Stephen Paddock - Legally Purchased 33 Rifles in one Year

you are correct, the anti gun left isn't even honest about its true motivations. when you read all the snarky insults directed at the pro gun movement (rather than armed criminals who tend to support liberal democrats) its obvious that pro gun voters are the real target of anti gunner's hate not criminals

 

you claim to be an entrepreneur and you are dealing with someone who has lectured on the law and the second amendment and I have been referenced in published lectures of leading constitutional scholars such as Sterling Professor (the very top of the very best) of Constitutional law at the best law school in the world (Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School). so why would the top constitutional scholar in the USA discuss and support arguments I have advanced to him if I was Anti intellectual

do you think you are convincing yourself that you are an intellectual despite no credentials in the field by playing this silly game with me?

 

This reminds me of a very ugly person complaining about Super Model females, and it made me wonder what all the fuss was about, a woman makes a good living modeling and the like, and other people complain of exploitation and other issues, and have no dog in that fight.

I remember one bloke say that firearms had no significance for him.
They sure have for me, hunting for food in large open areas and forests.
Target shooting, and defense from beasts and finally, personal defense.
Some accounts are better off not related, however, a small revolver or pistol in a pocket saved my life often enough.

The proposed solution is unacceptable, take guns away from everyone and reduce everyone to the status of helpless victims.

 

Nothing of usefulness has been referred to by yourself. The only thing that has been presented by yourself is unproven, hypothetical guesswork, bought and paid for by those who have a political interest in selling a narrative rather than in actual facts.

 

I will give a good example of empirical evidence, Gravity.
It exists, a Cousin claimed he could fly like Superman and I said be was full of "IT" so he tied a large red beach towel (cape) around his neck, swallowed a vitamin tablet and jumped out a window, broke both his legs.....

Now Anti Gun Advocates claim based on one case, Nothing can fly !
Not Airplanes not nothing.
And that makes no sense, one or more anomaly does not constitute empirical evidence of anything, whereas defensive gun use has been proved beyond any doubt as has Flight as a safe mode of travel despite any Dimwit imitation Superman.

 

Once again, your Bias is clearly exposed for all to see.
Sure there is a cost, to criminal misuse of firearms you like to portray and misrepresent as general firearms proliferation and ownership, criminals shoot rivals and innocent bystanders in drive by shootings and clog the E.R.s of many Cities at great cost, due to Criminal violence, and not law abiding people, and this is what the Gun Control Advocates want as a basis to demand further restrictions and bans on firearms of law abiding people.

Don't shoot back at criminals, it costs too much !!

 

I refer to specific laws, backed up with evidence, and I'm biased? There's a lesson in that for you!

Until you can objectively refer to the evidence, you have rant. Nothing more.

 

Your opinions are not laws.
Èvidence is based on actual experience and events or history and accounts, that is what I go by.

 

You're referring to tabloidism. I already know that you're clueless over how criminology research is conducted.

 

Again, only your prejudice and opinion, I have many years as a Police Officer and related professional experience with firearms.

False, no Tabloidism from me, only facts.

 

"My experience says" is tabloidism. I only refer to the objective research. Sorry it doesn't conform to your bias mind you. That must be difficult!

 

No, it is merely convenient for you to discount the experience of others and accept the opinions of others because they happen to agree with yours.

 

I don't refer to tabloidism at all. Try to reply with a level of validity

 

Your claims are tantamount to tabloidism because you never use any facts, just words to imply what cannot be proven in any way.

 

I refer to empirical analysis as it is objective study of the data. To suggest that is tabloidism is just ignorant. Please think before you type

 

The Philadelphia study was referred to by yourself. It was intentionally crafted to contain an exceedingly high number of criminals to skew the results. There has been no presentation of objective research on the part of yourself.

 

I didn't refer to any specific study. I referred to multiple studies. However, I'm amused at your claim. Provide evidence of this "intention" and demonstrate objective support.

 

One of which was the study in Philadelphia regarding carrying a firearm for protection. Regardless of intent of the researchers, 95% of the case group were young African-American males with a few Latinos engaged in selling drugs in a bad neighborhood. You chose to believe such a group was a legitimate extension to legally licensed and trained law abiding citizens everywhere in the US.

 

The objective support comes from the fact that it is statistically impossible for so many convicted felons, especially those of minority races, to be selected entirely at random for the purpose of a study group, without any knowledge on the part of the researches as to who they are selecting.

 

I referred to multiple studies. However, I'm amused at your claim. Provide evidence of this "intention" and demonstrate objective support.

Try again!

 

I specifically noted that any intent of the researchers wasn't important to the results of the study.

 

Until you account for the statement by Turtledude regarding massive increase in guns and a decrease in violent crime the more guns = more crime hypothesis fails. It’s that simple.

 

Any gun control suggestion that is based on "more guns = ?" or "less guns = ?" isn't worth examining, as there is no Constitutional restriction that could limit the number of guns in either a macro or micro level.

 

Your hypothesis is simple. You'd run a regression on numerous variables predicted to impact on crime. You'd then have to test that all of the estimated coefficients are jointly equal to zero and that your model effectively explains nothing. Go ahead and try, just for the crack!

 

What categories of Crime ?

Organized crime v unaffiliated gang related crime
Illegal Drug crimes
Automobile theft and chop shops
Prostitution rings
Illegal tobacco (untaxed)

Reduction of drug dens by attrition and decimation of Dealers of the same.