Gun Control

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

In one case they took an inexpensive camera and the other, $30. If I had been carrying a gun, what do you want me to do? Shoot someone over a camera or $30?

What if they didn't care about taking your stuff, but something much more valuable, like your kid's life?

Just because someone carries a gun doesn't automatically mean start shooting, it's a means of last resort in dire cases to save a life. That last part is what I want to preserve with the availability to carry and protect for all, why you wish to eliminate that protection is confounding, especially when you tell a story of being lucky to have gotten away with minor loss.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

I think she did the right thing.

http://fox2now.com/2014/10/03/woman-...up-for-myself/

http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comment...investigators/

Lucky for her, she did. The police obviously cannot and will not protect you. Your life is in your own hands.

[TATTRAT]

Re: Gun Control

I think she did the right thing.

http://fox2now.com/2014/10/03/woman-...up-for-myself/

http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comment...investigators/

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

http://theweek.com/article/index/269...rm-at-gunpoint

He have what's he having.

This is an apparently common crime. Several years ago, my brother's house was burglarized while the weren't at home. Besides stealing some costume jewelry, they stole his handgun (which I didn't know he even owned). He said, "how did they find that gun? I thought I had it so well hidden!"

This was a crime of opportunity because no one was home. He has now taken other steps to secure his home (like a home alarm). I don't know if he bought another gun or not.

Matapule has been mugged twice in his long life, on the streets of San Jose, Costa Rica and downrtown Los Angeles (don't know if they guns or not). In one case they took an inexpensive camera and the other, $30. If I had been carrying a gun, what do you want me to do? Shoot someone over a camera or $30? Life is too short for a matapule to take that kind of action.

Matapule chooses to live his life with courage and optimism. At his age, he has more fear and a greater chance of losing his life to cancer or Alzheimers than some gun nut invading his home.

STRICT GUN CONTROL NOW!

[Walkoff Balk]

Re: Gun Control

http://theweek.com/article/index/269...rm-at-gunpoint

He have what's he having.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

Vote in opposition to gun nut politicians in November. Don't let your vote be bought by blood money.

I kinda doubt with the miniscule posters left at HT that the NRA is a factor here, I'd wage that rather than worry about so-called blood money our viewers would rather retain the right and ability to arm and protect themselves as they see fit without fools trying to disarm lawful citizens to become further defenseless victims. Vote out protection haters.

STRICT LOON CONTROL NOW!

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

Vote FREEDOM!

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

Those of us who favor STRICT GUN CONTROL are now going toe to toe with the domestic terrorist organization, NRA, and their gun nut supporters.

Barely a month from Election Day, the nation's most powerful gun rights group (NRA) has so far reported spending over $10 million for ads and other efforts either for or against more than 60 congressional candidates. The efforts include sending NRA field representatives to gun shows to tout favored candidates.
That spending — which is supposed to be done independently and not coordinated with candidates — makes the NRA the ninth highest spender of more than 300 groups tracked by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.
Virtually all NRA spending has been to help Republicans. As of Aug. 31 it reported having $18.5 million banked and was still raising money.

If you are a supporter of the domestic terrorist organization, NRA, then paint yourself as a reactionary, ultra-conservative Republican.

Vote in opposition to gun nut politicians in November. Don't let your vote be bought by blood money.


STRICT GUN CONTROL NOW!

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

One more off the streets in Florida.

Maybe he was just a POS nut with a gun?

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

One more gun nut off the streets in Florida. No hiding behind "stand your ground" for this criminal.

STRICT GUN CONTROL NOW!

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

http://bearingarms.com/moms-demand-s...paign=baupdate

STRICT ANTI-GUN NUT CONTROL NOW!

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

Anyone that would use the ignore button on HT should just bugger off to some safe closet where they'll never encounter differing or even common sense.

And now with the Oklahoma beheading, and possible more similar acts of depravity coming, maybe those that want to keep the rest of the country vulnerable will rethink and reload.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

How you feel you can do the latter without doing the former confounds me, good sir.

I also have respect for you - that's why I chose to chime in. I know you are capable of better, even when in disagreement.

Obviously his calling an organization of which I am a life member (the NRA) a "terrorist organization" is an insult to me. They are an obviously patriotic organization, defending the second amendment to the US Constitution, and part of the 'Bill of Rights.'

And yes, I insult his posts because they are 'over the top' in unjust discrimination.

As I said, he has me on ignore, and does not read my posts, so he never knows unless someone else quotes me.

I think Matapule is a good-intentioned person with a serious obsession, and I will speak against his false accusations always.

But you are right, I should be more polite. Your feedback always welcome.

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Gun Control

I'm not insulting him, just his posts.

How you feel you can do the latter without doing the former confounds me, good sir.

