'Violent crime' - per se, has no relevance to this conversation
Gun violence includes homicides, suicides and firearm injuries (anything short of death) - this has absolutely not gone down
You, in no where in your argument addressed 'homicides' - the only statistic your source provided. Regardless, I've attached data from the CDC - an organization held to much more stringent standards when it comes to data reporting.
I will no longer address your arguments.
Oh, no sources provided? Pathetic. I won't even bother addressing your comment.No sources? Why should I even address this? This is alogicaldebate - not one based on whatever your thinking is.
Yes, private transfers are associated with increased firearm death. I will leave it at that - the source is provided for your further interest if you should care to read it.

Particularly for static home defense? No sources again, jesus. Why would I even address this either? Completely fallacious. Guns in the home cause more harm than benefit for 'static defense'.

You continue to make arguments yet provide absolutely no effort to prove anything. I've done enough for you - I will not address this.

At the end of the day, you've all mis-interpreted the second amendment. It was not put into place for your 'self defense'. It seems that all 'pro-gun' idiots havecompletelymis-interpreted the intention of the amendment.
The following article addresses this rather beautifully. Yet, seeing the lack of sources provided - I doubt that any of you will attempt to read it. Thus far, I've seen a many unsupported arguments - many involving insults. I find thisveryillogical, misleading, idiotic and particularly ironic.

I'll check in later for the rest to see if there's even anything worth addressing.
Thanks for all the negs. Despite having provided irrefutable proof for everything that I have said. (and if not 'everything', then everything that I meant intentionally)
At the end of the day,idiocy does not prevail over logic.

A lot of these stats are contradictory, unless I'm reading it wrong.

Will edit in details after another look

Assault weapons ban = higher likely hood
Gun locks= much higher likelihood
Child access= slightly lower likelihood

I love how you can't acknowledge the fact that any of the "facts" you posed are opinion based, or have a deep web of underlying circumstances such as: socioeconomic conditions, tendencies to violence, degradation of mental health systems, drug trade and drug use.

I can't tell if you're trolling or what, one of your sources flat out says blunt objects kill ~200 more people a year than rifles

I'm not going to post sources, you can keep posting fallacious numbers and wanting to ban guns without putting the time and effort into much greater issues.

[QUOTE=Canadian_Lifter post_id=1449027613]At the end of the day, you've all mis-interpreted the second amendment. It was not put into place for your 'self defense'. It seems that all 'pro-gun' idiots have[b]completely[/b]mis-interpreted the intention of the amendment.
[/B][/QUOTE]Are you seriously that fuking stupid? Serious question...

No fuking sh*t the second amendment isn't for personal protection, you fuking Einstein, you. Wonderful discovery, pat yourself on the back.

While it can be argued that it most certainly IS our human right to defend ourselves with weapons including guns, it doesn't take Captain fukin Obvious to tell us that the second amendment was put in place to prevent government oppression.

Gun violence/death stats are all nice and dandy (especially since they show the increase in overall gun ownership over the past 30 years runs inversely with the steady decline of deaths over the same span), but in the end it really doesn't fukin matter. None of this "safety" sh*t matters.



B-b-but think of the children!!!1!

Smaller the penis the bigger the gun

1. I can clearly tell you did not bother to read the publication. Your ignorance is blinding.
2. Did you even bother to look at the rest of the graphic? Gun control has absolutely nothing to do with assault rifle ban as it's currently headed, led by the AMA.Really, the statements you've made have absolutely no relevance.
3. Please do post sources, I'm very interested to see where they come from. I'd love some factual data because at the end of the day, that's really all that matters. And by 'factual' I mean published in a peer reviewed journal by a reputable source because let's be honest, individuals' opinions don't mean sh!t compared to concrete data. My guess is you could not even find such sources. And please, if you go hunting, ensure that any sources you provide are applicable to the stated and implied arguments listed. If they are not, this is embarrassing for you.
4. As for socioeconmic conditions (bolded), you are misled:
O'Brian K, et al. Racism, gun ownership and gun control: Biased attitudes in US whites my influence policy decisions.PLOS one2013; 8(10).
5. As for mental health predisposition to firearm homicides (really, all the pro-gun control movement cares about) there is absolutely no correlation:
McGinty E. News media framing of serious mental illness and gun violence in the United States, 1997-2012. Am J Public Health, 2014;104(3).

