• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Insights on guns from a veteran

TurtleDude said:
I don't believe you and you have posted too many lies for someone like me-a former DOJ prosecutor who was our component's firearms trainer, to believe the swill you spew.

You have posted several lies

1) you cannot buy an M16 rifle unless you have a Class III tax stamp. and it cannot be one made after May 19, 1986

2) AR 15s are not military issue and given less than one half of one percent of all murders are committed by people using them or similar weapons, your rant that those firearms are only used to kill. I have shot in over 30 matches using an AR-15 and national service rifle competitions feature thousands of target shooters using them.

3) why are cops being issued fully automatic M16 rifles-they aren't supposed to be killing large numbers of people either-especially in a civilian environment.

Sorry-your lies about these rifles and their uses has permanently disqualified anything you say on firearms being taken seriously by me-a person who was certified as an expert by members of congress and federal judges.

and you are even lying about the purpose of a military M16-they are designed to INFLICT casualties not to kill

anyone in the military would know that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, inflicting casualties so that somebody bleeds out slowly is so much better than killing them quickly, right? :doh
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
I am a veteran of the U.S Army. In the Army, we trained with and carried assault rifles because it was PART OF OUR JOB.

You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to own or carry an assault rifle.
Click to expand...

Well, as someone who is currently serving, I find your use of your service to push such politics reprehensible. You makes oaths when you sign up to serve and the oath is to that of the Constitution, period. You support and espouse ideas and concepts that are diametrically against what the founding fathers intended and the ideas that are embodied in that document.

What a disgrace.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
Yeah, inflicting casualties so that somebody bleeds out slowly is so much better than killing them quickly, right? :doh
Click to expand...

if you really were in the infantry you'd know the answer to this without a civilian having to explain it to you

dead men don't require additional manpower-especially opposition nations that don't have the "We don't leave anyone behind" mantra guiding them. wounded men require other soldiers to evacuate them, carry them, give them aid

if killing the enemy was the main reason for "assault rifles" rather than inflicting casualties, we'd still be using 30 caliber MBR (look that term up) since the lethality of the 30-06 MI ball round is far greater than the M193 or SS109 NATO round
 
TurtleDude said:
if you really were in the infantry you'd know the answer to this without a civilian having to explain it to you

dead men don't require additional manpower-especially opposition nations that don't have the "We don't leave anyone behind" mantra guiding them. wounded men require other soldiers to evacuate them, carry them, give them aid

if killing the enemy was the main reason for "assault rifles" rather than inflicting casualties, we'd still be using 30 caliber MBR (look that term up) since the lethality of the 30-06 MI ball round is far greater than the M193 or SS109 NATO round
Click to expand...

None of that changes the fact that allowing concealed carry has been proven to INCREASE violent crime: Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows
 
TurtleDude said:
Next thing we will be told is he served in the Clone wars under Darth Vader and was responsible for the Death of General Grievous
Click to expand...

You mean he served in the Hyperspace Wars of 1812 under the command of Jedi General Spock, and was responsible for the death of the USS Enterprise commander Issac Clarke. :mrgreen:
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
None of that changes the fact that allowing concealed carry has been proven to INCREASE violent crime: Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows
Click to expand...

well your argument sucks. and the reason why it sucks is that we honest citizens don't have to prove the exercise of our rights makes us safer. anti rights control freaks have to prove that our exercise of rights is making society substantially less safe. And there is no proof that honest citizens carry firearms legally are the ones causing problems. There is no causation being proved, and guess what-in the last 20 years, the number of people carrying guns has gone from under a million to at least 7 million and the violent crime rates have gone down

your silly study has no evidence that the "increase" in violent crime comes from ccw license holders. the article you cited contains no evidence supporting its conclusions or any link to causation

given how many lies you have told about firearms and their uses, I am going to dismiss this article you cited as silly propaganda and its obvious it was commissioned to try to attack lawful gun usage by honest people

I tried to read the actual study your cursory article describes but its been trying to load for the last five minutes

edit-make that 20 minutes

when it opens I will demonstrate why it doesn't establish what you pretend it does
 
TheGoverness said:
You mean he served in the Hyperspace Wars of 1812 under the command of Jedi General Spock, and was responsible for the death of the USS Enterprise commander Issac Clarke. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

