Do military veterans as a rule suffer more or less mental illness than the general population?

Your father or three of him do not policy, or at least sensible policy make.

The old trope of Australia is rolled out as an example of how it does not work. Try post hungerford in the UK.

The reality is, and i could give zero fucks about this one way or another, at this point the US as a rule tolerates the risk associated with kids being shot at school.

At some point it won't and at that point in time when laws start to be enforced they won't be the laws currently on the books but new ones as a result of the tolerance pendulum swinging the other way.

In my lifetime I've gone from, to use the pejorative, gays, queers, homosexuals being a marginalised second class ostracized by most of mainstream society. In less than two generations my friends are married and enjoy the same rights as I do. If you do not think the gun debate can not go the same way and choose not to constructively take part in it, you will get fucked (metaphorically not literally ;))

There will come a tipping point. The US is not the conservative Christian right wing country it may once have been and as more liberal values pervade gun ownership will increasingly become a literal target

It may not be my life time, but I think people's intolerance of the bull shit arguments rolled out around it will increasingly fray amd then people will have wished they gave up the ar15 to keep the handgun

I'm not arguing for more gun laws. They are pointless given our current society. I'm arguing for more informed citizens who realize that guns aren't needed for 99.9999% of the population, nor are they needed to defend democracy from their own government, and for those citizens to stop listening to the propaganda that pushes those myths in order to perpetuate the gun industry's profits.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yeah but don't you live in Detroit? I'd be walking around armed like Rambo if I lived in Detroit ;-).

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

That same desensitization doesn't lead to mass shootings in other countries, does it?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

If you can't see the ridiculously obvious flaw in your argument I'm not going to waste my time holding your hand and spelling it out for you.

Now carry on waiting for the next mass shooting.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

My wife is an elementary school teacher. Besides shelter in place and that type of training you know what they were outfitted for self defense this year? Lacrosse balls ! I shit you not. Each room is stocked with 3 - 5 lacrosse balls for the teachers to throw at an attacker in order to what I was told "distract them". That is frightening to me as a husband and as a father with kids in school.

It's called A L I C E and I believe it's part of a trend that teaches fighting back if no other alternative. But seriously , lacrosse balls.

---

"I think I've cracked the code. double letters are cheaters except for perfect squares (a, d, i, p and y). So Leddy isn't a cheater... "

Hahahahahahaha! Thanks for the pro tip! ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

We are not talking about initial denials. At least that was not the question posed to Flynn. Flynn was asked how many cases he prosecuted. Flynn said he does not pursue ANY of those cases b/c they are "paper prosecutions."

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

No, in other countries they're running around doing their mass killings with hammers, pressure cookers and knives. I think that's how the argument goes anyway.

There are many of us here in the LR who do support more actions to ensure safe gun ownership. I, personally, have expressed the view, not only in this thread, but in others, that some check akin to the CCW application process may be in order.

But, that's not what he said and you know it.

Here is part of the problem. You see the scary black rifles as evil and serving no legit purpose.

Might be a step.

How do you think guns are sold at gun show?


Are you not following my responses, and those of others, in this thread?


Nice try. Here is what he said:

But, I do hope strong 2A advocates at least think of those 17 coffins in the ground next time they go target shooting, as the reality is their freedom is paid for in the blood of a lot of innocent people.

You that is merely not seeing things as I do? Really? You do not see this comment as over-the-line?

Pathetic effort on your part.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0

FWIW - it's important to note when Trump goes on one of these numbers/facts rants, he's wrong, lying or making it up with every number and fact!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

What I hate about the 'violent husband's defense:

Many people advocating for poor 100lbs Ms muppet's right to self defense are also the ones saying to be a responsible gun owner one must spend considerable time and resources learning about guns, target shooting, etc. Not to mention the money spent on the gun itself, said training, safes, etc.

So, either to defend herself Ms muppet must spend a lot of time and money making herself profecient in firearms safety and proper use (which, at that point one could argue she could be as well served spending that time and money on other avenues of defense training) or just allow anyone to go out and buy a gun and have the free for all the US now has.

Can't have it both ways.

---

Long Chile was a silly place.

First and foremost, yes, anyone who purchases a gun for self-defense needs to put in the time and training to be proficient. Second, abusive/violent members in the household are usually bigger/stronger than the victim. Therefore, if the victim is not highly proficient with the firearm, then introducing a firearm into the household puts the victim in MORE danger as the firearm can be taken and used against the victim. Finally, despite what we saw Jennifer Lopez do in Enough, no amount of self-defense training is going to level the playing field between a 100lb woman and a 200lb man in hand-to-hand combat. A gun levels that playing field but ONLY if the owner is highly proficient with it.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

your last 2 responses that i've read end with "fuck you" (to someone else) and your response above to me. my guess (and maybe i'm wrong, we'll see) is that we'll be hitting a cultural tipping point on a couple of issues sometime this generation. one is climate change. another is gun laws. a critical mass of an informed society is going to realize it's been had by moneyed interests, and the price paid to protect corporate profits is too high.

tho i don't think either my post or the other warranted the response, fuck you and pathetic effort works fine for you today. the time is coming when we'll all have gotten fuck you one too many times, and the resultant set of laws will be way more restrictive than you want it to be.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Only part way through this, but as someone said prior to your posts, stop using the shooters name and just refer to them as an anonymous being or use a derogatory term.

