Gun Crime down in 6 of 8 of Ohio's largest cities after passage of Constitutional Carry (grocery, sell)

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by cheech14

I already have, check the thread.

Nyahh, too lazy I guess.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by cheech14

I already have, check the thread.

I mean, there are nearly 200 reponses, so no. Reading through it once was enough.

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

You want me to prove that someone with a gun is more likely to use it than someone who doesn't have a gun? And that the people who carry guns all the time perceive danger differently than people who don't?

Not sure if you're serious.

This is what you said:

Originally Posted by cheech14 If you feel like the danger is so high that you must carry a firearm at all times, it just means that your potential response to perceived danger is going to be more drastic. It's arguably not a healthy assumption to expect a deadly threat at all times, and I can't imagine it leaves people like that in a good frame of mind when a threat- real or perceived- presents itself. Simply put, you're more likely to use your gun because you expect there to eventually be a reason to have to use it.

You made two positive assertions, and threw them out there as if they're established facts. Go ahead-back up your claims.

[KathrynAragon]

Well, the answer is somewhere in the thread, clearly...or not so clearly. Whatever. Not rereading this thread by the way.

[cheech14]

[quote]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

Do try to keep up. The discussion was about imposing the same types of restrictions on voting that you are calling for to be imposed on gun owners. In the context of voting, there is nothing analogous to magazine capacity restrictions

.

That was not my argument or discussion, you keep bringing up voting restrictions because you're under the mistaken impression you have some kind of gotcha where I am devastated by your analogy.

Show the evidence that the restrictions that you are calling to be imposed on gun owners will accomplish exactly that, and that they will accomplish that in a way the the 10's of thousands of gun laws currently on the books do not.

https://journals.lww.com/epidem/abst...ate_gun.3.aspx

And these were about state laws, not federal, which logically would be more effective considering crossing state lines wouldn't matter. I look forward to the part where you move the goalposts.

I can't tell if you are being serious, or deliberately obtuse. Either way, such nonsense doesn't merit further discussion.

Why? You asked what I think about those restrictions, I answered clearly. You seem upset that I didn't give you the answer you were trying to get... because again, those questions were meant to try to find some flaw or hypocrisy in my position.

That's simply false.

Oh really, so what's the manufactured purpose of a firearm? Paperweight? Shooting beer cans? Compensating for someone's undersized genitalia? You tell me.

No, it doesn't at all address the question. I asked what has led you to conclude that I have a savior complex. Support your answer with actual quotes of mine.

You're becoming very tedious, and I think it's just an attempt at deflection. As I said, there are not many logical reasons to own guns or to defend them at the cost of so many lives unless you believed that you were in some way protecting yourself or others with them. Every post from you in this thread has been in defense against restrictions against firearms, though you have tried very hard to avoid giving direct positions. I recognize this tactic as this isn't my first rodeo.

[cheech14]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

This is what you said:

You made two positive assertions, and threw them out there as if they're established facts. Go ahead-back up your claims.

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-killing-study

These two links support that people who own guns are more likely to be victims of guns. There are plenty more where those came from. As for being more likely to use the gun itself, there's not much direct data that I've been able to find. However, this is basic risk analysis, and we can look at studies on other things to determine how humans behave with the things they have. When people have something, they tend to use it. This could be everything from money to power to yes, firearms. And really, the links I gave themselves support the claim as well, considering that what happens in most of those situations is that the person was armed and prepared to shoot, which escalated the situation and caused a similar response that got them killed.
Now, I know you will try to claim that I didn't satisfy your question, and that's fine. I don't think you're really here to debate anything, anyway.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by TaxPhd

You made two positive assertions, and threw them out there as if they're established facts. Go ahead-back up your claims.

TaxPhd, where do you live? Cheech, how about you?

[TaxPhd]

Originally Posted by cheech14

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-killing-study

These two links support that people who own guns are more likely to be victims of guns. There are plenty more where those came from. As for being more likely to use the gun itself, there's not much direct data that I've been able to find. However, this is basic risk analysis, and we can look at studies on other things to determine how humans behave with the things they have. When people have something, they tend to use it. This could be everything from money to power to yes, firearms. And really, the links I gave themselves support the claim as well, considering that what happens in most of those situations is that the person was armed and prepared to shoot, which escalated the situation and caused a similar response that got them killed.
Now, I know you will try to claim that I didn't satisfy your question, and that's fine. I don't think you're really here to debate anything, anyway.

And again, you seem to have forgotten what you’ve previously written. Here it is as a refresher:

Originally Posted by cheech14 If you feel like the danger is so high that you must carry a firearm at all times, it just means that your potential response to perceived danger is going to be more drastic. It's arguably not a healthy assumption to expect a deadly threat at all times, and I can't imagine it leaves people like that in a good frame of mind when a threat- real or perceived- presents itself. Simply put, you're more likely to use your gun because you expect there to eventually be a reason to have to use it.

Your two assertions are highlighted.

As to your two links above, they both link the same article, written by the same person. That’s what happens when you don’t actually read the links you share. A common occurrence among some. . .

I challenge you to go and actually read what’s contained at those two links. You will see that neither of your assertions are supported.

I had hoped to be able to engage in a meaningful discussion with you about this issue, but you are steadfastly refusing to do so in an intellectually honest manner. Perhaps you will get what you are seeking by engaging with other posters.

Good luck!

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by cheech14

https://time.com/6183881/gun-ownership-risks-at-home/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-killing-study

These two links support that people who own guns are more likely to be victims of guns. There are plenty more where those came from. As for being more likely to use the gun itself, there's not much direct data that I've been able to find. However, this is basic risk analysis, and we can look at studies on other things to determine how humans behave with the things they have. When people have something, they tend to use it. This could be everything from money to power to yes, firearms. And really, the links I gave themselves support the claim as well, considering that what happens in most of those situations is that the person was armed and prepared to shoot, which escalated the situation and caused a similar response that got them killed.
Now, I know you will try to claim that I didn't satisfy your question, and that's fine. I don't think you're really here to debate anything, anyway.

How would you hunt without a firearm? Not many people know how to use a bow. Not everyone wants to go to the grocery store for meat that is filled with hormones.

[TomJones123]

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2...ee-zone-n79295