across a growing number of states expressing opposition to covid-19 pandemic quarantine policies reflects equal parts understandable frustration and disturbing militancy — and in some instances, armed militancy. In Idaho, for example, several hundred protesters at the state capitol were addressed by a speaker carrying an assault rifle, and gun-carrying has been a feature in several state protests, including in Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington and Ohio.
But why, exactly, include guns in the mix?
The short answer is because the mere presence of guns — and it only need be a few — in a collective protest setting is a way to express a threat by nonverbal means, especially when paired with the incendiary, insurrectionist rhetoric of far-right militant groups.
Those carrying guns to political events would be quick to deny any such effort to intimidate, emphasizing that they are simply exercising their rights. Strictly speaking, that’s right, as most states allow open gun-carrying, including at large gatherings. But what gun carriers refuse to admit is that they carry guns to these events because they are intimidating, whether they care to admit it or not.
Take a different but analogous example: police interrogation. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that suspects being questioned while in police custody had to be informed of their constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and to have the assistance of an attorney. The reason police were required to provide these Miranda rights to those being interrogated was because, as the court said, “in-custody interrogation is inherently coercive,” and coerced confessions are by their nature unreliable and a violation of the protection against self-incrimination. In other words, custodial interrogation, by its very nature, is inherently coercive, regardless of the good intentions or friendly demeanor of the police.
The same can be said of the presence of guns in a political setting. The fact of gun-carrying outweighs the stated intention of the carrier.
In 1786, Massachusetts enacted a law giving law enforcement the power to disperse armed groups of 12 or more — and for no other reason. An 1859 Washington law criminalized the “exhibit” of a dangerous weapon “in a crowd of two or more persons.” An 1889 North Carolina law made it a crime “for any person to point any gun or pistol at any person, either in fun or otherwise,” regardless of whether the weapon was loaded. In 1910, South Carolina made it a crime to point any firearm at another person, whether loaded or unloaded. Oregon did the same in 1925.
All of these laws criminalized the mere display of firearms around others. Other brandishing laws did address the state of mind or intent of the gun carrier. Most commonly, these laws penalized any who would display a firearm “in a rude, angry and threatening manner,” as did Mississippi in 1840, or “for the purpose of frightening or intimidating,” as did Oklahoma in 1868. In all, at least 30 states enacted brandishing laws in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries.
Closely related were restrictions on when and where people could carry guns, stretching back to the 17th century. These laws restricted gun-carrying in public places, communal gatherings, schools, churches, circuses or shows, parades (if the weapons were loaded), certain meeting places including legislative houses, entertainments, on Sundays or on Election Day. Separate measures commonly and strictly regulated firearm discharges. More common still were restrictions on mere gun-carrying. From the 17th through the start of the 20th centuries, 47 states restricted concealed (and in some cases open) gun-carrying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/27/why-are-people-bringing-guns-anti-quarantine-protests-be-intimidating/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©