LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

The 2nd amendment DOES NOT mean you have a right to own an AR-15

Fuzzy1975 said:
AS I said, car batteries have been around for 100 years, go get one death from electrocution. Just one fucking death. It shouldn't be that hard...but it is. Why because it's not possible. You keep saying amperage....well dummy the heart stops with just 100, 120 milliamps. High amperage isn't the cause....low amperage is.

When you use ohms law, E=I/R with 12 volts DC, there is no way to send 100 to 120 milliamps across the human heart. None, zero,zilch, no matter if the source can send 1 million amps. No matter if the skin is wet, or cut, or.....It's calculated to be 42.4 Volts DC as the threshold to have the possibility of your heart being stopped.

So just shut the fuck up about something you know nothing on. I am the fucking expert here, like it or not. *chuckles*
Click to expand...


You're like the guy who waves his gun around and points it at people "because it's not loaded."

Until that one fateful day...

Then you RUN LIKE HELL to hide from your own irresponsibility.

Good luck with that.
 
DeluxAuto said:
Which doesn't qualify him for being an expert at research and data, you DerpyDumbFuck.
Click to expand...

dudly, that's what subject matter expert deals in, research and data, and then gives his opinion on what it means.

Don't you know ANYTHING?
 
HisArpy said:
dudly, that's what subject matter expert deals in, research and data, and then gives his opinion on what it means.

Don't you know ANYTHING?
Click to expand...
You struggle way too hard. He may be an expert at shooting his penis substitute but that doesn't make him an expert of analyzing data and shit.

Don't you get ANYTHING right?
 
HisArpy said:
You are allowed to disagree with his findings but it doesn't change the truth that he's a subject matter expert. this is how it works, one side promotes an expert, the other side promotes their expert and the winning expert is the one whose conclusions are the most accurate when compared to the actual facts.

Since Lott drew his conclusion from actual facts, and you don't have any, I'm going to side with his study.

Oh, as for your climate change bullshit...

https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/04/21/how-the-ipcc-buried-the-medieval-warm-period-n3801984

Facts will always triumph over bullshit.
Click to expand...
Gary Kleck's research is foundational on the subject and predates Lott's work. His findings are essentially the same........gun control is bullshit.
 
Rebel5soul said:
Gary Kleck's research is foundational on the subject and predates Lott's work. His findings are essentially the same........gun control is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Research findings:​

Studies on firearm and ammunition bans have been inconsistent; certain studies indicated decreases in violence associated with bans, while others indicated increases. One meta-analysis from 2015 argued that "It must be tentatively concluded that higher gun ownership rates do not cause higher crime rates, including homicide rates".[16] Another one from the same year, however, concluded that "the weaknesses in US federal firearm policies are well documented and result in many high-risk individuals having access to and using firearms to commit violent crimes",[17] and another one from 2017 claimed that "evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively".[18]

Several studies also found that the number of banned guns retrieved after a crime declined when bans were enacted, but these studies did not assess violent consequences. Studies of the 1976 Washington, D.C. handgun ban yielded inconsistent results. Bans often include "grandfather" provisions, allowing ownership of an item if it is acquired before the ban, complicating an assessment of causality. A 2003 study indicated that sales of firearms to be banned might increase in the period before implementation of the bans (e.g. the Federal Assault Weapons Ban).[19]

The research behind the "self-defense" aspect of owning a gun is not convincing. A 2015 study by David Hemenay of Harvard University researched National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data on about 14,000 people, showing that legitimate self-defense cases occur statistically rarely, in less than 1% of the population surveyed.[20] Even officers from big cities, despite being exposed to far more criminals, report rarely having to use a gun; a Pew Research Center survey conducted by the National Police Research Platform reported that, out of 7,917 officers from 54 departments with 100 or more officers, only 27% have fired a weapon on duty.[21]

There is an association between U.S. states with less restrictive gun laws and higher homicide rates.[22] In 1996, Australia enacted strict gun laws and a nationwide buy-back program following a mass shooting;[23] since then, mass shootings in Australia have essentially ended.[22] This is further confirmed by a follow-up meta-analysis,[24] demonstrating an overall reduction in homicide and suicide rates.

There is a convincing link between gun availability and gun suicides.[22][20][24] A 2016 meta-analysis found that stronger gun laws did reduce homicide rates, and that the strongest evidence was for laws that required background checks and permits to purchase firearms.[25]

A 2013 study found a correlation (not causation) that suggested that white racists are more likely to own guns and to oppose gun control laws, which is not to suggest that white gun owners tend to be more racist,[26] and might not apply to Haiti. The FBI also identified a dangerous spike in "Active Shooter Events" — even as overall gun violence has managed to level off during the same time period.[27]

Unsurprisingly, the National Rifle Association does not like research findings.[22][20] They called it "junk science" and encouraged readers of American Riflemanhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Wikipedia%27s_W.svg/20px-Wikipedia%27s_W.svg.png to protest against the CDC for funding such research. They have effectively lobbied against funding of aspects of the CDC since the mid-1990s. For instance, in 1996, Congress cut $2.6 million of the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had been allocated for firearm research the previous year. In 2019, however, legislation introduced a spending bill that included $25 million for research of firearm violence,[28] thus overturning the ban on research that was effective since 1996.
 
