Defensive Carry banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,841 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well, this doesn't fit the narrative. From the article:

"a 2012 Congressional Research Service study showing gun ownership jumped from 192 million privately owned guns in 1994 to 309 million in 2009. At the same time, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” of 6.6 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 fell to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and as far as 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011."

"In summary, the 192 million privately owned guns in 1994 swelled to 309 million privately owned guns in 2009 and continued to grow by leaps and bounds thereafter. An estimate of 330 to 340 million privately owned guns by the end of 2014 is no stretch. And while the theories of the left would suggest such a massive jump in gun ownership must result in more bloodshed, empirical evidence shows that more guns actually correlated with a sharp decline in the firearm-related homicide rate between 1993 and 2014."

The evidence that disproves all of the progressive arguments against the RTKABA is overwhelming. And yet, we are extraordinarily unlikely to see this in any mainstream media.

1993-2014: Private Gun Ownership Skyrockets, Firearm-Related Homicides Plummet - Breitbart
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
The big difference between us and the anti-gunners is our decision making process. They base their decision more on emotions and feelings and we tend to base ours more on facts and hard data. They feel that guns are bad, so less of them would be a good thing. We know from the data available that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually reduces crime.

I think that's one of the factors that creates the rift between the left and right. We just use different processes to try to solve common problems. Both sides want to reduce crime and violence. Both sides want a better economy, better schools, safer neighborhoods, and cleaner water. We just can't seem to get together on how to go about it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,841 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
The big difference between us and the anti-gunners is our decision making process. They base their decision more on emotions and feelings and we tend to base ours more on facts and hard data. They feel that guns are bad, so less of them would be a good thing. We know from the data available that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually reduces crime.

I think that's one of the factors that creates the rift between the left and right. We just use different processes to try to solve common problems. Both sides want to reduce crime and violence. Both sides want a better economy, better schools, safer neighborhoods, and cleaner water. We just can't seem to get together on how to go about it.
A very astute and interesting observation. I tend to agree with you for the most part; while I do think that the emotional angle certainly plays a part for many, I believe that a lack of education/knowledge on the subject in conjunction with the blind acceptance and belief in whatever media they subscribe to also plays a significant role.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
374 Posts
There's no room in news coverage today for anything that doesn't support the narrative that is firmly in place across America. The liberals in government and media have a plan that has been at work for nearly 50 years now. It's working. Any attempt to disturb that plan will be eliminated in any way necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
What bewilders me is that the current liberals evolved from the hippies of the 60s. They were anti-government, free spirits who wanted to "do their own thing." The same people are now pushing for an expanded government and more infringement on personal freedom. It's just weird that the whole movement has done such an about-face.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
632 Posts
The big difference between us and the anti-gunners is our decision making process. They base their decision more on emotions and feelings and we tend to base ours more on facts and hard data. They feel that guns are bad, so less of them would be a good thing. We know from the data available that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually reduces crime.

I think that's one of the factors that creates the rift between the left and right. We just use different processes to try to solve common problems. Both sides want to reduce crime and violence. Both sides want a better economy, better schools, safer neighborhoods, and cleaner water. We just can't seem to get together on how to go about it.
+1

Yes, the "Gershes," if they even get their hands on a real gun, are so terrified by the prospect, that they immediately want to ban them. They don't use simple logic and reasoning: a gun is no more an assault weapon than is a hammer. In the wrong hands, a hammer can be every bit as deadly as a firearm. Then too, in the wrong hands, a firearm can be used to drive nails. Shouldn't we then ban hammers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorbait51

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,813 Posts
What bewilders me is that the current liberals evolved from the hippies of the 60s. They were anti-government, free spirits who wanted to "do their own thing." The same people are now pushing for an expanded government and more infringement on personal freedom. It's just weird that the whole movement has done such an about-face.
No, this is exactly what they stood for; totalitarian control
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Old Anglo

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,841 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
What bewilders me is that the current liberals evolved from the hippies of the 60s. They were anti-government, free spirits who wanted to "do their own thing." The same people are now pushing for an expanded government and more infringement on personal freedom. It's just weird that the whole movement has done such an about-face.
I'm going to go a little off topic and try to answer your question as best I can - please note that the following is a mixture of history and opinion.

Progressivism started in the 1890's as a movement against the plutocracy that existed at the time - the industrial barons who had built huge monopolies and taken advantage of the working class to build their companies. I am a hard core capitalist, but it is impossible to deny that the industrial revolution and the way it was recognized through child labor and horrific working conditions gave birth to political movements created to help the everyman. Other political movements that arose as a result of the challenges of the times included socialism and communism.

The progressives helped change laws and recognize the value of the worker, but they did so by giving power to government - they needed government to have power it had not previously had to reign in the abuses of the industrial revolution. Progressivism became a mechanism for achieving political objectives - take small victories one at a time to reach your ultimate goal. It is a technique that has been used by both parties, always to the enlargement of government. Progressivism continued to build throughout the 20th century - Woodrow Wilson and FDR are 2 great examples of POTUS's who used progressivism to further their cause.

The 1960's liberals originally arose as more classic liberals - those who have a passion for individual rights and freedom. Classic liberalism is really about liberty and not necessarily a bad thing. This was the baby boomer generation for the most part and they wanted to change the world. Unfortunately for the world, they were co-opted with and by progressives who showed them how get what they wanted by making small things happen over time. Progressivism made sense to a generation of 'liberals' who emotionally felt that everyone should be free of all 'chains' including poverty (and that is a major key).

Eventually the two separate concepts merged to create the modern liberal/progressive. These people need government and lots of it to push through their ideals and concepts because they run contrary to the natural human condition. Of course, after so many years most now miss (or never understood) that more government only leads to more restrictions because government is like any entity - it takes on a life of its own and tries to not only sustain, but grow itself. Power corrupts and the more power you give an entity, the more it will abuse that power.

Classic liberals still exist, although there are not nearly as many of them. Many still cling to the concepts of socialism and communism because they meet their emotional need to have everyone economically provided for, but they reject government overreach, at least for their own causes. They align with modern progressives because they fail to acknowledge the conflict between the large government necessary for socialism and communism (which they see as economic freedom for everyone), and the natural propensity of government to become overbearing. They want socialist utopia and fail to acknowledge that it runs contrary to natural human behavior and organizational development.

Ok, I am going to stop now, because I think I covered it and most won't read a post this long. Hopefully someone gets something out of it. Please, feel free to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
928 Posts
[handsoverears]na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na na[/handsoverears]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,235 Posts
What bewilders me is that the current liberals evolved from the hippies of the 60s. They were anti-government, free spirits who wanted to "do their own thing." The same people are now pushing for an expanded government and more infringement on personal freedom. It's just weird that the whole movement has done such an about-face.
Not too confusing, they run everything now.

If they didn't they would still be anti government.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
This Administration has been the promoter of gun sales, and also responsible for increase of terror.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top