President Obama opened his remarks at McGavock High School in Nashville, Tennessee with a brief mourning of the death of a student there on Tuesday, the day of his State of the Union speech. Obama mentioned gun violence once in his address to the nation. Again yesterday, the bulk of his speech was about education policy, not gun control.
The fact that McGovock was itself the site of a gun fatality only gave a glancing emphasis on the firearm policies he says he is trying to move forward. The setting perhaps emphasized just as much the futility of the rhetorical gesture. President Obama needs to talk more about gun policies in this country, but he has to do it differently. As horrific as school shootings are, gun violence takes more lives outside our classrooms than in them.
In the five years of Obama's presidency, mass shootings have been the one reliable catalyst for a presidential push on our nation's uniquely liberal firearm laws. He broke a three-year streak of non-engagement on the issue in January 2011, after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and 17 other people in Tucson, Arizona, giving one speech and writing one op-ed calling for more legislation. Then, the White House was for the most part silent for another 10 months, until Newtown. That tragedy brought a flurry of urgent officials pleas: 18 sets of remarks in five months, according to C-SPAN. After that, another season of silence, until the Naval Yard shootings in September 2013.
I understand that Obama has vowed to do what he can to limit access to guns "with or without" Congress, but it's clear that his administration sees mass shootings as their best leverage to accomplish the more substantial changes that come with new federal regulation. It's equally clear that it isn't working. I have some suggestions for a shift in emphasis.
Perhaps the White House believes the deaths of children are the most sympathetic emotional wedge. Fine. If you look at the data, Obama should have been talking about gun control legislation in the Senate twice a day, as 215 children died in the 99 days the Senate was in session last year. As many have argued, Americans are becoming numb to gun violence. If it's the scale of a tragedy that might inspire Congress, the murder of, say, three or more, then he should have hammered at them about once every two and half hours, the entire year. Over 12,000 people, adults and children, died from gun violence in 2013 – about 30 a day.
President Obama opened his remarks at McGavock High School in Nashville, Tennessee with a brief mourning of the death of a student there on Tuesday, the day of his State of the Union speech. Obama mentioned gun violence once in his address to the nation. Again yesterday, the bulk of his speech was about education policy, not gun control.
The fact that McGovock was itself the site of a gun fatality only gave a glancing emphasis on the firearm policies he says he is trying to move forward. The setting perhaps emphasized just as much the futility of the rhetorical gesture. President Obama needs to talk more about gun policies in this country, but he has to do it differently. As horrific as school shootings are, gun violence takes more lives outside our classrooms than in them.
In the five years of Obama's presidency, mass shootings have been the one reliable catalyst for a presidential push on our nation's uniquely liberal firearm laws. He broke a three-year streak of non-engagement on the issue in January 2011, after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and 17 other people in Tucson, Arizona, giving one speech and writing one op-ed calling for more legislation. Then, the White House was for the most part silent for another 10 months, until Newtown. That tragedy brought a flurry of urgent officials pleas: 18 sets of remarks in five months, according to C-SPAN. After that, another season of silence, until the Naval Yard shootings in September 2013.
I understand that Obama has vowed to do what he can to limit access to guns "with or without" Congress, but it's clear that his administration sees mass shootings as their best leverage to accomplish the more substantial changes that come with new federal regulation. It's equally clear that it isn't working. I have some suggestions for a shift in emphasis.
Perhaps the White House believes the deaths of children are the most sympathetic emotional wedge. Fine. If you look at the data, Obama should have been talking about gun control legislation in the Senate twice a day, as 215 children died in the 99 days the Senate was in session last year. As many have argued, Americans are becoming numb to gun violence. If it's the scale of a tragedy that might inspire Congress, the murder of, say, three or more, then he should have hammered at them about once every two and half hours, the entire year. Over 12,000 people, adults and children, died from gun violence in 2013 – about 30 a day.
I suppose another aspect of mass shootings that makes them, in theory, the best bet for Congressional actions is that we assume that anyone who plans a massacre is, by most definitions, crazy. No one wants crazy people to have guns, right?
There are numerous different proposals that try to prevent the definably mentally ill from obtaining firearms, indeed, one of Obama's "without Congress" proposals to curb gun access is an expansion of the ways a "lawful authority" can report on an individual who is prohibited by federal law from owning a gun. This is a step forward, to be sure, though the rule also gives the impression that the current background check system (National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS) is working at all – and that the prohibited category is a useful screen.
First of all, using the NICS is voluntary – only 13 states use it for all commercial gun purchases (leave alone the gun show loophole for now). States that report to the database have incredible latitude as to what they include: some states limit the time period of the reporting (letting those with older sign of trouble slip through), some states narrowly define "mentally ill".
The patchwork of laws about reporting means that of all those denied a gun purchase because of a NICS search, even after the Virginia Tech shootings prompted a tightening of the reporting and search laws in many states, less than 2% of individuals run through the NICS database are turned down for mental health reasons. This is almost certainly an under-representation. What's more, evidence implies that many of mentally ill who are determined to get firearms will wind up "jurisdiction shopping". After Virginia started reporting its mental health records to NICS, 378 of the 438 those denied guns because of a Virginia mental health record were trying to purchase a firearm in another state.
So I have a radical suggestion: cede to the gun rights lobby that bad actors who want weapons cannot be stopped – perhaps especially the mentally ill ones. Instead of focusing on how to stop a "bad guy with a gun", see what we can do to stop the guy in the mirror with a gun: a majority of gun deaths are suicides, as I have noted repeatedly. (And will undoubtedly repeat again.) This actually opens up the debate about gun regulation rather than narrows it, because recent research has shown that any reduction of gun ownership in a population decreases the number of suicides overall: looking at the years between 2000 and 2009, the study authors found that for each percentage point the portion of gun owners in a population goes down, suicides decrease by at least half a percent.
Many assume that focusing on preventing gun suicides falls under laws keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but most people who commit suicide do not meet even the lowest bar for gun ownership prohibition set by federal or state laws: previous documentation of violence to self or others.
Two-thirds of suicides do not have a contact with a mental health profession in the year leading up to the attempt. Another set of studies found that only 24% of those that attempt suicide go on to another attempt. Suicide ideations are also fleeting; 25% of suicide attempts are based on less than five minutes consideration. What's more, those who commit suicide by firearm are the least likely of all attempts to have a record of mental illness – the most likely, it follows, to attempt suicide because of temporary crisis and moment of desperation. But 85% of those who attempt suicide by firearm will never see the other side of that crisis.. Firearm suicide beats the next most effective means (hanging) by a margin of 16%.
The math is easy: if you somehow (a waiting period, sophisticated gun locks) kept guns out of 10% of the over 19,000 in 2010 that died from a firearm suicide – if you forced the determined to use next most effective method – then about almost 600 of them would get another chance at life. And 76%, over 400 of them, would decide they'd stick around.
That's over 15 tragedies the size of Newtown's that could be prevented but weren't, and weren't mourned as the tragedies they all were. To put it in Obama-moved-to-speak math (18 speeches for each Newtown-sized group of deaths): would Obama be willing to give a speech on gun control 250 times a year, just about every day?
I don't know if such a consistent appeal would work on Congress. Would it work on you?
President Obama opened his remarks at McGavock High School in Nashville, Tennessee with a brief mourning of the death of a student there on Tuesday, the day of his State of the Union speech. Obama mentioned gun violence once in his address to the nation. Again yesterday, the bulk of his speech was about education policy, not gun control.
The fact that McGovock was itself the site of a gun fatality only gave a glancing emphasis on the firearm policies he says he is trying to move forward. The setting perhaps emphasized just as much the futility of the rhetorical gesture. President Obama needs to talk more about gun policies in this country, but he has to do it differently. As horrific as school shootings are, gun violence takes more lives outside our classrooms than in them.
In the five years of Obama's presidency, mass shootings have been the one reliable catalyst for a presidential push on our nation's uniquely liberal firearm laws. He broke a three-year streak of non-engagement on the issue in January 2011, after the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and 17 other people in Tucson, Arizona, giving one speech and writing one op-ed calling for more legislation. Then, the White House was for the most part silent for another 10 months, until Newtown. That tragedy brought a flurry of urgent officials pleas: 18 sets of remarks in five months, according to C-SPAN. After that, another season of silence, until the Naval Yard shootings in September 2013.
I understand that Obama has vowed to do what he can to limit access to guns "with or without" Congress, but it's clear that his administration sees mass shootings as their best leverage to accomplish the more substantial changes that come with new federal regulation. It's equally clear that it isn't working. I have some suggestions for a shift in emphasis.
Perhaps the White House believes the deaths of children are the most sympathetic emotional wedge. Fine. If you look at the data, Obama should have been talking about gun control legislation in the Senate twice a day, as 215 children died in the 99 days the Senate was in session last year. As many have argued, Americans are becoming numb to gun violence. If it's the scale of a tragedy that might inspire Congress, the murder of, say, three or more, then he should have hammered at them about once every two and half hours, the entire year. Over 12,000 people, adults and children, died from gun violence in 2013 – about 30 a day.
5,000 kids(21 and under) are killed yearly and another 186,000 are admitted to emergency rooms due to alcohol related causes, far more than those kids that are killed or injured by guns yearly. Obama or few others seem to be bothered by those statistics as they are by gun death and injury.
Americans have already tried to get rid of booze and failed. Try something that's worked in lots of other countries.
The third most prevalent cause of death in the USA is iatrogenic reasons. Do you advocate getting rid of doctors?
I'd like to see how exactly iatrogenic reasons are defined in the corresponding study. Because I have a hunch they might've included death resulting from diseases that doctors misdiagnosed or failed to find a proper cure for - which wouldn't be iatrogen in the direct sense.