LOL, reminds me of that great Ramones Song

53rd and Third (written by Douglas Glen Colvin-PKA DeeDee Ramone


If you think you can, well come on man
I was a Green Beret in Vietnam
No more of your fairy stories
'Cause I got my other worries
 
TurtleDude said:
well your argument sucks. and the reason why it sucks is that we honest citizens don't have to prove the exercise of our rights makes us safer. anti rights control freaks have to prove that our exercise of rights is making society substantially less safe. And there is no proof that honest citizens carry firearms legally are the ones causing problems. There is no causation being proved, and guess what-in the last 20 years, the number of people carrying guns has gone from under a million to at least 7 million and the violent crime rates have gone down

your silly study has no evidence that the "increase" in violent crime comes from ccw license holders. the article you cited contains no evidence supporting its conclusions or any link to causation

given how many lies you have told about firearms and their uses, I am going to dismiss this article you cited as silly propaganda and its obvious it was commissioned to try to attack lawful gun usage by honest people

I tried to read the actual study your cursory article describes but its been trying to load for the last five minutes

edit-make that 20 minutes

when it opens I will demonstrate why it doesn't establish what you pretend it does
Click to expand...

There is no right to carry a gun. Even the Conservative supreme court, back when Scalia was alive, ruled that New Jersey's strict carry laws were constitutional.

Also, you have no answer to the scientific evidence that concealed carry increases crime. Too bad.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
None of that changes the fact that allowing concealed carry has been proven to INCREASE violent crime: Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows
Click to expand...

the stanford paper was an attempt by anti gun activists to try to refute the well known Lott study "more guns less crime" and was started not to find out what really happens but to disprove a conclusion the bannerrhoid movement didn't like

and that paper doesn't even have any evidence that its lawful gun carriers causing the increase they claim was occurring in 2014. But Lott has provided a rebuttal


Finally, I will make a very simple point: by throwing out the arrest rate variable, these authors create a truncation problem. Crime can't fall below zero no matter how effective a crime fighting effort is. There are lots of ways to deal with the truncation issue (count data, Tobit, etc), but these authors introduce this problem and they bias their results towards zero. For those interested, a copy of the response that I put together regarding Donohue's paper can be found here.

John Lott's Website: Note on John Donohue's latest paper
 
TurtleDude said:
the stanford paper was an attempt by anti gun activists to try to refute the well known Lott study "more guns less crime" and was started not to find out what really happens but to disprove a conclusion the bannerrhoid movement didn't like

and that paper doesn't even have any evidence that its lawful gun carriers causing the increase they claim was occurring in 2014. But Lott has provided a rebuttal


Finally, I will make a very simple point: by throwing out the arrest rate variable, these authors create a truncation problem. Crime can't fall below zero no matter how effective a crime fighting effort is. There are lots of ways to deal with the truncation issue (count data, Tobit, etc), but these authors introduce this problem and they bias their results towards zero. For those interested, a copy of the response that I put together regarding Donohue's paper can be found here.

John Lott's Website: Note on John Donohue's latest paper
Click to expand...

John Lott has been discredited MANY times. Shooting Down the Gun Lobby?s Favorite ?Academic?: A Lott of Lies ? Armed With Reason

Regardless of everything, gun ownership is decreasing. 3 percent of the country owns HALF the country's guns. Survey: Half the Nation's Guns Are Owned by Just 3 Percent of the American Population - Atlanta Black Star As the country gets less rural, and there are fewer and fewer hunters or farmers, guns will continue to become to sole property of deranged gun nuts, until finally, there are too few supporters of the gun lobby to oppose common sense gun safety.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
There is no right to carry a gun. Even the Conservative supreme court, back when Scalia was alive, ruled that New Jersey's strict carry laws were constitutional.

