JMAvery
JMAvery
Aug 8, 2017 · 6 min read

First sentence false. The NRA rarely advises anything other than buy more guns. They pay lip service to safety, but ignore arming suspected terrorists. Why is that? Because they care about gun sales, nothing more.

It’s actually very correct and vastly more realistic than what you proposed they would do. Pay lip service? You must mean gun-control orgs that have desperately tried to rebuild their images as “gun safety” groups. Tried and miserably failed. You’d think they’d raffle a gun safe every once in a while, or at least try to deliver on the thousands gun locks they promised to provide free to the public. No, gun-control advocates don’t give a sailing shit about safety. The NRA at least has the Eddy Eagle program, thousands of certified instructors, and believes due process is something to be protected.

You don’t know anything about me, and while that would be true for others, it isn’t for me — as I find such people ridiculous, too. Generalization indicates unclear thinking, which is dangerous in a gun owner, as it leads to poor threat assessment.

I don’t need to know much about you to know that you’re incredibly ignorant when it comes to this topic. Or dishonest when it comes to anything concerning firearms. I mean, look at the bullshit you’ve typed (and gross generalizations about gun owners, you’re a hypocrite now :).

Your intentional misinterpretation of their purpose is. You are clearly a smart person, but no one (other than those promoting NRA mythology) understands those signs as a magic force field that keeps guns out. Their purpose is to increase fines if caught with a gun on school grounds. They are functionally identical to “fines doubled for speeding in work zone” signs.

I’m much, much smarter than you, no doubts there. Especially on this topic. That aside, there’s nothing but proof that those little signs are bullshit. They are totems to the broken logic of gun-control ideologues.

Yes, like the work zone speed signs, they are absolutely ignored so “functionally” they are worthless.

You obviously have never known a teacher. The “summer break” is for students. Yes, they get time off, but they are also working to plan for the next semester. And if you are so clearly triggered by my tiny essay here, I clearly doubt you could stand a class of 30 or more unruly children. LOL.

I know many teachers, hell, I’m engaged to a brilliant DMD with a Ph.D. I know how busy they are but, unlike you, I also know what it takes to have a basic, functional understanding of using a firearm. With nearly 20 years in the military I can assure you I have more organizational skills when it comes to dealing with unruly groups than you’ll ever possess in the rest of your life. LOL.

Again, triggered and petty. Not good for emotional stability of one carrying weapons. I hear the rock vs. gun argument ALL THE TIME. It comes in a form of cars vs. guns, and knives vs. guns, too.

No you don’t. You only hear it within the confines of your own small mind or see on occasion in the screeds of other gun-control advocates. Projection onto gun owners is common though, in your mind it makes up for the absurdities in your arguments and your inability to properly parse technical and legal distinctions when it comes to firearms and other inanimate objects. Seriously, the car argument is exclusively owned by gun-control advocates and all it serves to do is prove you guys know as little about the laws concerning vehicle ownership as you do about firearms.

This is just false. You can Google it. You’ll find it’s nuanced — some types of violence is up, some down — but those who say there isn’t a relationship at all are the usual NRA media mouthpieces. On the other side we have scientific research bodies.

No, not false at all (you can Google it). Go look up the UCR data since the mid-1990’s, the FBI keeps it relatively well organized so it’s easy to find the table data concerning homicides by weapon type, usually Table 11 under “Homicides”. You’ll see that the trend in homicides involving firearms has pretty much steadily decreased. That is an observable fact and one you can’t spin into something the NRA conjured up. Then you can go over to the NICS data where the FBI publishes monthly statistics going back to 1998. You’ll notice another trend. Now use whatever small powers of deduction you possess and put those pieces of information together.

I can prove I’m not who you think I am. Here’s another piece I’ve written a while back I’m sure you’ll enjoy. Please note this passage: “Of course, since we’re talking about odds, once in a while, a gun will help you instead of harm you.” See, I’m not 100% anti gun.

You really can’t since you doubled-down so well on your response here. Let me be frank, gun-control advocates are some of the dumbest and most dishonest people on the planet. I don’t expect much from you all in general because years of willful, proud ignorance and emotion-based rhetoric have reduced most of your talking points into the same predictable slop that has become the guiding principle of gun-control zealotry. There’s nothing original anymore, nothing that hasn’t been stated hundreds of times in the last 30 years from some gun-control loon somewhere. I’ll leave you with this passage, knowing you’ve never read it and have never laid eyes on its source. I say this because you, like most gun-control advocates, bask in your ignorance and hold it as a mark of pride against the NRA and gun-ownership. Why you think wanton ignorance is something to be proud of, I have no idea but you have plenty of company to keep.

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

    JMAvery

    Written by

    JMAvery