5,000 kids(21 and under) are killed yearly and another 186,000 are admitted to emergency rooms due to alcohol related causes, far more than those kids that are killed or injured by guns yearly.
WTH!?!?!?!?!
OMG I was in charge of some child soldiers!?!?!?!
I prefer "Alcohol related incident" because "Alcohol related causes" sounds to lame.
Yes, but just because you make that point in every gun thread doesn't mean that it isn't still a bit silly.
The government tried legislating away alcohol, and what happened was the prohibition era. It wasn't particularly fun.
They could try and legislate away cars, I guess? I'm under the impression that cars are used more in daily life for most americans than guns are though, so that might cause some issues.
It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.
Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.
As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.
Goliath wrote: Yes, but just because you make that point in every gun thread doesn't mean that it isn't still a bit silly.
The government tried legislating away alcohol, and what happened was the prohibition era. It wasn't particularly fun.
They could try and legislate away cars, I guess? I'm under the impression that cars are used more in daily life for most americans than guns are though, so that might cause some issues.
Be the same thing with trying to legislate away guns, also. 11,000 deaths from guns is a big deal, but 88,000 deaths from alcohol is acceptable? I see silly here, too.
And how many of those gun related deaths are due to gang activity and/or drugs? Take those out and you'll find that number remarkably reduced. The latest FBI report tracked gun violence in the US over the last 10 years and found that non-gang/drug related firearms deaths has been shrinking by a large percentage. (I'll see if I can find it and post it, otherwise you have no reason to believe me.) Violence and drugs are already illegal, but that hasn't stopped anything. It's a societal problem and no one that's easily fixed. Outlawing guns is attacking the symptom and not the sickness and punishing the millions of law abiding citizens. Also, I consider the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to be too important to surrender. (Hint: it's not about hunting or even self defense.) So yes, even getting rid of gangs and drugs won't stop all gun violence and where it occurs it will be punished like any other crime. But the right for armed resistance against tyranny is too important. It's like the parachute after all else has failed that you don't wan to use.
MWHistorian wrote: And how many of those gun related deaths are due to gang activity and/or drugs? Take those out and you'll find that number remarkably reduced. The latest FBI report tracked gun violence in the US over the last 10 years and found that non-gang/drug related firearms deaths has been shrinking by a large percentage. (I'll see if I can find it and post it, otherwise you have no reason to believe me.) Violence and drugs are already illegal, but that hasn't stopped anything. It's a societal problem and no one that's easily fixed. Outlawing guns is attacking the symptom and not the sickness and punishing the millions of law abiding citizens. Also, I consider the purpose of the 2nd Ammendment to be too important to surrender. (Hint: it's not about hunting or even self defense.) So yes, even getting rid of gangs and drugs won't stop all gun violence and where it occurs it will be punished like any other crime. But the right for armed resistance against tyranny is too important. It's like the parachute after all else has failed that you don't wan to use.
Damne d Americans, can't seem to legislate anything away from them!
I didn't say it was acceptable? I don't think gun control would work; they're too big a part of the US culture and any attempt to 'get rid of them' would likely spark a civil war.
I think that the US should focus on issues that actually *can* be helped, like the link from mental illness to a number of shootings, or the fact that a large number of deaths from guns are due to suicide and depression.
Those sorts of things can be helped. The number of guns in the US can't.
The point I was trying to make however, is that yes, the number of deaths from alcohol is too high (and yes, something could be done, but that would be education and mental illness again) but just because the number of deaths from alcohol or cars is too high doesn't invalidate the deaths from guns; it may put them into perspective, but it doesn't mean that they become less unacceptable just because car or alcohol deaths are more unacceptable.
Goliath wrote: I didn't say it was acceptable? I don't think gun control would work; they're too big a part of the US culture and any attempt to 'get rid of them' would likely spark a civil war.
I think that the US should focus on issues that actually *can* be helped, like the link from mental illness to a number of shootings, or the fact that a large number of deaths from guns are due to suicide and depression.
Those sorts of things can be helped. The number of guns in the US can't.
The point I was trying to make however, is that yes, the number of deaths from alcohol is too high (and yes, something could be done, but that would be education and mental illness again) but just because the number of deaths from alcohol or cars is too high doesn't invalidate the deaths from guns; it may put them into perspective, but it doesn't mean that they become less unacceptable just because car or alcohol deaths are more unacceptable.
I very much agree with this. There is a sickness in American society that will increase unless we diagnose it and treat it correctly. Ban guns and these psychopaths will make bombs. Cure the illness to end violence.
Goliath wrote: I didn't say it was acceptable? I don't think gun control would work; they're too big a part of the US culture and any attempt to 'get rid of them' would likely spark a civil war.
I think that the US should focus on issues that actually *can* be helped, like the link from mental illness to a number of shootings, or the fact that a large number of deaths from guns are due to suicide and depression.
Those sorts of things can be helped. The number of guns in the US can't.
The point I was trying to make however, is that yes, the number of deaths from alcohol is too high (and yes, something could be done, but that would be education and mental illness again) but just because the number of deaths from alcohol or cars is too high doesn't invalidate the deaths from guns; it may put them into perspective, but it doesn't mean that they become less unacceptable just because car or alcohol deaths are more unacceptable.
I believe I am more in your camp than we both think because you just made a huge amount of sense to me.
Goliath wrote: I didn't say it was acceptable? I don't think gun control would work; they're too big a part of the US culture and any attempt to 'get rid of them' would likely spark a civil war.
I think that the US should focus on issues that actually *can* be helped, like the link from mental illness to a number of shootings, or the fact that a large number of deaths from guns are due to suicide and depression.
Those sorts of things can be helped. The number of guns in the US can't.
The point I was trying to make however, is that yes, the number of deaths from alcohol is too high (and yes, something could be done, but that would be education and mental illness again) but just because the number of deaths from alcohol or cars is too high doesn't invalidate the deaths from guns; it may put them into perspective, but it doesn't mean that they become less unacceptable just because car or alcohol deaths are more unacceptable.
I very much agree with this. There is a sickness in American society that will increase unless we diagnose it and treat it correctly. Ban guns and these psychopaths will make bombs. Cure the illness to end violence.
There is not a sickness in our society. If there was then we'd be talking about something other then something to the scale of .0001% (not a real scientific number) of the population doing stuff like this.
Just because the media sensationalizes something to the point where we hear about it everyday, doesn't mean it is actually rampant. If that were the case then we'd all be dead of the Swine/Bird/SARS Flu.
djones520 wrote: There is not a sickness in our society.
Just because the media sensationalizes something to the point where we hear about it everyday, doesn't mean it is actually rampant.
Just because there's only a small number of mentally ill people killing other people doesn't affect the fact that a large number of deaths due to guns and other methods are due to mental illness.
djones520 wrote: There is not a sickness in our society.
Just because the media sensationalizes something to the point where we hear about it everyday, doesn't mean it is actually rampant.
Just because there's only a small number of mentally ill people killing other people doesn't affect the fact that a large number of deaths due to guns and other methods are due to mental illness.
Your point? I was addressing his comment that our society is sick, which is bogus. I'm completely in the camp that the best way to stop "mass shootings" is by expanding mental healthcare capabilities, so we can identify these people earlier.
djones520 wrote: There is not a sickness in our society.
Just because the media sensationalizes something to the point where we hear about it everyday, doesn't mean it is actually rampant.
Just because there's only a small number of mentally ill people killing other people doesn't affect the fact that a large number of deaths due to guns and other methods are due to mental illness.
Your point? I was addressing his comment that our society is sick, which is bogus. I'm completely in the camp that the best way to stop "mass shootings" is by expanding mental healthcare capabilities, so we can identify these people earlier.
Oh, my apologies. From the way I read your post it came across as you denying that there was any issue with mental illness in the US, which (obviously) seemed slightly nonsensical to me.
I think we might have read his word "there is a sickness in our society" differently. I read it as him saying that there is an issue with mental health, but I get the feeling that you read it as something along the lines of him saying that there is a major problem with mass shootings?
djones520 wrote: There is not a sickness in our society.
Just because the media sensationalizes something to the point where we hear about it everyday, doesn't mean it is actually rampant.
Just because there's only a small number of mentally ill people killing other people doesn't affect the fact that a large number of deaths due to guns and other methods are due to mental illness.
Yes, that's how I meant it.
W
Your point? I was addressing his comment that our society is sick, which is bogus. I'm completely in the camp that the best way to stop "mass shootings" is by expanding mental healthcare capabilities, so we can identify these people earlier.
Oh, my apologies. From the way I read your post it came across as you denying that there was any issue with mental illness in the US, which (obviously) seemed slightly nonsensical to me.
I think we might have read his word "there is a sickness in our society" differently. I read it as him saying that there is an issue with mental health, but I get the feeling that you read it as something along the lines of him saying that there is a major problem with mass shootings?
How about reinforcing the current laws on the book and not add more laws to the issue where later on they fall into the same situation of not being enforced
Jihadin wrote: How about reinforcing the current laws on the book and not add more laws to the issue where later on they fall into the same situation of not being enforced
I'm sorry Jihadin, but that suggestion is far too reasonable and straightforward. You're going to have to come up with something a bit more convoluted and impractical.
5,000 kids(21 and under) are killed yearly and another 186,000 are admitted to emergency rooms due to alcohol related causes, far more than those kids that are killed or injured by guns yearly.
WTH!?!?!?!?!
OMG I was in charge of some child soldiers!?!?!?!
I prefer "Alcohol related incident" because "Alcohol related causes" sounds to lame.
My battalion led all of USAREUR in alcohol related incidents for four months in a row!
Grey Templar wrote: Suicide should be its own separate category. It's not a violent crime, just self-destructive behavior at its most, for lack of a better word, pure.
Are suicides with knives included in knife violence perchance?