Also, you have no answer to the scientific evidence that concealed carry increases crime. Too bad.
Click to expand...

do you actually understand the difference between federal powers and state powers.

and there is no evidence that those carrying increase crime. That's an important distinction you either are unable to grasp or dishonestly confuse
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
John Lott has been discredited MANY times. Shooting Down the Gun Lobby?s Favorite ?Academic?: A Lott of Lies ? Armed With Reason

Regardless of everything, gun ownership is decreasing. 3 percent of the country owns HALF the country's guns. Survey: Half the Nation's Guns Are Owned by Just 3 Percent of the American Population - Atlanta Black Star As the country gets less rural, and there are fewer and fewer hunters or farmers, guns will continue to become to sole property of deranged gun nuts, until finally, there are too few supporters of the gun lobby to oppose common sense gun safety.
Click to expand...

Lott started as an anti gun academic. He did research and honestly reported what he found and that turned him into a pro gun advocate. Same thing happened with Gary Kleck and Paxton Quigley. they did the research and as a result, supported freedom. The people opposing them are Bannerhoids who start with the premise that they had to counter what Lott found and were going to work backwards to prove their views.

calling gun owners "deranged gun nuts" proves that your rants are not about crime control or public safety but rather you, as a socialist (and it seems all the anti gun posters these days are lefties since gun control is a tool used to attack conservatives) hate the politics of NRA members and the candidates we gun owners support
 
CG's latest article is written by a guy who is under the age of 25-has no experience in criminology and is pretty much what you would call a student who merely blogs. The guy who wrote this counter to Dr Lott's study has this resume

Evan DeFilippis graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a triple degree in Economics, Political Science, and Psychology. He was the University of Oklahoma's valedictorian in 2012, he is one of the nation's few Harry S. Truman Scholars based on his commitment to public service, and is a David L. Boren Critical Languages scholar, fluent in Swahili, and dedicated to a career in African development. He worked on multiple poverty-reduction projects in Nairobi, Kenya, doing big data analysis for Innovations for Poverty Action. He will be attending Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School in the Fall.

so he's got a decent academic record but no credentials in the topic. Rather he's a left wing activist who started with the premise gun ownership is bad and wants to try to convince people who don't understand the difference between a peer reviewed work (lott's study) and what is basically an opinion piece by someone with no credentials
 
TurtleDude said:
well your argument sucks. and the reason why it sucks is that we honest citizens don't have to prove the exercise of our rights makes us safer. anti rights control freaks have to prove that our exercise of rights is making society substantially less safe. And there is no proof that honest citizens carry firearms legally are the ones causing problems. There is no causation being proved, and guess what-in the last 20 years, the number of people carrying guns has gone from under a million to at least 7 million and the violent crime rates have gone down

your silly study has no evidence that the "increase" in violent crime comes from ccw license holders. the article you cited contains no evidence supporting its conclusions or any link to causation

given how many lies you have told about firearms and their uses, I am going to dismiss this article you cited as silly propaganda and its obvious it was commissioned to try to attack lawful gun usage by honest people

I tried to read the actual study your cursory article describes but its been trying to load for the last five minutes

edit-make that 20 minutes

when it opens I will demonstrate why it doesn't establish what you pretend it does
Click to expand...

Loaded OK for me. A big load of nothing. Apparently based on:

“The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates” of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.

The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

The rest of the study is similar.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
Regardless of everything, gun ownership is decreasing. 3 percent of the country owns HALF the country's guns. Survey: Half the Nation's Guns Are Owned by Just 3 Percent of the American Population - Atlanta Black Star As the country gets less rural, and there are fewer and fewer hunters or farmers, guns will continue to become to sole property of deranged gun nuts, until finally, there are too few supporters of the gun lobby to oppose common sense gun safety.
Click to expand...

I choose not to believe this "study" for three reasons.

First, as has been explained many times, no single study is "authoritative." It's results depend upon a number of factors not the least of which is researcher bias. The researcher(s) can "tweek" the study by messing with the factors involved like where was the sample from, how big was it, etc., not forgetting the possibility of P-hacking:

The use of data mining to uncover patterns in data that can be presented as statistically significant, without first devising a specific hypothesis as to the underlying causality.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_dredging

Second, as has been pointed out time and again even by the likes of John Oliver "scientists themselves know not to attach too much significance to a single study." This is a single study which has not been replicated by OTHER researchers. Difficult because there is not advantage to researchers to invest in replication showing a study is valid...no funding and unlikely to get published.