I'm going to be glaringly clear about one thing: I do not debate with anything other than facts. Anyone who does otherwise is are clearly misled. My opinion, unsupported, is not something I debate with because doing such is completely pathetic and holds no weight. Such is how I interpret your argument when you don't even bother to provide reputable sources.1. You clearly have not read any of the Powell article I have cited - you've established your own interpretation of the second amendment. You are completely misled.
2. You clearly do not understand the context in which the 2nd Amendment was established in the historical age, literally over 200 years ago. It was so that colonials could attack Native Americans to settle land, among other reasons. The 2nd Amendment has absolutely application to which the pro-gun movement uses it today.
3. I love how you cited sources for the bolded part above. Do you care about suicides? I'm guessing that you don't because that's not what pro-gun control advocates have on their minds. Suicides are ruled as 'gun death' of which there are many. The pro-gun control movement is concerned only with homicides or disabilities as a result of directed firearm violence. Do you not consider being shot and maimed - whether being left physically or mentally disabled to be of any significance? Please, use some critical thinking skills. Firearm injuries have increased in recent years, as cited by Jena et al (2013) in the graphic I provided above.
4. The bold/italicized part above, let me paraphrase: Are you seriously that fuking stupid? Serious question... Do youseriouslythink you even have a chance against a government funded defense force armed with paramilitary fully automatic weaponry? You are completely pathetic if you think so.
5. Really, the best part about your post is your insults. You have completely circumvented my entire argument I provided with a multitude of sources by which your medical professionals have published as they are getting absolutely sick and tired of your ignorance. We clean up your mess, the result of your ignorance and/or stupidity. Shut up and face the facts. You claim to have facts supporting your side. Please, cite them. They'd better be from reputable sources and relevant to the stated and implied arguments I've herein listed. If not, lets be honest, you're going to make a complete embarrassment of yourself.

Additionally, if you are curious by any means, please see the following as to how relatively futile it is to have a firearm for home defense and personal defense:
Firearms for home defense = pathetic:
1) Kleck G. What are the risks and benefits of keeping a gun in the home?JAMA. 1998;280)5):473-475.
Firearms for personal defense = pathetic:
1) Hemenway D and Azrael D. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun uses: Results from a national survey.Violence and Victims, 2000; 15(3).
2) Branas CC, Richmond TS, Culhane DP, Ten Have TR, Wiebe DJ. Investigating the link between gun possession and gun assault.Am J Public Health.2009;99(11):2034-2040.


Please, tell me the both of you: how in the world do you justify the increased number of firearm injuries, mass shootings and active shooter situations in the US? You've completely glanced over this fact. I can't tell if it's because you all think it's titillating to pull the trigger on a weapon, you can't comprehend the facts or because you just don't even care.

Look at the graphic I quoted, then re-read the text I wrote. My statements are based directly from what you posted

I was drunk playing blackjack at a casino in Reno Nevada one night. Me and this dude were talking all kinds of **** cracking jokes having a great time ordering eachother beers and shots we were best buddies. Then somehow after an hour or two the topic of guns came up. I mentioned my several guns including an AK47 well this dood apparently was some anti gun whacko his demeanor completely changed and he stopped talking to me and left the table....?? Fukin crazy how mental people are over this kinda chit.

Seems like our country is divided and they are pandering to peoples emotions (aka women logic). Im honestly nervous for my future and the future of my family if these women logic types end up winning.

Did you read the publication?
You simply took a graphic I originally quoted. Yes, I read the paper. I understand the methodology of what was done and its limitations.

But hey, you didn't even address the last line of my previous post. I'll simply interpret this as that you have no response or justification.

I read the publication, and just re-read it. Why the fukk are you posting contradictory statements/ statistics/ graphics then pretending I don't know how to read?

Please, address this
But hey, you didn't even address the last line of my previous post. I'll simply interpret this as that you have no response or justification.

4. The bold/italicized part above, let me paraphrase: Are you seriously that fuking stupid? Serious question... Do you seriously think you even have a chance against a government funded defense force armed with paramilitary fully automatic weaponry? You are completely pathetic if you think so.
I guess the Taliban are pathetic for bending our conventional military over, same goes for the Vietcong.

You are completely pathetic if you don't think 10 million (at absolute minimum) Americans couldn't stage a revolution.

"Please, tell me the both of you: how in the world do you justify the increased number of firearm injuries, mass shootings and active shooter situations in the US? You've completely glanced over this fact. I can't tell if it's because you all think it's titillating to pull the trigger on a weapon, you can't comprehend the facts or because you just don't even care."

This one is the easiest, I can justify them by the fact that their occurrence is so statistically low they aren't a threat to me or my family. Opiate's kill more people than guns, now combine that with vehicular related deaths, and treatable illnesses. The resources and money needed to enact gun bans, would save more lives diverted to other issues.