With firearm related statistics it is not uncommon to have all deaths by firearm listed under the one category - including suicide, misadventures, and deaths from unlawfully held firearms
For example if you go up on a hill to do target shooting and face towards a village, and you set up your target against a bale of hay, which rifle bullets go straight through.
A misadventure may occur to someone in the village.
ZultanQ wrote: It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.
Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.
As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, messy accidents like toddlers shooting themselves or relatives, shooting yourself when cleaning a gun and so on.
Various sorts of things that would be much reduced by a legal framework of training and licensing.
Training and licensing are already legal.
I was a firearm trainer for a while. If it becomes mandatory, how is that done because training isn't cheap. Is that another cost to add to the already expensive gun and ammo? Isn't this being discriminatory to poor people and keeping them from participating in their Constitutional rights? Should we have training for free speech before someone is allowed on the internet? After all, ideas are far more dangerous than guns.
I'll probably regret coming into here, but oh well. Could I just ask something? I don't understand why some people are saying "oh, but x kills more people than guns". Is that meant to somehow make the gun deaths more acceptable, or lessen them as a problem?
Troike wrote: I'll probably regret coming into here, but oh well. Could I just ask something? I don't understand why some people are saying "oh, but x kills more people them guns". Is that meant to somehow make the gun deaths more acceptable, or lessen them as a problem?
I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.
You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"
ZultanQ wrote: It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.
Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.
As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.
d-usa wrote: But 87% of those murders are bicycle road rage incidents...
Freaking cyclists. One nearly caused a 3 car crash today. Dude just threw his arm out, no shoulder check, and swerved across traffic. He was lucky not too get cleaned up the prick.
d-usa wrote: But 87% of those murders are bicycle road rage incidents...
Freaking *bad* cyclists. One nearly caused a 3 car crash today. Dude just threw his arm out, no shoulder check, and swerved across traffic. He was lucky not too get cleaned up the prick.
Fixed that for you. I get screwed over by bad drivers far more often than I do by bad cyclists.
Troike wrote: I'll probably regret coming into here, but oh well. Could I just ask something? I don't understand why some people are saying "oh, but x kills more people than guns". Is that meant to somehow make the gun deaths more acceptable, or lessen them as a problem?
No. It just demonstrates a level of hypocracy present in a lot of the anti gun crowd. They go on about how guns are bad because they kill people, but have no second thoughts about buying alcohol or serving it at parties, thereby supporting something that does far more damage to people yearly than guns.
For your consideration, the government Center for Disease Control Statistics on the negative effects of alcohol, which go far beyond just the deaths it causes yearly:
All are horrible, but the part of the anti gun crowd that consumes and serves up alcohol shouldn't be saying they are concerned about saving lives when they are party to supporting an industry causing 10 times the number of deaths yearly, coupled with all the other misery that goes with alcohol consumption, than that caused by guns.
Troike wrote: I'll probably regret coming into here, but oh well. Could I just ask something? I don't understand why some people are saying "oh, but x kills more people them guns". Is that meant to somehow make the gun deaths more acceptable, or lessen them as a problem?
I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.
You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"
d-usa wrote: But 87% of those murders are bicycle road rage incidents...
Freaking *bad* cyclists. One nearly caused a 3 car crash today. Dude just threw his arm out, no shoulder check, and swerved across traffic. He was lucky not too get cleaned up the prick.
Fixed that for you. I get screwed over by bad drivers far more often than I do by bad cyclists.
It's because you don't have roads adjusted for cyclists. We do.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, messy accidents like toddlers shooting themselves or relatives, shooting yourself when cleaning a gun and so on.
Various sorts of things that would be much reduced by a legal framework of training and licensing.
Training and licensing are already legal.
I was a firearm trainer for a while. If it becomes mandatory, how is that done because training isn't cheap. Is that another cost to add to the already expensive gun and ammo? Isn't this being discriminatory to poor people and keeping them from participating in their Constitutional rights? Should we have training for free speech before someone is allowed on the internet? After all, ideas are far more dangerous than guns.
Hey, you'll accept your tax on your constitutional rights, and you will like it!
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, messy accidents like toddlers shooting themselves or relatives, shooting yourself when cleaning a gun and so on.
Various sorts of things that would be much reduced by a legal framework of training and licensing.
That would depend on the jurisdiction. After the Chicago ban was ruled unconstitutional they attempted to create mandatory training.... and promptly made it nigh on impossible to provide the training
Snrub wrote: I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.
You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"
I could be wrong though.
Except that those in favour of gun ownership don't frame the debate in terms of won't someone think of the children, or surround themselves with children to further their agenda. The reason that we have these comparisons is to show that much of the concern over firearms is a moral panic, and that there are many other causes of death much more severe than firearms which do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus. Case in point, the dreaded "assault rifle". Leaving aside the fact that this phrase has no workable definition beyond a scary black rifle, these "assault rifles" are used in a statistically minor amount of incidents, and cause very few deaths compared to illegally held firearms. By comparison baseball bats are responsible for more deaths and used in more crime, but we aren't seeing a corresponding drive to ensure that all of them are registered, that there are background checks for buying them, training to use them, that they must be locked up in a sporting facility when not in use, etc.
(please note; the above was written without panic, sweating, or stammering)
So, in spite of your own efforts to deflect and mischaracterize those in favour of gun ownership, you would be wrong
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Hey, you'll accept your tax on your constitutional rights, and you will like it!
Yet providing free voter ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote is derided as a poll tax by some.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Medium of Death wrote: That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
Snrub wrote: I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.
You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"
I could be wrong though.
Except that those in favour of gun ownership don't frame the debate in terms of won't someone think of the children, or surround themselves with children to further their agenda.
Absolute nonsense. Not long after Sandy Hook you had the NRA calling for arming the teachers and pushing for "armed security guards" instead of school resource officers.
The reason that we have these comparisons is to show that much of the concern over firearms is a moral panic, and that there are many other causes of death much more severe than firearms which do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus.
They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
Case in point, the dreaded "assault rifle". Leaving aside the fact that this phrase has no workable definition beyond a scary black rifle, these "assault rifles" are used in a statistically minor amount of incidents, and cause very few deaths compared to illegally held firearms. By comparison baseball bats are responsible for more deaths and used in more crime, but we aren't seeing a corresponding drive to ensure that all of them are registered, that there are background checks for buying them, training to use them, that they must be locked up in a sporting facility when not in use, etc.
(please note; the above was written without panic, sweating, or stammering)
So, in spite of your own efforts to deflect and mischaracterize those in favour of gun ownership, you would be wrong
I'm pretty sure there is absolutely nothing to support what you just said. I cannot think of any databases that track "baseball bat usage in murders".
djones520 wrote: Hey, you'll accept your tax on your constitutional rights, and you will like it!
Yet providing free voter ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote is derided as a poll tax by some.
Because the "voter ID laws" haven't been packaged with anything else, right?
So you're trying to say that removal of early voting dates and Sunday voting, closure of early voting sites, alteration of registration patterns for younger voters, and the like did not happen in NC with that ever so popular "voter ID law"? Or that certain forms of photo ID which previously were acceptable as identification are suddenly NOT valid for voting purposes?
Oh right. That did happen--and it was not exclusive to NC. The whole reason voter ID laws have gotten shoved through is to create what is effectively a "poll tax", with the laws also having super special happy meal surprises like what I stated earlier bundled in. The Republican legislatures in areas where they've shoved these laws through know that most people aren't going to actually READ the damn laws and instead are only going to focus on what they hear about.
But hey, it's not like they're trying to hide anything about this whole law right?
Not after a Conservative think tank here in NC called for disclosure of a UNC professor's emails claiming that if you work for the public you have no privacy?
Snrub wrote: I think for the most part it's just used as a knee jerk deflection technique.
You can see them start to panic and sweat.
"Bu-bu-but alcohol and th-the cars..." "WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"
I could be wrong though.
Except that those in favour of gun ownership don't frame the debate in terms of won't someone think of the children, or surround themselves with children to further their agenda.
bs. Not long after Sandy Hook you had the NRA calling for arming the teachers and providing for "armed security guards" instead of school resource officers.
The reason that we have these comparisons is to show that much of the concern over firearms is a moral panic, and that there are many other causes of death much more severe than firearms which do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus.
They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
Case in point, the dreaded "assault rifle". Leaving aside the fact that this phrase has no workable definition beyond a scary black rifle, these "assault rifles" are used in a statistically minor amount of incidents, and cause very few deaths compared to illegally held firearms. By comparison baseball bats are responsible for more deaths and used in more crime, but we aren't seeing a corresponding drive to ensure that all of them are registered, that there are background checks for buying them, training to use them, that they must be locked up in a sporting facility when not in use, etc.
(please note; the above was written without panic, sweating, or stammering)
So, in spite of your own efforts to deflect and mischaracterize those in favour of gun ownership, you would be wrong
I'm pretty sure there is absolutely nothing to support what you just said. I cannot think of any databases that track "baseball bat usage in murders".
djones520 wrote: Hey, you'll accept your tax on your constitutional rights, and you will like it!
Yet providing free voter ID to exercise your constitutional right to vote is derided as a poll tax by some.
Because the "voter ID laws" haven't been packaged with anything else, right?
So you're trying to say that removal of early voting dates and Sunday voting, closure of early voting sites, alteration of registration patterns for younger voters, and the like did not happen in NC with that ever so popular "voter ID law"? Or that certain forms of photo ID which previously were acceptable as identification are suddenly NOT valid for voting purposes?
Oh right. That did happen--and it was not exclusive to NC. The whole reason voter ID laws have gotten shoved through is to create what is effectively a "poll tax", with the laws also having super special happy meal surprises like what I stated earlier bundled in. The Republican legislatures in areas where they've shoved these laws through know that most people aren't going to actually READ the damn laws and instead are only going to focus on what they hear about.