HumpDayHoratio said:
The NRA actually supported and helped with gun safety in schools at one time. In the 50’s over half of pubic HS’s had active shooting programs, largely sponsored and or supported by the NRA. Students went through rigorous weeks of testing before one live round went down range.

Ask yourself. What has changed?
Click to expand...

Firearms became holy items, like crucifixes. The possession of the holy objects displayed a person's faith in America.

To question possession of firearms is to question the divinity of the Holy Land of America.

I'm being sarcastic by the way but a lot of people believe this.

Also best example of the NRA restricting firearm use, the Mulford Act. Signed into law by Ronald Reagan.
 
MusicForTheDeaf said:
The top rifle is the Ruger 14 Mini, a civilian sporting rifle appropriate for hunting and home defense.

The bottom rifle is an AR-15, which is a military-style ASSAULT WEAPON that ONLY THE MILITARY should be allowed to have!View attachment 2530459
Click to expand...

If you need that many shots to take down an animal it would be wise to go back to a range and work on your aim.

An old Lee-Enfeild or Kar-98 would work just fine.
 
Gun safety should be a required course as soon as kids are old enough to understand that firearms are dangerous. Examples of school shootings should be required viewing. First aid should also be mandatory learning. Students should also be taught what to do if they're ever put in such a situation. We have fire drills and tornado drills. It's been awhile since I was in school but we never had Shooting drills.

The 2A doesn't say we're allowed to own an AR-15. It also doesn't say we can't.

I've never owned a firearm nor have I ever fired one. But I like my rights. Some people are willing to give away some of their rights. They have valid reasons for wanting to. But they have no authority to decide which rights to take away and they don't speak for everybody. Rights are easier to give up than they are to get back. Better to live with the devil you know.
 
Last edited:
Rebel5soul said:
Gary Kleck's research is foundational on the subject and predates Lott's work. His findings are essentially the same........gun control is bullshit.
Click to expand...
Ishmael (now d/b/a Rebel5soul post-banhammer) has done the unthinkable: Ishmael's idiocy makes HisArpy stupidity pale in comparison!

Gary Kleck DID write the "foundational research" on "defensive gun use" way back in 1995. It stood untouched and unexamined, like a smoldering pile of pig shit in the hot sun, for many years.

Then the National Review Online, a communist/fascist journal (/sarcasm), got the bright idea of updating Fleck's "research" to prove its Neanderthal audience that things had actually gotten WORSE with a Negro president in the White House.

So it went back to Fleck's "foundational research"....and noticed that Fleck had made a bonehead "Statistics 101" error that made his "findings" laughable.

They notified Fleck, he agreed to "update his research" to show the "corrected" percentages.....but he found he couldn't achieve the desired results through statistical manipulation!

Soooo, Fleck decided to discard any and all government data on defensive gun use and conduct "high quality land line telephone interviews" to get the "real" data. He redefined "defensive gun usage" to be any non-LEO, non-government person who discharged a weapon at a living breathing human (protection from wild or domestic animals was excluded).

He conducted 4000+ telephone interviews in eight random states. The National Review Online refused to accept that as a broad enough statistical sample, so they would not allow him to claim a "statistical proof". Instead, Fleck was humbled once again and forced to ask his readers to "extrapolate their own conclusion" (I believe you spell that "conclussion").
Fleck is a flake, a bigger flake than John Lott/Mary Rosh.

A Second Look at a Controversial Study About Defensive Gun Use​

Criminologist Gary Kleck revises his paper on the incidence of the use of firearms for self-protection.​

 
HisArpy said:
You're like the guy who waves his gun around and points it at people "because it's not loaded."

Until that one fateful day...

Then you RUN LIKE HELL to hide from your own irresponsibility.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
lol, are done with the 12 volt battery shit now? Or have you found one death?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MusicForTheDeaf
Uvalde parents to sue video game developers who made call of duty.
Replies
21
Views
392
Politruk
P
RoryN
Deplorables trying to force Americans to canonize a bigot
Replies
11
Views
300
Hel_Books
H
SkyBubble
The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism
Replies
7
Views
187
SkyBubble
SkyBubble
Mrswargamer9dash1
In the end it doesn't matter
3 4 5
Replies
101
Views
2K
Mrswargamer9dash1
Mrswargamer9dash1
GuiltyCowboy
How to make a great country
2
Replies
38
Views
675
Hel_Books
H
Back
Top