As an American citizen, I have lost 4 family members to cars, 1 to opiates and none to guns

How many people were injured by cars and ****ty infrastructure in this country, how many people were admitted to a hospital/ rehab for opiate addiction?

If you want to cite every Bobby who got shot in the hand/foot, cite every Bobby who got bumped by a car in the parking lot

Crime and hunting are irrelevant. Gun ownership is on the same level as freedom of speech.

At this point, I'm getting the sense that
1. You can't debate logically
2. You love committing logical fallacies
3. Your sole basis of arguments in general are based on unsupported facts. I mean really, who could take you seriously? I can't.

You've failed to earn my respect. I will no longer address your arguments as such are flawed, fallacious and simply are not worth addressing.

Euro brah checkin in. What is this about?

1. A revolution against who?
2. What would be the incentive to start a revolution?
3. Really, what is the basis of your so called 'revolution' against an army of pararmilitary fully automatic weaponry? Please, be very specific in your basis and how you think you actually stand a chance. You're implicitly telling me that you and some other civilians could stop SWAT if you wanted to? The military is even more powerful. You stand no chance.


I'll deal the rest tomorrow morning when I'm sober and It's not 5am,

1. A revolution against who?
2. What would be the incentive to start a revolution?
3. Really, what is the basis of your so called 'revolution' against an army of paramilitary fully automatic weaponry? Please, be very specific in your basis and how you think you actually stand a chance. You're implicitly telling me that you and some other civilians could stop SWAT if you wanted to? The military is even more powerful. You stand no chance.

1. A tyrannical government
2. A tyrannical government that violates the constitution, which even grants a gov. its power
3. How did the Taliban spank our military? How did the vietcong beat the US? It wasn't by spraying "fully automatic paramilitary weapons" at ranges >100 meters.

Why can't the government stop the 10 ISIS guys in country, being ISIS at this moment? Do you think at an order the entire conglomerate of the United States military would wage war against those they are sworn to defend?

Will they bomb us in our homes with hellfire from predator drones? Carpet bomb my town with B-52's? Send tanks on I-95 into South Florida?

You, are just as ignorant as I am

The Second amendment says that you have the right to defend yourself, but this "LAW" was created in the 18th century and we are living in the 21st century where things are different. We need to regulate the right to posses a weapon.

The second amendment by any interpretation does not say you have the right to defend yourself personally - weapon or otherwise.

Please post the second amendment verbatim and please explain how it even addresses personal self defense. Yes, I mean in its entirety - the full sentence. And you explain how the meaning of the amendment in its entirety address your right to personal self protection with firearms.

If you leave out any part, your argument will be labelled fallacious.

What the literal fk are you even trying to get at? Your powers of speculation and conspiracy are stronger than any others' I've come across.

You clearly do not understand what the term 'ignorance' means. Your arguments are driven by pure baseless fear for which there is no possibility of things of the such you've mentioned ever happening.

This blind ignorance and incessant rambling is your justification for countless gun deaths. You literally make me sick.

Lmao @ this being a thread
Lmao @ there actually being grown men that want to ban guns

****eng LMAO @ how seroiusly you are taking an argument on the misc. How mad are you that the right to bear arms was so ipmortant to the founding fathers, blood of true patriots still drying from the revolutionary war, that it comes second only to the right to free speech? I'll post the sentence in its entirety for you, since you're so horny for it:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of theto keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What phucking "people" do you think they were referring to, braniac? The purpose of bearing arms is not for self-defense against an armed robber, so I'm not so sure why you keep asking for proof of that interpretation; lmao @ you calling brah out for straw man arguments you fcking hypocritical nincompoop; the purpose of the 2 is to protect against a tyrannical government, the same ones they had just gotten done fighting against. There is nomilitiawithout thepeoplewith which it is comprised. Therefore, thepeople'sright to bear arms shall not be infringed.

You mad brah? Honestly I shouldn't have even responded since you're not even a US citizen and of all places, you're a canadian so your opinion couldn't be much less relevant. I just like seeing how irate you are at GOATmerica and it's second greatest freedom. Just LMAO @ you, fggot

thats what you pay your army for lol

Alright, to use your language: what the fk do you think a 'well-regulated militia ' is?

Based on your insults I'm assuming you can't read your own reasoning
1. Because an armed militia is the reasoning of the second amendment does absolutely not mean that it supports the arming of individuals. Regardless, how would such be 'well regulated' ?
2. Tyrannical government? Do you even hear yourself? How in the world is that even a possibility in today's first world countries? You sounds like you're led by pure baseless fear and fear mongering and nothing else. Let's get something glaringly clear here: Against the most powerful government in the world - you stand absolutely no chance, alright? Paramilitary and military weaponry against single shooters = disaster. Let's put on our critical thinking caps for a second eh?

3. I seriously love how you end with an ad hominem attack.
A. Surprise surprise buddy, I AM a U.S. Citizen get your sh!t straight. Dual citizenship here. Although, I've no idea why really. You've thus demonstrated absolute ignorance. No worries though, the like is extremely common here snd is known worldwide to be part of the American stereotype.
B. Not sure why it wouldn't be the other way around because the reasoning of Americans is often completely pathetic aka how you've justified personal armament because that of a militia is justified by the second amendment is listed. COMPLETELY FALSE. The second amendment = A is justified for B does not means that A is justified for a subset of B. Please, use your logical thinking skills.
C. I won't even bother insulting you. You've completely misunderstood your argument: you've proven to be illiterate and completely idiotic with your reasoning. Your argument in its entirety is absolutely pathetic and is based solely on a misinterpretation: because guns are justified for well regulated militia cannot be interpreted as 'oh people have the right to own guns'. Any argument as such has not been made by someone who understands the amendment. Such was not made for the application of guns in self defense but for guns in offensive use when you consider the historical context of the amendment. Please refer to Powell et al (2016) as he explains American Gun Lust - he clearly states the problem with firearms in the U.S. today and the fallacious logic by which gun huggers use to support their ownership

I love your American reasoning, completely shot down in a debate with no effort at all. Such has absolutely no substance behind it. Another Canadian would be worthy to debate with as such reasoning would be more likely to be sound - but you? You make me lol.

Now let's get something straight: if you retaliate with anything other than objective facts, you are not worth me responding too. And secondly, please make sure you understand the background in which your arguments were made - if such is not the case you risk personal self embarrassment.

Actually the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled that the 2nd Amendment does indeed protect gun ownership for common lawful purposes, such as hunting and self defense. DC v. Heller.

Thank you, come again.

You don't think the Supreme Court could misinterpret an amendment?
Let's get something straight here with the historical facts:
1. Scalia misinterpret such in 2008 with the case you've listed

What's even better is that
2. A second case - McDonald vs Chicago (2008) was completely misled as such reasoning by Alito was based solely on that by the verdict reached by Scalia 2 years earlier.

Now let's be real, Scalia is by no means an unbiased justice if you've paid attention to the news. He's dead now though so in well.

What assertion have I made that you need a source for?

That law abiding people buy "high capacity" mags and "assault weapons?" This is common knowledge.
Cool, that's not the point of contention. You claimed increased gun control will not affect law abiding persons. I posted several very simple ways that increased gun control will affect us, one of them being we will no longer be able to conduct private sales.

Whether they are associated with increased firearm death is an entirely separate issue.
If you're honestly interested in the benefits of an AR for HD, I'm sure you can easily do some research on your own.

But long guns in general (to include AR's) are indeed great for static home defense, because they are simply much more effective than handguns and the length is a non issue if you are just holed up in one place. This is common sense, but if you need anything else explained, please feel free to ask.
That's great if that's your position, but that has nothing to do with the points my posts have addressed.

Well... you might well disagree with one of their rulings, but they are in fact the final arbiter of such issues.

Baseless fear? I'm not afraid of my government, it is the very last thing that would keep me up at night. You fail to acknowledge that 10s of millions of armed Americans would in fact defeat the government in a scenario that YOU BROUGHT UP.

"Paramilitary and military weaponry against single shooters = disaster. Let's put on our critical thinking caps for a second eh?"

So, why did the Taliban, operating in small groups with a common goal win in Afghanistan? They have IED's and Ak's and they repelled the single most powerful army in the history of mankind.


Now bitch and moan about me not giving any ****s about you, and not wasting a minute of my day to look up and cite sources for you.
You are the dense one, you are blind and ignorant to history

Now feel free to cherry pick whatever you want to reply to, pick one single word in my reply and rant about it. Bitch and gripe about the lack of sources, and keep trying to talk yourself up. Nobody gives a fuk about what you think or say, keep wasting your time.

If you ever got close to winning a point here, you buried it long before I jumped in with feminine-emotional rants and insults. They go on for pages

ITT: A bunch of miscers who have never used a gun think shooting a gun with absolutely no ear protection is completely pain free.

Should the person's reaction look like this? Lol, probably not, but that guy's ear definitely felt it after that. Also, he will have an even greater reaction if that was his first time ever shooting a gun and he didn't know what he was getting himself into.

ITT:you can see in the GIF he has ear plugs in.
small children can shoot that same gun and smile but when he does it he screams and cries.completely overreacted