#1. The NRA immediately called for armed guards in the school. Their specific wording in their press release was "qualified, armed security". They acknowledge that police officers in every school would be ideal, but they also acknowledge it would be impossible. Instead of casting aspersions, maybe you can show how it would be possible.
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
#2. And yet despite that framework, those under 21 still manage to get their hands on alcohol and tragedy frequently follows. You do realize there is also a framework for acquiring firearms as well right? Any establishment who sells firearms to a minor faces fines, loss of license, and quite possibly prosecution.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Except that those in favour of gun ownership don't frame the debate in terms of won't someone think of the children, or surround themselves with children to further their agenda.
bs. Not long after Sandy Hook you had the NRA calling for arming the teachers and providing for "armed security guards" instead of school resource officers.
Your opening line is profanity. I can't wait to see what enlightenment this exchange will bring, that and conflating "those in favour of gun ownership" as being solely the NRA.
So the NRA were surrounded with children while calling for these measures to help prevent school shootings?
Do you also object to the LEOs who are in favour of armed teachers and classroom assistants in the same terms?
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
And we already have a legislative framework in place concerning firearms. With hefty fines and jail time for breaking the law. Yet the focus is still on firearms, in spite of the fact that most firearms used in crimes are possessed unlawfully.
Kanluwen wrote: I'm pretty sure there is absolutely nothing to support what you just said. I cannot think of any databases that track "baseball bat usage in murders".
Really? The FBI begs to differ
Kanluwen wrote: Because the "voter ID laws" haven't been packaged with anything else, right?
And because we aren't talking about your particular hobby horse, right? We are talking about constitutional rights, and the fact that certain people are happy to see others infringed and others not.
If you want to have another discussion about NC's voting legislation perhaps you can take it to your last ( as yet unresponded to) thread
ZultanQ wrote: It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.
Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.
As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.
ZultanQ wrote: It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.
Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.
As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
ZultanQ wrote: It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.
Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.
As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.
Medium of Death wrote: Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
#1. The NRA immediately called for armed guards in the school. Their specific wording in their press release was "qualified, armed security". They acknowledge that police officers in every school would be ideal, but they also acknowledge it would be impossible. Instead of casting aspersions, maybe you can show how it would be possible.
http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf
And who judges what the "qualified armed security" is?
And what am I casting aspersions on? Show how what is possible?
If you're referring to more police in schools, well it would probably help if cities/municipalities actually gave people incentives to become police officers. It would also be helpful if they would tighten recruitment qualifications and start getting the kinds of people who look at a badge as a free pass to do whatever they want out of departments.
#2. And yet despite that framework, those under 21 still manage to get their hands on alcohol and tragedy frequently follows. You do realize there is also a framework for acquiring firearms as well right? Any establishment who sells firearms to a minor faces fines, loss of license, and quite possibly prosecution.
I'm aware. However I'm also aware that we keep having these shootings where a minor has gotten their hands on a firearm.
Conflating the situation of the deaths attributed to alcohol(which yes, are higher than those with firearms), usually accompanied by some kind of automotive accident, to those of firearms deaths is asinine. It's deflection and the sooner you stop doing it the sooner we can get to a productive conversation about firearms.
For the record, I'm not against firearms ownership like some people seem to think. I just think there needs to be more regulation and that gun owners need to step the hell up and recognize that this nonsense about "guns are just tools" needs to stop.
Also: the ATF is a toothless organization that is effectively useless when it comes to enforcement or regulation.
Okay, and?
"Rifle deaths" accounting for less than 400 deaths in 2011 is nice and all, but how many murders or suicides are done with rifles anyways? Does the "rifle deaths" category include shotguns as well?
"Hammer and club deaths" still doesn't tell us how many baseball bats were used though. Clubs can be anything from baseball bats to tire irons to wrenches.
#4. And here you go on that tangent again... We got it. N. Carolina bad.
That's not a tangent, Djones. You and Dreadclaw brought up voter ID laws and act as though they are JUST requiring IDs.
That's not the case.
I use North Carolina as an example because of the fact that I've spent a lengthy amount of time actually reading and paying attention to what's going on in my state.
djones520 wrote: #4. And here you go on that tangent again... We got it. N. Carolina bad.
That's not a tangent, Djones. You and Dreadclaw brought up voter ID laws and act as though they are JUST requiring IDs.
That's not the case.
I use North Carolina as an example because of the fact that I've spent a lengthy amount of time actually reading and paying attention to what's going on in my state.
Yes, it is a tangent because you are trying to force a discussion on topic du jour. Allow me to restate in case you missed it;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And because we aren't talking about your particular hobby horse, right? We are talking about constitutional rights, and the fact that certain people are happy to see others infringed and others not.
If you want to have another discussion about NC's voting legislation perhaps you can take it to your last ( as yet unresponded to) thread
djones520 wrote: #4. And here you go on that tangent again... We got it. N. Carolina bad.
That's not a tangent, Djones. You and Dreadclaw brought up voter ID laws and act as though they are JUST requiring IDs.
That's not the case.
I use North Carolina as an example because of the fact that I've spent a lengthy amount of time actually reading and paying attention to what's going on in my state.
Yes, it is a tangent because you are trying to force a discussion on topic du jour. Allow me to restate in case you missed it;
Dreadclaw69 wrote: And because we aren't talking about your particular hobby horse, right? We are talking about constitutional rights, and the fact that certain people are happy to see others infringed and others not.
If you want to have another discussion about NC's voting legislation perhaps you can take it to your last ( as yet unresponded to) thread
I love how you act as though this is a tangent when you and Whembly continually kept bringing up voter ID laws in other states when discussing NC's voting laws.
Your state government should know how to regulate armed security guards. What training they require. We're talking fee's for licenses and training. State fee's. The "grey" area would be Federal/Military/LEO training. Will those training qualified or not. Your best bet for someone in your state government with LEO/Military background to "ride herd" on it. Put someone with no exposure would pretty much soup sandwich it. I do know of one security contract agency that only hires former military and LEO for experience in all positions. This is not Black Water or whatever their called now, Four Horsemen, Triple Canopy, and whatever else the federal government hire. The organization is replacing security in say...hospitals...airports (local/minor), high value storage centers, banks, and whatever else public security are around.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Your meaning anyone states. Just clarifying
Better ban sex, as 100% of deaths start with life...
as if killing x # of people is reason to ban something,
then when people touting this position are confronted with the FACT that far more mundane objects kill far more people, suddenly the # of people killed is a "meaningless" statistic,
also, people touting that "gun bans worked in britain or other places" are full of it, thats a straight up lie that doesnt hold to the facts regarding crime. britain already had far far less gun crime then the states before they banned handguns, and handgun crime has gon UP since the ban, not down.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Kanluwen wrote: I love how you act as though this is a tangent when you and Whembly continually kept bringing up voter ID laws in other states when discussing NC's voting laws.
Hypocritical much?
Tu Quoque now?
This is the last time I will be discussing voter ID with you in this thread. When we talk about voter ID law it is often in general terms, or comparing the approaches in a number of States you always interject NC, and then get snippy when we don't drop everything to accommodate you. You did it in the Texas thread. We started discussing their ID law, you injected NC into the debate and when we continued our discussion you insisted that we only discuss NC. We get it. You don't like NC's voting law, and no matter what discussion takes place you likely never will.
This is a tangent. We are discussing attempts to curtail firearm possession. I made a comparison between constitutional rights. That was not an open invitation for you to shoehorn NC's voting laws into this discussion. As mentioned before, you have a thread for that. It is just that no one took the bait, or cared enough to comment. If you want to discuss NC's voting law please do so there.
I interject NC because it COMPLETELY demolishes the idea that voter ID laws are being done as a fair and balanced attempt to deal with a problem.
You're aware of that though, which is why it is so humorous that you keep getting high and mighty about how it's "off-topic" and trying to behave as though you do not do this nonsense.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?
when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
You mean like how France has higher suicide rates? South Korea, Japan, Finland, Belgium, Poland, Russia. All countries with gun numbers not even close to the US, and higher suicide rates. Canada, UK, Norway, Ireland, all nations that have near identical suicide rates.
So... we have all of these modern nations with equivalent or higher suicide rates, and drastically lower gun numbers. So where is the proof that taking guns away will lower suicide rates?
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
The "rest of the western world" isn't doing any better than the US in terms of overall violent crime. There are many variables to consider beyond firearms availability. That point of view is founded in willful ignorance.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
You mean like how France has higher suicide rates? South Korea, Japan, Finland, Belgium, Poland, Russia. All countries with gun numbers not even close to the US, and higher suicide rates. Canada, UK, Norway, Ireland, all nations that have near identical suicide rates.
So... we have all of these modern nations with equivalent or higher suicide rates, and drastically lower gun numbers. So where is the proof that taking guns away will lower suicide rates?
Nobody wants to take your guns away. Is it not unreasonable to surmise that some people might not have killed themselves if guns were harder to get?
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
You mean like how France has higher suicide rates? South Korea, Japan, Finland, Belgium, Poland, Russia. All countries with gun numbers not even close to the US, and higher suicide rates. Canada, UK, Norway, Ireland, all nations that have near identical suicide rates.
So... we have all of these modern nations with equivalent or higher suicide rates, and drastically lower gun numbers. So where is the proof that taking guns away will lower suicide rates?
Nobody wants to take your guns away. Is it not unreasonable to surmise that some people might not have killed themselves if guns were harder to get?
You act as if suicide isn't a personal choice. Obviously we don't want healthy, emotionally disturbed people killing themselves. But, I actually find it quite comforting that such an easy "out" is there for the terminally ill, victims of horrible diseases, etc.