In engineering, science, and statistics, replication is the repetition of an experimental condition so that the variability associated with the phenomenon can be estimated.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_(statistics)

Third, how valid are the results when many gun owners would be loathe to participate, much less admit to anything that might result in future confiscation of their weapons? IMO many citizens will not admit to gun ownership, at least not to strangers (including researchers and census takers). If I ever decided to purchase a gun, I would never let anyone know I had unless I absolutely trusted them with my life.

So I refuse to accept that a tiny proportion of our society owns 50% of all the privately owns weapons in the USA. If so, then gun control would easily be enacted despite the "5 million members of the NRA."

Now as for your claim that being an ex-serviceman gives you some special insight into gun rights? That is a weak appeal to authority which is clearly not supported by any actual education on the subject.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
the stanford paper was an attempt by anti gun activists to try to refute the well known Lott study "more guns less crime" and was started not to find out what really happens but to disprove a conclusion the bannerrhoid movement didn't like

and that paper doesn't even have any evidence that its lawful gun carriers causing the increase they claim was occurring in 2014. But Lott has provided a rebuttal


Finally, I will make a very simple point: by throwing out the arrest rate variable, these authors create a truncation problem. Crime can't fall below zero no matter how effective a crime fighting effort is. There are lots of ways to deal with the truncation issue (count data, Tobit, etc), but these authors introduce this problem and they bias their results towards zero. For those interested, a copy of the response that I put together regarding Donohue's paper can be found here.

John Lott's Website: Note on John Donohue's latest paper
Click to expand...

The Lott Mustard study must be the most attacked research in history. Still stands today, gun control having tried every trick in the books
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
I served in the militia, aka the National Guard.

Civilians are not the militia, period.

Besides, the founding fathers were not infallible. Who gives a **** what some slave owning, Native American killing rich white men 200 years ago thought.
Click to expand...

And yet you harbor all this resentment of your ancestors. Pathetic.

-Most were slave owners because it was totally legal and accepted as common practice.(nothing wrong with that)
-They killed native Americans because they resisted progress and tried to kill the white man.(What part of defeated people by war, don't you get?)
-They were not all rich
-citizens ARE the militia! The National Guard is made up of citizen soldiers.

Everyone has a right to defend themselves, by whatever means necessary.
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
SO you HAVENT read the US Code. You dont know that ALL able bodied adults are members of the militia and that has ever and always been the case. You dont know that the civilian 'unorganized' is specifically identified in the US code. Your ignorance explains everything.

It doesnt matter what you think about the Constitution. Your opinion of it...wrong as it is...is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Fully agree.
 
ChairmanGonzalo said:
Guess what, I was trained in firearms and their safe use as well.

I was trained to respect my M16 as a killing tool, to be used for one purpose and one purpose only: to end lives. All the attachments I added on, such as optical sights, grips, etc. were to facilitate that purpose.

It's stupid how some civilian with ZERO training, and in private sales, no ID at all, to buy a weapon with all the same features as the ones used in the military to kill and only to kill. And don't give me the bs about how the Ar 15 isn't an assault rifle because they are semi automatic. Guess what: I never fired my rifle once in burst mode. Semi was even more suited to the task of killing large numbers of enemies, something a civilian will never have to do.
Click to expand...

If you have ever been in a riot incident, I've been in 3, you would realize how wrong you are! Your entire spiel is poppycock!
 
TurtleDude said:
Lott started as an anti gun academic. He did research and honestly reported what he found and that turned him into a pro gun advocate. Same thing happened with Gary Kleck and Paxton Quigley. they did the research and as a result, supported freedom. The people opposing them are Bannerhoids who start with the premise that they had to counter what Lott found and were going to work backwards to prove their views.

calling gun owners "deranged gun nuts" proves that your rants are not about crime control or public safety but rather you, as a socialist (and it seems all the anti gun posters these days are lefties since gun control is a tool used to attack conservatives) hate the politics of NRA members and the candidates we gun owners support
Click to expand...

I fuylly agree and the OP is total BS.
 
This place is a never ending parade of socialist/liberal clowns, with a huge pant load of anti-gun bias.

With their lack of real life experience, our country is doomed to fail in the future, if they are allowed to reproduce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom