Skip to main content

View Diary: What is it about guns, anyway? (116 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so the real defensive (0+ / 0-)

    use is waiving the gun around to scare somebody, so we should not have any competency testing or training for the use of a dangerous instrument?    And then of course, ammunition is also unnecessary since defensive use doesn't involve actually shooting at anything?  And of course, the whole premise that multiple shoots are necessary as a right kind of flies out the window doesn't it.

    You can't have it all ways,  either guns, because they do shoot and are deadly force are necessary to protection, or they don't even need to shoot.    It isn't that they work some of the time for self defense just because someone knows you have one,   doesn't mean that the person who has one doesn't need to show competency in its use or that is not a perfectly reasonable restriction on ownership.

    Not to mention, there aren't any modern scientifically rigorous studies, in part, that issue may be addressed by the president today.    Old studies,  and pro gun lobby literature, nothing in almost 20 years.  Ignorance isn't bliss, its just a lack of knowledge.  Deliberate on the issue of guns so that the real dangers can't be known.  And who fears this knowledge, not the people who argue for some form of registration and licensing, but those who want to sell the maximum number of guns without meeting any restrictions.

    So keep promoting your old information and ignorance.   It works for Republicans and a few no nothing types.

    •  Your reply is (5+ / 0-)

      full of things I did not say, or even imply. FBI statistics are not old information. But obviously you are less interested in facts and more interested in hyperbole.

      Have a nice day.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:34:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  no actually (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I  tried to find some current numbers, the FBI tries to keep some statistics, but they are, like many statistics from the FBI, not the best methodology (reported crime is not always a good measure of all crime, so police departments don't respond or fudge their numbers) or not current.   Older studies quoted frequently are 1995 and older.  Notable changes in crime patterns have been recorded, other things have changed.  

        A search for FBI statistics shows lots of stuff from the mid 1990's nothing in the last few years.  Again, a result of deliberate action by Congress to end research.  Nothing may be known in case it is negative.

        And if you have the killer end all of arguments, you could link them.

    •  Non sequiteurs and Strawmen? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Well played... not.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site