Medium of Death wrote: Nobody wants to take your guns away. Is it not unreasonable to surmise that some people might not have killed themselves if guns were harder to get?
And that rather simplistic statement ignores the different mechanisms, causes, and other factors that were mentioned and links provided for above
You act as if suicide isn't a personal choice. Obviously we don't want healthy, emotionally disturbed people killing themselves. But, I actually find it quite comforting that such an easy "out" is there for the terminally ill, victims of horrible diseases, etc.
Are you that moronic? We aren't talking about Euthanasia or Right to Die.
Medium of Death wrote: Are you that moronic? We aren't talking about Euthanasia or Right to Die.
Nice personal attack. Thank you for that.
Any time we talk about raw suicide numbers, we talk about the factors contributing to those numbers. If your argument is based off of raw suicide numbers, then you are essentially saying that all suicide is the same, and all of it is bad.
I'd say, yeah it is unreasonable to assume that there will be any real impact.
The one suicide attempt I've been witness to was with an attempted prescription overdose. Despite the fact that there were numerous guns at hand.
With the massive amounts of suicide prevention training I've received over the last decade, I also know that the implement of suicide is meaningless. A person who wants to do it, will do it no matter what tool they have on hand. Someone who is suffering enough that they see death as a solution, isn't going to be squeamish about how it's achieved.
Folks who are acting out, wouldn't use a firearm in the first place, because eating a shotgun your not going to get time to be "rescued". If anything, the folks who use firearms are more deadset on the task, which again goes to show that it doesn't matter what tool they have on hand, they'll find a way.
Medium of Death wrote: Are you that moronic? We aren't talking about Euthanasia or Right to Die.
Nice personal attack. Thank you for that.
Any time we talk about raw suicide numbers, we talk about the factors contributing to those numbers. If your argument is based off of raw suicide numbers, then you are essentially saying that all suicide is the same, and all of it is bad.
I didn't bring those figures into this. I just wanted to see if you could grasp a simple point and perhaps see that vulnerable people could expose themselves to harm because they had easier access to firearms.
Medium of Death wrote: Are you that moronic? We aren't talking about Euthanasia or Right to Die.
Nice personal attack. Thank you for that.
Any time we talk about raw suicide numbers, we talk about the factors contributing to those numbers. If your argument is based off of raw suicide numbers, then you are essentially saying that all suicide is the same, and all of it is bad.
I didn't bring those figures into this. I just wanted to see if you could grasp a simple point and perhaps see that vulnerable people could expose themselves to harm because they had easier access to firearms.
You should recognize the equal and opposite point - that firearms allow horribly unfortunate people a way out of their situation that is both less cruel and more certain than other methods.
Firearm suicides, in my opinion, are a completely separate issue from "gun violence," belonging to the class "suicide" rather than the class "violence."
If gun control was about reducing violence, then that would be the talking point. Gun control is about controlling people, therefore the talking points all pertain to issues surrounding firearms, irrelevant as they may be to "gun violence."
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
You are kidding, right? Please tell me you were kidding.
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
Well... before you start making arguments based off of that, maybe you should do some research.
Kanluwen wrote: They "do not generate the same outrage or legislative focus" because there is already a framework in place to prevent teenagers from drinking. You have to be 21 years old to buy alcohol or drink alcohol. Stores, dining establishments, and bars that sell alcohol to minors face pretty stiff fines and the loss of liquor licenses--which in turn leads to a further loss of money.
The same is true for pistols, only add in "federal NICS check" somewhere in there.
Seriously, that has to be one of the kookiest things I've ever heard you say, and I'm halfway sure you're Sandra Fluke. There's no framework in place to prevent teenagers from buying guns? Seriously?
There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
Well... before you start making arguments based off of that, maybe you should do some research.
Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
djones520 wrote: Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.
There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.
I'm not sure why that's an issue. If a parent hands over a gun to a kid who goes and commits a crime with that gun, they're potentially prosecuted as some form of accomplice, no? If a kid takes a firearm without the parents' knowledge, they're not. Similarly, if a parent provides alcohol for the kids to have a party, they're prosecuted; if the kid takes alcohol without the parents' knowledge, they're not.
My parents didn't lock up the booze when I was growing up. Nor, for the record, did they lock up the gun.
djones520 wrote: Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.
There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.
I found these literally within a minute of searching:
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?
when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.
Americans, you have a problem with guns.
Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.
That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.
djones520 wrote: Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.
There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.
And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.
Americans, you have a problem with guns.
Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.
That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.
Please.
That's cute. But, usually when we make statements like that, we provide "evidence" for our claims.
djones520 wrote: Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.
There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.
What is your argument exactly?
He started out saying there was no prosecution for kids getting ahold of guns and the tragedy that goes with it. Now he's changing his stance to teens.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?
when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
djones520 wrote: Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
Considering this is one of the very first results when searching for "Parents prosecuted for firearms related deaths", I think my argument still stands.
There definitely are prosecutions but by and large it seems to be restricted to incidents of toddlers to preteens.
What is your argument exactly?
He started out saying there was no prosecution for kids getting ahold of guns and the tragedy that goes with it. Now he's changing his stance to teens.
Actually Relapse, I said that it's INTERESTING that there is no prosecution for parents of teens.
If I wanted to "change my stance", I'd note that prosecution does not simply mean "charges are filed" but rather that an actual verdict of "Guilty" or "Innocent" is put forward in the case by a judge or jury--or that the charges are later dismissed.
Cheesecat wrote: Nuggz this evidence is pretty easy to find all you have to do is Google "gun violence by nation" or "number of firearms per capita per nation".
Gun violence in America is largely restricted to certain areas, occurring mainly amongst certain "cultures."
There is far more evidence for a cultural problem than there is for a "gun problem." The country as a whole doesn't have a "gun problem." Certain parts of the US have a cultural problem that manifests in many forms of violence and crime, one of which is gun-related violence.
Who is committing the majority of gun-related crime? Black males between the ages of 18-49. See figures 17 and 18. Let me preempt any accusations of racism by saying that my intent here is not a all to suggest that there is anything inherently wrong with black males that predisposes them to violence. I am merely pointing out the FACT that this population commits a disproportionate amount of violent crime.
See also Figures 25a and 25b. Amongst family members, incidences of homicides using firearms are actually dropping relative to cases involving other murder weapons.
Cheesecat wrote: If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?
Yes.
But they won't. No tin foil here, but (a) their goal is not to reduce violence, but to disarm Americans, and (b) no politician is going to adopt a platform that involves acknowledging the serious crime and violence problem in the black community (because thatsracist.jpg).
Kanluwen wrote: There's a framework in place to prevent teenagers from legally buying guns, certainly.
There is however precedent of parents/adults being prosecuted for providing alcohol to minors or minors getting access to alcohol in the house when something "tragic" happens. I can't think of any cases of prosecution when something similar happens with improperly secured firearms.
There might be cases where such a thing happened but I'm not aware of any off the top of my head.
Prosecution for straw purchases cover this quite well.
djones520 wrote: Well tell you what, go digging around some more and find the tons of other cases. I just typed 4 words into google and shared the first 3 links. It's your argument, so why don't you go dig through the 14 million links and prove us wrong.
Or you could drop this foolish argument that alcohol is better "controlled" then guns are.
Firearm controls; extensive background checks, local LEOs can also prevent purchases. Disqualification for felons etc.
Alcohol purchases; must be over 21
Nope, not even close
Cheesecat wrote: If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?
A lot of these firearms are unlawfully held, and amnesties for surrendering them have been help prior so what would you suggest?
ZultanQ wrote: It's pretty much common knowledge that at least in the US, most violent crimes take place in areas with stricter gun control laws, ie Chigaco, NYC, etc.
Have proponents of gun control stopped for a minute and considered that many of these deaths might have been justified? In the OP's article it conveniently mentions "gun violence" instead of gun crime, which are not necessarily the same thing. Many of these deaths "caused by guns" might have been in self defense and prevented even more heinous deeds by criminals. The police kill people with guns in the US regularly and I'm glad they do as long as they are within their legal limits.
As sad as it is, this type of ignorance has already overtaken much of Europe and I fear that the US will soon fall under the same delusion. People will trade their second amendment rights for perceived safety, when such laws statistically make them less safe. Liberal logic, not even once.
Just for giggles... does Sweden have the same sorts of problems with gangs, drugs crimes, cartel, and the likes to areas in the US?
To me, that isn't comparing apples to apples.
0/10, try again... thanks for playing.
There's two countries in the EU that have higher average murder rates from 2008-2010 than the US had in 2010 (couldn't find a specific year for the EU), and that's Lithuania and Estonia. I'm pretty sure there's organized crime in Europe too.
Kilkrazy wrote: And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.
Americans, you have a problem with guns.
Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.
That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.
Please.
For a moderator, who is speaking with a Canadian no less, that is an awful large brush that you're using to tar everyone with
Cheesecat wrote: If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?
Only if you want to be called a racist.
Well it would be racist if you change gun laws for black people (plus laws should be based around fairness and it would be unfair to change gun laws based on race as you have no control over you race) but it wouldn't be if you look in to other external factors that may influence violence in
that community such as education, wealth, social status, living standards, health, etc find ways to improve if for them.
Cheesecat wrote: If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?
Only if you want to be called a racist.
Well it would be racist if you change gun laws for black people (plus laws should be based around fairness and it would be unfair to change gun laws based on race as you have no control over you race) but it wouldn't be if you look in to other external factors that may influence violence in
that community such as education, wealth, social status, living standards, health, etc find ways to improve if for them.
I'm sure there are many factors, but I primarily place the blame on the black community's leadership. Every time an issue comes up, their reaction is to get the community riled up with righteous indignation.
