TexasCHLforum.com

WildRose wrote: ↑Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:02 am

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:31 pm It's not just Kleck and Lott. Sociologists, who are not verbally pro 2A, have been awakened to the idea that gun violence is an extremely focal problem. Don't Shoot, David Kennedy's history of project Ceasefire and the recent study by Andrew Pappachristos on gun violence as a communicable disease, both strongly reinforce that.

As responsible citizens who want to keep the right to own guns, we cannot be eternally defensive. Defense without the possibility if counterattack is seige, and that situation implies that if the opponents of the 2A just endure, they'll win. We MUST support solutions to gun violence if we want to keep our 2A rights, and the evidence overwhelmingly supports the assertion that we don't need to give up rights to achieve that goal.

Suicide is a disease of the lonely, isolated and estranged. 67% of folks who die from being shot did so themselves, but we can see from two groups with limited access to firearms (namely teens and adults from the rest of the world) that legal access to firearms poorly correlates to suicide rates. Our mental health system remains abysmal, and nothing typifies that better than our use of prisons as mental health facilities.

Murder remains an extremely focal phenomenon, and that's what we can more easily address. People who grow up without opportunity, with criminals as role models, and with violence as the arbiter of interpersonal disputes versus the law and LEOs have extreme rates of murder and victimization, and drag others who had a chance to break free down with them.

The use of gun control to address that problem is directly drawn from the Jim Crow laws. There is the obvious but superficial parallel in the letter of the law, but the real similarity is deeper and more sinister. Take as an example the recent NEJM paper on caliber vs lethality, which suggested that banning larger calibers would reduce the gun homicide rate. The last sentence, which would've been edited out save for the overwhelming bias of the editors, stated that limiting people to clubs would further reduce violence. The clear implication is that the overwhelmingly black participants in homicide can't help themselves (which is demonstrably false) and thus must be disarmed for their own good.

That rationale is the exact rationale used under Jim Crow to deny blacks their 2A rights in the South for 100 years. Academics are normally smart enough to avoid painting themselves into that corner publicly, but they all think the same way. The very worst part is that these people see themselves as paternal defenders of poor black people, who require their guiding hand to become a civilized race; they don't even have the honesty of the Southern politicians who were happy to admit that keeping blacks disarmed was merely a way to oppress them.

The people who make the evidence want to ban guns. But the numbers that they produce say that the opposite is needed in pursuit of their stated goal of reducing violence. Further, their solution has been tried and is a hallnark of one If the greatest inhustices in American history.

Why not use their own data to demonstrate that they're lying racists?

Very well said.

At it's heart gun control is simply people control. Throughout history gun contro has been used to make the elites feel more secure and to keep various races, religions, and ethnic groups subjugated to the ruling class/authority.

There are a lot of people who mean well on the gun control side of the debate but that's not who leads the charge, that's just the sheep who have been scared by the left/press into believing that disarming us is oging to somehow prevent criminals from betting and using guns which is a fantasy.