Libtards believe we are all a myth

[A-R]

Barely made it through this whole pile of rubbish without puking. Same ol' tactics: base all your stats on rates of GUN violence, ignoring all other forms of violence (of course more guns = more gun violence ... and more cars = more car violence too, the simplistic nature of this never ceases to escape hoplophobes) then pepper your bogus stats with scarily tragic anecdotes.

Anyway, this will be fuel for the next anti-gun libtard who tries to debate you. Might as well know their spoon-fed argument before they regurgitate it to you.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ingle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cedar Park Dad]

libtard, really? You know gun owners come from all backgrounds right?

[Beiruty]

What kind of lies do they spread? You can like but not FBI lie. FBI stats shows that crime is down and gun ownership is going through the roof. What gives?

[chamberc]

What kind of lies do they spread? You can like but not FBI lie. FBI stats shows that crime is down and gun ownership is going through the roof. What gives?

I have a rock that stops all rain from falling. Want me to prove it? There is no rain falling. I definitely think there is a correlation, but equating the two is very difficult to do.

[The Annoyed Man]

Cold (and thin) soup, warmed over. Folks, this stuff never goes away. We have two more years of this stuff being really ascendent, and it is going to pick up and get more desperate and louder, as January 2017 gets nearer and nearer. This is just the beginning. Get used to it, and fight back.

libtard, really? You know gun owners come from all backgrounds right?

You know, for this reason, I rarely use the term "libtard". I have used it, but I feel the same way about it when I do as I feel about taking God's name in vain. I just now did a word search on that word against my own posts, and found that, out of my 17,355 posts prior to this one, I used the word "libtard" exactly 5 times, without quoting someone else's use of the word. Including quotes of other people in my posts raises the total to 7.

Now that said, and despite the fact that liberals are found among America's gun owners, the FACT remains that virtually ALL attempts to restrict gun ownership originate among liberals, and are fielded by liberal politicians. A parallel observation that is factual is that African-Americans from lower economic brackets overwhelmingly vote for liberal candidates, who when elected, field the policies that those black liberal voters want passed. Those liberal economic policies tend to strangle small businesses, and harm job creation......which hurts black people in lower economic brackets more than it does rich people. Liberal immigration policies which lead to a massive influx of poor workers from other countries further deprive deprive black Americans of job opportunities. So liberal voting patterns which result in greater attempts to restrict gun ownership are as nonsensical for a liberal gun owner as are voting patterns which result in policies that strangle the economy and flood the labor pool with immigrant labor willing to work for peanuts - hurting the American poor and middle class more than they do the rich. It is NOT an accident that the super-rich love Obama. His policies have benefited them greatly. The stock market is booming, but that money is not reaching working-class Americans. It was a liberal President that signed NAFTA, sending the vestiges of America's manufacturing jobs out of the country. Liberal unionists drove the steel industry out of the country. Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseaum. What did they THINK would happen? And now a liberal president is claiming that unemployment is down, despite the fact that the number is nearly double his claimed figure if one counts those who have stopped looking. And his job number increases are padded by claiming low-paying part time jobs at minimum wage levels as "employment" for grown adults with families. His brand of economics has NOT benefited either the poor, or the middle class.

"Liberal economist" is a self-defeating paradigm which harms the poor and middle class and benefits the super-rich.

"Liberal gun owner" is also a self-defeating paradigm which does more harm than good to gun rights. That's kind of retarded. (Yes.... I KNOW that term is not PC, but PC has destroyed the country, so I don't give a tinker's dang about that.)

Modern liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism which is called libertarianism these days) is a self-defeating paradigm. In fact, it is SO disconnected from the laws of consequences that I will boldly state that it is a mental disease by virtue of being disconnected from reality.

I personally know some liberal gun owners. I like them. They are nice people. But, "liberal gun owners" as a group of people who vote is pretty retarded.

The bottom line is that you can point your finger at almost any gun-control measure passed in the last 100 years, and you will find liberal fingerprints all over it........including the NFA poison pill Hughes Amendment in the 1986 FOPA signed by conservative president Ronald Reagan.....which minus the Amendment was intended to protect traveling gun owners with a law that is routinely violated today by liberal states like NJ and NY and MA.

So when it comes to gun laws, liberals suck......regardless of how many guns they have in their safe.