The violent crime issue is just one of many of these issues, but it's a big one. The problem: young black males are killing other young black males. Their solution? Blame guns. Heaven forbid they place the blame on the perpetrators...
Cheesecat wrote: If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?
Only if you want to be called a racist.
Well it would be racist if you change gun laws for black people (plus laws should be based around fairness and it would be unfair to change gun laws based on race as you have no control over you race) but it wouldn't be if you look in to other external factors that may influence violence in
that community such as education, wealth, social status, living standards, health, etc find ways to improve if for them.
I'm sure there are many factors, but I primarily place the blame on the black community's leadership. Every time an issue comes up, their reaction is to get the community riled up with righteous indignation.
The violent crime issue is just one of many of these issues, but it's a big one. The problem: young black males are killing other young black males. Their solution? Blame guns. Heaven forbid they place the blame on the perpetrators...
Well if we white people would just stop being so damn privileged, maybe they wouldn't kill each other like that. *sarcasm*
Cheesecat wrote: If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?
Yes.
But they won't. No tin foil here, but (a) their goal is not to reduce violence, but to disarm Americans, and (b) no politician is going to adopt a platform that involves acknowledging the serious crime and violence problem in the black community (because thatsracist.jpg).
I don't think there's really any politician who wants to disarm America they may want to add more restrictions but I doubt there's any that want a total gun ban.
Cheesecat wrote: If what you say is correct then shouldn't the US be designing policy that will help reduce violence within the black community?
Yes.
But they won't. No tin foil here, but (a) their goal is not to reduce violence, but to disarm Americans, and (b) no politician is going to adopt a platform that involves acknowledging the serious crime and violence problem in the black community (because thatsracist.jpg).
I don't think there's really any politician who wants to disarm America they may want to add more restrictions but I doubt there's any that want a total gun ban.
Feinsteinn is on the record for saying she wants all the guns gone if I recall correctly.
But yes, a total ban would be political suicide. That's why they take baby steps.
And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.
Americans, you have a problem with guns.
Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.
That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.
Please.
Probably one of the most facepalm worthy posts you've ever made.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?
You guys should remember how well our guns stopped an overreaching government.
I've no problems owning fire arms. My weapons are secured. My ammo secured. My battle rattle is secured. My documentation with my weapons are on hand. So what problem did I over look? Besides in the future live ammo will be in some serious demands due to the Apocalypse
Medium of Death wrote: Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?
You guys should remember how well our guns stopped an overreaching government.
I think you're forgetting the whole "France" part...
The French wouldn't have been needed had our Congress understood how to fight the British Navy. The British Navy was petrified of our small boat capability, we just never took advantage of that. We could have ended the war in the first year had we capitalized our strengths properly.
The EU posters arguing this, it's important to consider how different the situation is in the US. Widespread civilian firearm ownership is far less common here than in the US, and historically was way less common. It is much harder to get the cat back in the bag, so comparing the US to Europe isn't helpful. It's also unhelpful to treat the "US" as one monolithic block with regard to gun laws.
Based on the death stats, there seems to be a problem with gun violence in the US. It would be more interesting and productive to look at what causes a culture of violence in a nation rather than to restrict the tools of that violence, in my view. (That said I am definitely pro gun control in countries where it can actually make a difference, I am just sceptical it would work as well as many of us on this side of the pond imagine).
Medium of Death wrote: Having guns didn't stop the state from taking your gold, what makes you think it'll protect you from anything in the future?
You guys should remember how well our guns stopped an overreaching government.
They really helped in the paddy fields a few years later? Amiright?
Ridiculous point to make, but don't let me stop you from dragging up WW2 and disrespecting veterans from around the world.
Oh yeah the righteous indignation...
Referencing the Revolutionary War for one, in a joking manner as the smiley would indicate. Secondly, I'm a veteran myself, of a family of multi-generational veterants, and grandson of a WW2 vet, so get over yourself if you think I'd ever intend to "disrespect" any vets out there.
And talking about disrespect, you go and make a joke about the tens of thousands dead, and hundred thousands wounded vets.
Not really mate. I highlighted the ridiculousness of you dragging a "we won WW2" comment into a thread about gun violence in America. So me pointing out that those guns didn't help in Vietnam is in the same vein.
If it was about the Revolutionary war then fine, that's just not what I took it as. Strangely enough that's not what's imprinted on my mind when I think about overreaching governments.
Did private gun ownership really help in the Revolutionary war? I would have thought proliferation came after you'd won?
Medium of Death wrote: Not really mate. I highlighted the ridiculousness of you dragging a "we won WW2" comment into a thread about gun violence in America. So me pointing out that those guns didn't help in Vietnam is in the same vein.
If it was about the Revolutionary war then fine, that's just not what I took it as. Strangely enough that's not what's imprinted on my mind when I think about overreaching governments.
Did private gun ownership really help in the Revolutionary war? I would have thought proliferation came after you'd won?
The official firing war started when a British Company was dispatched to confiscate firearms from the citizenry. The militia was a major part of our military might. Even those who served as regulars, where usually lugging around their own muskets that they brought to the fight with them.
We fought that war with the firearms that we owned.
Medium of Death wrote: Not really mate. I highlighted the ridiculousness of you dragging a "we won WW2" comment into a thread about gun violence in America. So me pointing out that those guns didn't help in Vietnam is in the same vein.
If it was about the Revolutionary war then fine, that's just not what I took it as. Strangely enough that's not what's imprinted on my mind when I think about overreaching governments.
Did private gun ownership really help in the Revolutionary war? I would have thought proliferation came after you'd won?
And how well did your guns help in Ireland?
As an Irishman my first thought was the Revolutionary War. And yes, private ownership really helped as a lot of the militia owned their own firearms, and furthermore much of the artillery and cannons were owned privately
Gotta admit, I took the overreaching government comment as the Revolutionary War, also. I think this underscores a huge difference in the thought process on both sides of the pond.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?
when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.
Americans, you have a problem with guns.
Most of us disagree that we have "a problem" with guns.
Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.
That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.
Admit what? Don't you think your "European" sensibility is being forced into the American psyche a wee bit?
Please.
No thanks brah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: The EU posters arguing this, it's important to consider how different the situation is in the US. Widespread civilian firearm ownership is far less common here than in the US, and historically was way less common. It is much harder to get the cat back in the bag, so comparing the US to Europe isn't helpful. It's also unhelpful to treat the "US" as one monolithic block with regard to gun laws.
Based on the death stats, there seems to be a problem with gun violence in the US. It would be more interesting and productive to look at what causes a culture of violence in a nation rather than to restrict the tools of that violence, in my view. (That said I am definitely pro gun control in countries where it can actually make a difference, I am just sceptical it would work as well as many of us on this side of the pond imagine).
Exactly.
Thanks for being sensible Da Boss.
I think non-Americans likes to bring this up to bash Americans. Because, lemme let you in on a secret: We have it good here.
Goliath wrote: Yes, but just because you make that point in every gun thread doesn't mean that it isn't still a bit silly.
The government tried legislating away alcohol, and what happened was the prohibition era. It wasn't particularly fun.
They could try and legislate away cars, I guess? I'm under the impression that cars are used more in daily life for most americans than guns are though, so that might cause some issues.
Its so choice that I have a new shotgun (Mossberg field ans security combo) in the mail and I had a call that my new M&P has been fully tweaked and is ready to ship back to me. 3.2 lb measured trigger pull with tightened audible reset, competition barrel, and competition adjustable sights yea baby YEA!
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?
when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.
Americans, you have a problem with guns.
Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.
That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.
Please.
In the same token you can admit Europe has a problem with alcohol, since 195,000 who die yearly in Europe do so because of alcohol related causes.
A lil' qualifier, not talking prohibition, but with all of the support for the alcohol industry over there, in spite of the carnage and other problems it causes, why are you so down on gun ownership?
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
Maybe there's a language barrier issue, but the first part of your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
I'm kind of with Nuggz. That makes no sense at all.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?
when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.
Americans, you have a problem with guns.
Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.
That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.
Please.
In the same token you can admit Europe has a problem with alcohol, since 195,000 who die yearly in Europe do so because of alcohol related causes.
A lil' qualifier, not talking prohibition, but with all of the support for the alcohol industry over there, in spite of the carnage and other problems it causes, why are you so down on gun ownership?
Just as a reminder, the population of Europe is about 700 million people (depending on how you choose to define it). On my phone so will not go any more into the topic.
And to echo KK's comment about your previous stats - The UK does have different classifications of crime than the US. I understand that we also put crimes commited with replica weapons and crimes where the perp pretended to have a gun in our firearm crime stats.
Lordhat wrote: I just want to know why we feel like we can tell people that they're not allowed to end their own life.
That's not really what the article is saying. It's that people can come through their depression and if they didn't have readily available firearms they wouldn't be able to kill themselves comparatively easily to the other suicide options.
This is hardly overlapping into the Euthanasia debate.
And that is a purely facetious idea. If someone is dead set on suicide, they will do it no matter what implement they have handy to do it with. The US and UK have near identical suicide rates, 12 and 11.8 per 100k. In the US 50% are done with firearms, in the UK 50% are done by hanging.
So you have one modern western nation with readily available guns, one modern western nation without. Same suicide rates. The point is debunked.
Nice logic, because we know that the United Kingdom and America are so interchangeable. There can be other factors at work beyond, Scotland has a higher suicide rate that the rest of the UK for example.
I'm not saying that guns are the reason that a lot of people kill themselves I'm saying that them being readily available gives people an "easier" option. It might be a small percent out of the total that do kill themselves with guns, but it's probably still there.
So... put some numbers up then. Provide some proof that your idea of trampling all over the rights of a nation would actually accomplish anything.
Rest of the western world.
so again, ignoring the fact that gun crime went up in places like britain after the handgun ban?
when asked for proof, you just make a comment like the rest of the world actually has less gun crime because of their gun control, when the exact opposite is true factually.
"Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871."
"use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned. The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. "
And now it's gone down, and it was never anything like the level in the USA, and UK gun crime includes things that aren't gun crimes in the US. Yes. Let's not bother to look at Canada, Japan or France.
Americans, you have a problem with guns.
Admit it. Accept it. Decide to do nothing about it because having lots of guns is more important.
That's fine. We understand. Just try to stop being in denial.
Please.
In the same token you can admit Europe has a problem with alcohol, since 195,000 who die yearly in Europe do so because of alcohol related causes.
A lil' qualifier, not talking prohibition, but with all of the support for the alcohol industry over there, in spite of the carnage and other problems it causes, why are you so down on gun ownership?
Just as a reminder, the population of Europe is about 700 million people (depending on how you choose to define it). On my phone so will not go any more into the topic.
And to echo KK's comment about your previous stats - The UK does have different classifications of crime than the US. I understand that we also put crimes commited with replica weapons and crimes where the perp pretended to have a gun in our firearm crime stats.
Page 16 of this report where it states that in the 90's, in Russia, three quarters of all male deaths and half of all female deaths per year were estimated to be from alcohol related causes, should give even you pause.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
I'm kind of with Nuggz. That makes no sense at all.
Ignorance is bliss? you hand of more and more control to the government, but keep on jabbering about your gun rights, the rights that were given you by the founding fathers to oppose the tyranny of the government. Freedom is not the Superbowl.
Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
and
Ignorance is bliss? you hand of more and more control to the government, but keep on jabbering about your gun rights, the rights that were given you by the founding fathers to oppose the tyranny of the government. Freedom is not the Superbowl.
Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
and
Ignorance is bliss? you hand of more and more control to the government, but keep on jabbering about your gun rights, the rights that were given you by the founding fathers to oppose the tyranny of the government. Freedom is not the Superbowl.
I'm with Nuggz and DJ...
I think he is saying that we are handing more and more of our "freedoms" away (Privacy, etc) and are okay with it, but once a person talks about taking guns away from the population everyone gets pissed off.
The first problem is that you assume we are ok with it.
I can assure you that many people are NOT ok with it. And more likely would join them if we knew about all the shenanigans that the government was getting up to.
And also, even if some people are saying they're ok with more surveillance but still want their guns its not hypocritical. Its just someone having a preference of one over the other.
And surveillance isn't really a loss of freedom, its a loss of privacy. You aren't less free to do something just because someone is watching, you may feel inhibited but that's entirely you.
Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
and
Ignorance is bliss? you hand of more and more control to the government, but keep on jabbering about your gun rights, the rights that were given you by the founding fathers to oppose the tyranny of the government. Freedom is not the Superbowl.
I'm with Nuggz and DJ...
I think he is saying that we are handing more and more of our "freedoms" away (Privacy, etc) and are okay with it, but once a person talks about taking guns away from the population everyone gets pissed off.
the opposite is true however... protectors of the 2nd amendmant are not ok with any thing taking away anyone's freedom.
I find that the people "getting pissed off" as you put it, or actually standing up for their rights as I put it, about guns, also defend other freedoms as well.
while the people who complain, and blanket every 2nd amendment defender as someone who doesnt care about the 1st, generally just complain about losing the 1st amendment rights, and never get out of the house to try to do anything about it.
in the end, the reason why the 2nd is perceived as the "last right to be taken away" and draws so much support, is because it has so much grass roots support across every demographic. Its appeal being that it literally protects all the other rights from being taken away by powers foreign or domestic.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
I'm kind of with Nuggz. That makes no sense at all.
Ignorance is bliss? you hand of more and more control to the government, but keep on jabbering about your gun rights, the rights that were given you by the founding fathers to oppose the tyranny of the government. Freedom is not the Superbowl.
Clear enough?
Two questions:
1) What freedoms are you saying that we've lost? Be specific.
2) What makes you think that gun owners are OK with losing any freedoms at all?
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
I'm kind of with Nuggz. That makes no sense at all.
Ignorance is bliss? you hand of more and more control to the government, but keep on jabbering about your gun rights, the rights that were given you by the founding fathers to oppose the tyranny of the government. Freedom is not the Superbowl.
Clear enough?
Two questions:
1) What freedoms are you saying that we've lost? Be specific.
2) What makes you think that gun owners are OK with losing any freedoms at all?
Patriot act, invasive searches because of the "terrorist threat" at airports, NSA spying on its own citizens, police brutality on the rise, censorship of the internet etcetera.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
Patriot act, invasive searches because of the "terrorist threat" at airports, NSA spying on its own citizens, police brutality on the rise, censorship of the internet etcetera.
hate to break this too you, most pro gun people I know are anti patriot act, and the patriot act was, and still is, being supported and expanded by both political parties. All this latest BS NSA stuff, has been expanded under obamas government, and hes done just as much to erode the 1st as bush.
but its much easier to just blame other people for the erosion of 1st amendment rights to justify your support for the erosion of the 2nd amendment rights.
I can assure you that many people are NOT ok with it.
And how much are your guns helping you to regain those freedoms?
Thing is, look around the world. Look at the countries where guns are heavily controlled, and you find no more chance of them being a totalitarian hellhole than countries where guns are much more freely available. Tight gun laws didn't cause Britain or Australia to slide in to government oppression, and lots of personal firearms didn't stop Iraq from being crushed under Saddam's thumb.
Civil liberties are protected through strong activism, and the threat of the ballot box. That's how you'll roll back the government over-reach on personal freedom, not by waving a gun around.
I can assure you that many people are NOT ok with it.
And how much are your guns helping you to regain those freedoms?
Thing is, look around the world. Look at the countries where guns are heavily controlled, and you find no more chance of them being a totalitarian hellhole than countries where guns are much more freely available. Tight gun laws didn't cause Britain or Australia to slide in to government oppression, and lots of personal firearms didn't stop Iraq from being crushed under Saddam's thumb.
Civil liberties are protected through strong activism, and the threat of the ballot box. That's how you'll roll back the government over-reach on personal freedom, not by waving a gun around.
You're misunderstanding. Gusn aren't there to protect civil liberties. That's what the ballot box is for. It's once the ballot and soap box don't work, that's when the armed disobedieance comes in. It's the parachute to be used only after everything else has failed.
I can assure you that many people are NOT ok with it.
And how much are your guns helping you to regain those freedoms?
Thing is, look around the world. Look at the countries where guns are heavily controlled, and you find no more chance of them being a totalitarian hellhole than countries where guns are much more freely available. Tight gun laws didn't cause Britain or Australia to slide in to government oppression, and lots of personal firearms didn't stop Iraq from being crushed under Saddam's thumb.
Civil liberties are protected through strong activism, and the threat of the ballot box. That's how you'll roll back the government over-reach on personal freedom, not by waving a gun around.
You're misunderstanding. Gusn aren't there to protect civil liberties. That's what the ballot box is for. It's once the ballot and soap box don't work, that's when the armed disobedieance comes in. It's the parachute to be used only after everything else has failed.
When everyone's armed, who decides when everything else has failed?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
Just as love of alcohol is so ingrained in European society even though it kills tens of thousands of people each year and erodes the quality of life for many more., When it's at the point, as it was in Russia, where three quarters of all male deaths per year and half of all female deaths can be attributed to alcohol, it should make you think what the realdanger is and why you support an industry that kills that many people for the sake of recreation.
I can assure you that many people are NOT ok with it.
And how much are your guns helping you to regain those freedoms?
Thing is, look around the world. Look at the countries where guns are heavily controlled, and you find no more chance of them being a totalitarian hellhole than countries where guns are much more freely available. Tight gun laws didn't cause Britain or Australia to slide in to government oppression, and lots of personal firearms didn't stop Iraq from being crushed under Saddam's thumb.
Civil liberties are protected through strong activism, and the threat of the ballot box. That's how you'll roll back the government over-reach on personal freedom, not by waving a gun around.
You're misunderstanding. Gusn aren't there to protect civil liberties. That's what the ballot box is for. It's once the ballot and soap box don't work, that's when the armed disobedieance comes in. It's the parachute to be used only after everything else has failed.
When everyone's armed, who decides when everything else has failed?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."
As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Well it seems that Americans love their guns more than their freedom (wasn't that the prime reason for having guns in the first place?)
Maybe the solution is the opposite from what most Europeans want, less is more! Everyone should have a minigun for home-protection!
I'm kind of with Nuggz. That makes no sense at all.
Ignorance is bliss? you hand of more and more control to the government, but keep on jabbering about your gun rights, the rights that were given you by the founding fathers to oppose the tyranny of the government. Freedom is not the Superbowl.
Clear enough?
Two questions:
1) What freedoms are you saying that we've lost? Be specific.
2) What makes you think that gun owners are OK with losing any freedoms at all?
The 4th Amendment has been effectively shredded. First Amendment is starting to get hit. Government targetted party out of power. Bridgegate.
I can assure you that many people are NOT ok with it.
And how much are your guns helping you to regain those freedoms?
Thing is, look around the world. Look at the countries where guns are heavily controlled, and you find no more chance of them being a totalitarian hellhole than countries where guns are much more freely available. Tight gun laws didn't cause Britain or Australia to slide in to government oppression, and lots of personal firearms didn't stop Iraq from being crushed under Saddam's thumb.
Civil liberties are protected through strong activism, and the threat of the ballot box. That's how you'll roll back the government over-reach on personal freedom, not by waving a gun around.
You're misunderstanding. Gusn aren't there to protect civil liberties. That's what the ballot box is for. It's once the ballot and soap box don't work, that's when the armed disobedieance comes in. It's the parachute to be used only after everything else has failed.
