Lefty Gun Threshold
- Thread starter Evmetro
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
must suck to be a cop
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what's the difference, then, from 'little' people with a gun and a cop with a gun?????????
True, unless offhand accuracy is a concern. Dominant eye and dominant hand coordination is a key factor, especially with a rifle.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yes, you're a derp who can't answer simple questions about rights and the constitution. but I digress.
C-4 could care less if you are left handed or right handed. Just saying...
Is C-4 as accurate as my varmint rifle is at 800 yards? Just askin'...
Depends if one is a sneaky bastard or not....
Not bad for a lefty. I am looking for the number and/or type of gun that would cause each of you lefties to cave in and have to start shooting people. What is your threshold?
To answer your question (if you haven't already noticed
), Trump's election has pushed them far beyond that threshold! As for what type of firearm "that would cause each of you lefties to cave in and have to start shooting people," fortunately, most are too petrified of firearms, and especially of those of us who do own and know how to use them..It is a common argument typically summed up as, "more guns = more gun homicides".
A few years ago I was in a discussion with a guy who cited all kinds of statistical magic to argue it is true and wanted penalties on business to "correct" it. I worked this up to demonstrate just how wrong that theory is:
In 1990, 16,218 people out of a population of 249,464,396 were murdered with a gun.
In 2010, 8,775 people out of a population of 308,745,538 were murdered with a gun.
20 years + 60,000,000 people + at least 80,000,000 guns =7743 FEWER ANNUAL HOMICIDES?
One needs to ask, how would a normal, non-statistician process the premise MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES . . . or more to the point, what would that typical person expect to be presented as a proof of the premise?
Would they want to hear about subjective controls and regression coefficient or internalizing the externality?
No, the simple premise of MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES demands that we expect if 80,000,000 guns are added, a rise of "X" gun homicides will be noted.
The proof of MORE GUNS = MORE GUN HOMICIDES should be a factor that we can apply to a hard number (# of guns added) and come out on the other side with a hard number . . . For every million guns 77.3 more people will be killed per year . . . Problem is, we add 4+ million guns a year for 20 years and homicides go down.
That's a different question entirely. There's one thing that typical leftists should be commended on; the self-awareness that THEY can't be trusted with guns. They know their impulsiveness and lack of self-control and propensity for lashing out at every perceived slight, would lead to carnage if loopy-libs were armed en-mass.
The problem for the rest of us is that libs want to use the power of government to enforce universal disarmament because they project their anti-social feelings on everyone else.
Well, if warrants were not required for search, seizure or arrest and confessions could be tortured out of suspects and "the guilty" could be taken immediately outside and shot . . . we could really make a dent in the crime rate.
Problem for you is the rights of Americans is not a buffet.
You don't get to load your plate with the cracked crab of free speech and turn your nose up to the bloody steak tartare of the right to arms.
I need some clarification . . .
Do we need to have guns taken away because crime with guns is so rampant it impacts everyone everywhere, or is that crime is so rare that gun rights people in general and especially anyone who arms themselves for self defense, are to be mocked and denigrated and forcibly disarmed because they are so stupid and insecure?
Just trying to keep up.
It's your premise, you tell us, how do we get to "less guns" or "no guns", or are you just tilting at windmills?
Last edited:
OK, not sure why you think that means "less guns". Reading that it seems the only thing holding gun ownership rates down among young people is the disposable income to buy and shoot guns. They certainly will be inheriting them from older relative won't they? The guns aren't being buried with the older gun owners that own a dozen or more . . . .
Hopefully the economic outlook for millennials will improve and they can achieve gun ownership rate parity with the rest of the population.
No worries, I see the interest is there and more importantly, "They’re also more likely to listen to gun-oriented podcasts and shows, more likely to participate in online forums, and generally more likely to integrate technology in gun culture" . . . Which to me means they will be exposed to the rights theory that secures gun ownership and learn to value it.