I also have respect for you - that's why I chose to chime in. I know you are capable of better, even when in disagreement.

[Kaonohi]

How Bloomberg's Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring (Part 2)

Bloomberg’s groups might not feel they have to respond because they already have much of the media behind them.

Lott said, “When Bloomberg’s group puts out a press release they get huge coverage from the media and little critical analysis of their claims. When we do research that shows Bloomberg’s group is blatantly wrong we get coverage from FOX News and some other media, but the networks, CNN, the Washington Post and so on often ignore us. When those mainstream outlets do quote our studies they typically include the views of someone from the gun-control groups. I don’t mind that, but why aren’t they being as critical of the gun-control groups? Those groups have official ideological agendas.”

Meanwhile, the anti-gun groups have found some very wealthy people to fund them. CNN reported that Harvard University’s School of Public Health is receiving $350 million donation to study “gun violence” and other “complex health threats challenging the U.S. and the world” from the Morningside Foundation. The descendants of Hong Kong real estate tycoon T.H. Chan run this foundation. Also, Bloomberg has donated $350 million to Johns Hopkins University’s School of Public Health and, according to the Washington Post, Bloomberg “has committed to spending $50 million of his personal fortune” to build Everytown for Gun Safety. Meanwhile, the Democracy Alliance, backed by George Soros, is giving millions to a variety of groups that support gun control and other “progressive” causes.

On the pro-gun side most of the money is coming from the grassroots. There are estimated to be 100 million gun owners in America. About 5 million of them are members of the National Rifle Association. Millions more are members of other gun-rights groups and gun clubs. These are the people who fund the NRA and these are the people who vote this issue. Though there are wealthy individuals on the gun-rights side, it’s not a stretch to say a few wealthy, out-of-touch billionaires are trying to disarm the people. To accomplish this they have to sway the people to vote away their freedom. This would be democracy at work if it were an honest exchange of ideas leading into another election, but too often the media is simply printing Bloomberg’s studies as if they are not from group’s with official ideological positions.

Lott said, “Still, the truth does have a way of getting through.”

For example, when anti-gun groups and politicians began saying that 40 percent of gun sales are done without background checks Lott dug into the numbers and found that President Barack Obama got it all wrong when he said, “As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check.”

Lott found that the 40 percent figure comes from a 251-person study covering gun purchases during 1991 to 1994. “Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act that started the National Instant Background Check System took effect on February 28, 1994.”

The many anti-gun groups who used this figure also failed to note that the vast majority of these gun sales involved within-family inheritances and gifts. “And,” Lott said, “That survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the ‘gun show loophole.’”

In this case the claim was so egregious that Washington Post’s fact checker weighed in and gave Obama and the many anti-gun groups using this 40 percent figure three Pinocchios. The Post cited the problems Lott noted, criticized the loaded wording of the study and a lot more.

Meanwhile, after Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety put out an info-graphic claiming there had been 74 school shootings since the Sandy Hook massacre in December 2012, Lott and other researchers looked into the claim. They soon found that Everytown inflated the statistic by “including suicides, accidents, incidents related to criminal activity (e.g. – drug dealing or robbery), and incidents that took place outside of school hours or were unconnected to members of any school community,” reported the CATO Institute. For its statistics the CATO Institute relied on numbers from the National Center for Education Statistics’ 2013 “Indicators of School Crime and Safety” report.

There are a lot of other examples showing how often the anti-gun movement misuses and spins data. Lott helped to blow holes in Bloomberg’s groups figures on how many mass killers have mental illnesses; his research has helped to explain how gun control made Chicago’s murder rate skyrocket; and he has shown what the political term “universal background checks” really means.


Lott says, “We’re not just responding to errors and lies propagated by the anti-gun movement; we’re also doing new research to inject truth into this debate. It’s critical that we do. I can’t find a Bloomberg study without a lot of errors. We need to push back with honest research. If we don’t people will believe the trumped-up studies from the anti-gun groups. The result of what could happen then can be seen in places like Chicago.”

As the truth has come out on the statistics and studies being pushed by Bloomberg’s groups a lot of mayors have left Bloomberg’s groups Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). So many, in fact, Bloomberg was compelled to start a new group and pushed MAIG under its umbrella. Bloomberg also lost in Colorado and more recently he failed to unseat Sheriff David Clarke Jr. of Milwaukee County, Wis. In both of those political battles guns were a central issue.

In 2013 gun-control groups outspent gun-rights groups by about 7.4 to 1 on TV advertising. This was largely because of Bloomberg’s massive anti-gun war chest. Guns have not been a big issue nationally in this election cycle, but the gun issue is influencing voters in places like Washington State, Colorado, New York and Maryland. These contests will affect the momentum, one way or the other, of how the gun issue affects the next presidential election.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmin...is-backfiring/