[baldeagle]

libtard, really? You know gun owners come from all backgrounds right?

Yes, there are liberal gun owners. Why they are liberals is a question that's difficult to answer. Libtards, OTOH, are people who are complete idiots or hateful statists.

[MechAg94]

My Two Cents. Take it for what it is worth.

1. They are including suicide which is a nonsense if you are trying to look at the usefulness of guns for self defense.
2. It is my understand that people who are suicidal will be suicidal whether a gun is available or not. The is just easy (at least to them). In areas or other countries with less gun ownership, the suicide rate isn't so different.
3. The first study referenced is not getting data from the FBI. They are getting it from the UN and international organizations. First, reporting procedures and accuracy are not at all consistent between different countries and I don't trust the UN one bit to be neutral.
4. The other studies linked are all reference "international" studies and comparing US homicide rate to the rates in other countries and saying guns are dangerous. The homicide rate is typically higher in the US compared to homogeneous European countries.
5. I did not click on every link in the article, but I saw nothing that referenced FBI statistics or the steady decline of violent crime over the last few decades and the increase in gun ownership over the same time period.
6. Other countries have far different rules on use of deadly force for self defense. If you think some US states are bad, many Western coutries are far worse. International data is not going to be useful for talking about guns for self protection unless that issue is investigated and included. I doubt that was looked at in any of the studies.

IMO, it is a cleverly worded article that based on biased and/or misleading information that really doesn't come anywhere close to actually proving what the headline says. It sounds good unless you dig and actually see what it is based on.

[anygunanywhere]

libtard, really? You know gun owners come from all backgrounds right?

They may own guns, but I would bet that a lot of those that are pushing for registration and the ultimate confiscation own them. Shoot, Diane Feinstein owns them and had a carry permit. She wants to take ours away but she THINKS she is immune, an elite.

THAT is the hypocrisy that makes them libtards. They deserve the term.

[MechAg94]

libtard, really? You know gun owners come from all backgrounds right?

Considering the nature of the opinion piece, I am inclined to agree with the use of the term. IMO, it is a hit piece that throws out a bunch of links and bad statistics to mislead the casual reader who will not dig into details. The only reason I can speak anything on it is having see such arguments before and seen the response.

[K.Mooneyham]

SNIP

2. It is my understand that people who are suicidal will be suicidal whether a gun is available or not. The is just easy (at least to them). In areas or other countries with less gun ownership, the suicide rate isn't so different.

I agree and Japan is the best example of this. They have a greater suicide rate than the USA, but firearms are almost impossible for the average citizen to obtain; criminals are a different story, of course. Japan had a rate of 21.4 per 100K in 2013; the USA had a rate of 12.5 in 2012 (closest year stats I could get without a more lengthy search). If firearms were the prime factor in suicides, then the USA should have been HIGHER than Japan, not much lower. Far too many other factors affect national suicide rates than merely putting the blame on firearms.

[Beiruty]

Regardless to what word one uses. Those who claim that they would like to defend your 2ndA and we are not taking away your guns (Obama in 2007) to the rush of "ban and grab", a failed law attempt, following Connecticut school incident. You can understand that left would shift like rusty pendulum of your gran pa clock. Their position on guns whether pro or not does shift widely.

I for one feel mandating training and learning the laws of use of deadly force in order to carry in the public (OC or CC) is not a bad idea.

[RogueUSMC]

I for one feel mandating training and learning the laws of use of deadly force in order to carry in the public (OC or CC) is not a bad idea.

Take the bolded out and I would agree with you whole-heartedly...

[TXBO]

I for one feel mandating training and learning the laws of use of deadly force in order to carry in the public (OC or CC) is not a bad idea.

I couldn't disagree more. Introduction of arbitrary qualification of a natural right is a really bad idea.

[Jim Beaux]

libtard, really? You know gun owners come from all backgrounds right?

Yeah you can strap a gun on em. Heck, you can even call em something like a progressive.... but at the end of the day, theyre still libtards.

[MeMelYup]

I for one feel mandating training and learning the laws of use of deadly force in order to carry in the public (OC or CC) is not a bad idea.

I couldn't disagree more. Introduction of arbitrary qualification of a natural right is a really bad idea.

I would agree to mandatory training if it were conducted between preschool and eighth grade.