You sir, are giving these people the infamy they crave.

Once.

Post 18 was BCtriguy1 making the obscene comment (i.e., But, I do hope strong 2A advocates at least think of those 17 coffins in the ground next time they go target shooting, as the reality is their freedom is paid for in the blood of a lot of innocent people.) to which I responded, to him: "That is an obscene comment and you truly should feel ashamed for making it."

Post 22 was BCtriguy1 doubling down on his comment in Post 18. Post 23 was my response to BCtriguy1 doubling-down on his obscene comment in Post 18. Post 23 was my one and only time saying "fuck you" and I stand by the comment in response to BCtriguy1's original statement in Post 18.

You want to paint me as saying "fuck you" to people with whom I disagree. You are completely and utterly wrong. My "fuck you" was to BCtriguy1 (who I like a lot) not because we do not agree on a topic, but because of his obscene statement.

I'm not sure why you are falsely claiming I have acted any differently and I really do not understand why you think I said "fuck you" to you. I will reiterate my point to you, however - your attempt to paint me in this negative light is truly pathetic.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'd be interested in seeing the backup for those numbers. That range indicates an average of 1,370 to 8,220 "defensive use of firearms" incidents EACH AND EVERY DAY. Sorry, that doesn't seem remotely plausible.

if i can reboot, here is where i think the problem lies with these big magazines and semi auto rifles. both sides talk about the "legitimate" uses of guns (self-defense against a perp, hunting, etc.).

but i think the "legitimate" use for these other mayhem producing weapons is to protect the civilian against the govt. one might consider that sedition or treason, but that seems to me what was contemplated in the 2nd amendment. if you read the bill of rights - prohibition against a citizen's forced quartering of soldiers in his house - each of these articles speaks to states that had had enough of colonization, and wanted to protect their citizens from a new govt they hadn't yet seen in action. okay. fair enough.

but, 250 years in, are we still in that same place? do we still need to arm ourselves against our govt? because i don't see any other valid reason for the militarization of our citizenry. we dance around this in our debate. democrats talk about the legitimate use of the gun and omit entirely what i think is the elephant in the room: the view that this is a legitimate reason for gun ownership.

i don't feel we are in that same place. we've had a quarter of a millennium worth of the american experiment. i think the 2nd amendment should be amended to reflect this, or we ought to have a reasonable interpretation of what statutes can limit the 2nd amendment.

ironically, the very same side that arms itself to the teeth to protect itself against govt overreach tends to be the bloc most likely to vote for the side that is least interested in husbanding the other 9 articles in the bill of rights.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It's in the CDC report:

"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 per year."

https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

---

---

"100% of the people who confuse correlation and causation end up dying."

I agree with all of this so far.

This is an interesting discussion, given the last two Presidents, especially the current President. Now, many (myself included) were quite taken aback by President Obama's exercise of Executive Power. Except for the tinfoil hat types, it was never to the point where people felt the need to take up arms. I certainly am not saying that. But, there were questions about how far that power would be taken.

Contrast that to President Trump. Do you believe President Trump will push the power of the Office outside its proper scope? I think it is possible. MANY on the Left think it is inevitable (if it hasn't already). Again, I do not see this rising to the level of citizens taking up arms. But, I find it ironic many on the Left are talking civil disobedience and pushing for an overthrow (albeit via lawful impeachment) of the President.

So, do we still need this? I dunno. Maybe we feel we do not need that possibility b/c it has always been present and has kept the gubment in check.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

but, see, here is the wacky thing about this. the democrats should be the ones arming themselves to the teeth in this scenario. trump has shown himself to be uninterested in judicial independence, he wants the ability to easily sue the media into submission, and so forth.

the democrats are saying no, a bazooka in every home is not the proper response. rather, raising up in all of us the understanding that we're a country of laws not men, that we settle our disputes peacefully, that is the proper solution. while the democrats may be on the wrong side of policy, they seem on the right side of process. but i'm willing to hear a rebuttal and, in either case, i do think this is a missing backdrop to the gun rights discussion.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I agree. But, there are sheep and there are sheep dogs and you will never see the sheep standing post.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Well, that survey admits that there is controversy on those number (see below). And there are others who strongly disagree. Like I said, it's simply not plausible. If it were happening 5,000 time a day, don't you think it would be in the news more often?

http://www.vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck


https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearm-researcher-surveys/





Defensive Use of Guns
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
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence." Institute of Medicine and . 2013. Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18319.
×
Save[/url]
Cancel[/url]
[/url]
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.
Even when defensive use of guns is effective in averting death or injury for the gun user in cases of crime, it is still possible that keeping a gun in the home or carrying a gun in public—concealed or open carry—may have a different net effect on the rate of injury. For example, if gun ownership raises the risk of suicide, homicide, or the use of weapons by those who invade the homes of gun owners, this could cancel or outweigh the beneficial effects of defensive gun use (Kellermann et al., 1992, 1993, 1995). Although some early studies were published that relate to this issue, they were not conclusive, and this is a sufficiently important question that it merits additional, careful exploration.

I've been slipping in and out on that one with this fellow. Sometimes, I've been calling him by his name and sometimes just "the shooter." But I absolutely agree that the one thing this guy craves is the infamy and notoriety. No more names now.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."