When everyone's armed, who decides when everything else has failed?
The person with the biggest and the most guns? Soooo... the government?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."
As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
You have people like Relapse who jump up and down about how alcohol kills so many more people a year, but gloss over the fact that alcohol is not the sole factor in those deaths. You have people getting drunk and using guns, people getting drunk and taking medication, people driving drunk, etc.
We've also had the NRA and gun owners vocally supporting psychiatric medication being forcibly administered or forcibly admitting those with mental illnesses into psychiatric facilities or even imprisoning them as a "potential danger" whenever it comes out that the individuals involved in these mass shootings had a mental illness. Or the ever popular "sane people don't just snap, there was something wrong with the shooter to begin with!" argument.
The 4th Amendment has been effectively shredded. First Amendment is starting to get hit. Government targeted party out of power. Bridgegate.
The 1st Amendment got hit when the Patriot Act went into play.
The 4th Amendment "getting shredded" was done under the umbrella of that same Act and expanded provisions associated with it.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."
As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
You have people like Relapse who jump up and down about how alcohol kills so many more people a year, but gloss over the fact that alcohol is not the sole factor in those deaths. You have people getting drunk and using guns, people getting drunk and taking medication, people driving drunk, etc.
We've also had the NRA and gun owners vocally supporting psychiatric medication being forcibly administered or forcibly admitting those with mental illnesses into psychiatric facilities or even imprisoning them as a "potential danger" whenever it comes out that the individuals involved in these mass shootings had a mental illness. Or the ever popular "sane people don't just snap, there was something wrong with the shooter to begin with!" argument.
You have just about as good a chance as being killed in a mass shooting as being struck by lightning.
Emotional reactions to these events are simply that - emotional reactions.
The FBI's definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more deaths. According to that statistic, as of December 2013, around 900 people had died in the past 7 years. That's under 130 people per year. In a country of 314 MILLION people, that's completely insignificant. Certainly not sufficiently significant to trample the rights of an entire nation.
Let's not forget that, arguably, the most devastating "mass attack" of any kind of 2013, the Boston Marathon Bombings as measured in terms of the sheer number of people affected, didn't require firearms. And, because there were "only" 3 fatalities, it wouldn't count as a mass shooting even if a firearm were used. But 264 injured? That's huge.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."
As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
You have people like Relapse who jump up and down about how alcohol kills so many more people a year, but gloss over the fact that alcohol is not the sole factor in those deaths. You have people getting drunk and using guns, people getting drunk and taking medication, people driving drunk, etc.
We've also had the NRA and gun owners vocally supporting psychiatric medication being forcibly administered or forcibly admitting those with mental illnesses into psychiatric facilities or even imprisoning them as a "potential danger" whenever it comes out that the individuals involved in these mass shootings had a mental illness. Or the ever popular "sane people don't just snap, there was something wrong with the shooter to begin with!" argument.
You have just about as good a chance as being killed in a mass shooting as being struck by lightning.
Emotional reactions to these events are simply that - emotional reactions.
The FBI's definition of a mass shooting is 4 or more deaths. According to that statistic, as of December 2013, around 900 people had died in the past 7 years. That's under 130 people per year. In a country of 314 MILLION people, that's completely insignificant. Certainly not sufficiently significant to trample the rights of an entire nation.
Let's not forget that, arguably, the most devastating "mass attack" of any kind of 2013, the Boston Marathon Bombings as measured in terms of the sheer number of people affected, didn't require firearms. And, because there were "only" 3 fatalities, it wouldn't count as a mass shooting even if a firearm were used. But 264 injured? That's huge.
Thanks for making my point for me. Before you even fully replied, you already went to the well of "You're more likely to be killed by X than a mass shooting".
Just because it's not likely to happen to every single person in the US, does that mean that the situation should be ignored or that we should somehow pretend that any reaction to them is an "emotional reaction"?
We got the Patriot Act, the increased security at airports, and all kinds of wonderful things as a result of the September 11th attacks and the need to "prevent something like this from ever happening again"...yet somehow increased control over firearms to prevent more Auroras, more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, or more Virginia Techs is government overreach?
And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
I usually blame the shooters, myself. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: We got the Patriot Act, the increased security at airports, and all kinds of wonderful things as a result of the September 11th attacks and the need to "prevent something like this from ever happening again"...yet somehow increased control over firearms to prevent more Auroras, more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, or more Virginia Techs is government overreach?
As has been pointed out many times in this very thread, it's all government overreach. I have to believe you're willfully ignoring posts to have missed it.
And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
I usually blame the shooters, myself. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about.
Sure, the shooters definitely have a share of blame. They made the choice to do what they did after all.
But do you think the Aurora theater shootings would have happened if he had to use a knife? What about Sandy Hook?
As has been pointed out many times in this very thread, it's all government overreach. I have to believe you're willfully ignoring posts to have missed it.
Yeah, it's considered government overreach now. The Republicans and their voterbase making such a big goddamned deal about the NSA and these "government overreaches" now certainly had no qualms with that overreach during the Bush administration.
And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
I usually blame the shooters, myself. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: We got the Patriot Act, the increased security at airports, and all kinds of wonderful things as a result of the September 11th attacks and the need to "prevent something like this from ever happening again"...yet somehow increased control over firearms to prevent more Auroras, more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, or more Virginia Techs is government overreach?
As has been pointed out many times in this very thread, it's all government overreach. I have to believe you're willfully ignoring posts to have missed it.
I dont often agree with seaward,
but when I do,
its because he is correct...
for some reason the anti 2nd amendment types seem to think its impossible to support all the amendments... and believe the democrats havent expanded the patriot act/NSA spying/ect ect to trample the 1st and 4th amendment as well as the republicans.
Read it lound and clear people, the people standing up for the 2nd amendment have also been standing up for the other ones... its the height of will full ignorance to just blanket every supporter of the 2nd amendment as a detractor of the 1st/4th.
mass murder is NOT an american problem, nor is it a gun problem,
plenty of mass murders DO happen with knives, bats, gasolene, and other incindiaries.
below are two, of MANY examples of worse mass murders, with more mundane objects... the TOOL is not the problem, the PERSON and their mental state is.
"A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 25 dead and some 115 injured. As most cases had no known motive, analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1]"
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, it's considered government overreach now. The Republicans and their voterbase making such a big goddamned deal about the NSA and these "government overreaches" now certainly had no qualms with that overreach during the Bush administration.
Neither did the Democrats until they decided they didn't like Bush.
Now that Obama's doing it, of course, they're quite mum.
Which makes what point, exactly? Just because one political group or another doesn't call it overreach means it's not overreach? No. Of course it's overreach. If a certain segment of the country's too stupid to realize that, now or then, I don't particularly care, as it doesn't change the facts.
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, it's considered government overreach now. The Republicans and their voterbase making such a big goddamned deal about the NSA and these "government overreaches" now certainly had no qualms with that overreach during the Bush administration.
Neither did the Democrats until they decided they didn't like Bush.
Now that Obama's doing it, of course, they're quite mum.
Which makes what point, exactly? Just because one political group or another doesn't call it overreach means it's not overreach? No. Of course it's overreach. If a certain segment of the country's too stupid to realize that, now or then, I don't particularly care, as it doesn't change the facts.
The point, which I'm certain you do understand, is that it's amazing how things change from when there's an outside force to serve as a boogeyman or when you can start calling elected officials "sympathizers" or "unamerican".
Do you think the Patriot Act would have passed if it had been done in response to a series of shootings done by a domestic terror group instead of a foreign group plowing planes into buildings?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
"Gun love," as you call it, is a part of our constitution and a basic human right as far as I'm concerned. Of course it's "ingrained in American society."
As for your previous post, you're 100% wrong if you think that gun owners are OK with any of that. Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
You have people like Relapse who jump up and down about how alcohol kills so many more people a year, but gloss over the fact that alcohol is not the sole factor in those deaths. You have people getting drunk and using guns, people getting drunk and taking medication, people driving drunk, etc.
We've also had the NRA and gun owners vocally supporting psychiatric medication being forcibly administered or forcibly admitting those with mental illnesses into psychiatric facilities or even imprisoning them as a "potential danger" whenever it comes out that the individuals involved in these mass shootings had a mental illness. Or the ever popular "sane people don't just snap, there was something wrong with the shooter to begin with!" argument.
Mmm...the police state guy supports gun control. Derp derp who would have guessed.
Kanluwen wrote: The point, which I'm certain you do understand, is that it's amazing how things change from when there's an outside force to serve as a boogeyman or when you can start calling elected officials "sympathizers" or "unamerican".
Do you think the Patriot Act would have passed if it had been done in response to a series of shootings done by a domestic terror group instead of a foreign group plowing planes into buildings?
Not trying to deflect, I'm genuinely curious.
No, because it couldn't have been sold as, "This will let us keep an eye on dangerous foreigners," the way the Patriot Act was. I also think it would be impossible to have a mass shooting inflict anywhere near the economic or psychological damage of 9/11.
Kanluwen wrote: The point, which I'm certain you do understand, is that it's amazing how things change from when there's an outside force to serve as a boogeyman or when you can start calling elected officials "sympathizers" or "unamerican".
Do you think the Patriot Act would have passed if it had been done in response to a series of shootings done by a domestic terror group instead of a foreign group plowing planes into buildings?
Not trying to deflect, I'm genuinely curious.
No, because it couldn't have been sold as, "This will let us keep an eye on dangerous foreigners," the way the Patriot Act was. I also think it would be impossible to have a mass shooting inflict anywhere near the economic or psychological damage of 9/11.
The economic damage? Absolutely not.
The psychological damage? It would depend on where the shooting took place I think. The Beltway Sniper definitely seemed to do a psychological number on DC/Maryland/Virginia.
I do agree with you on what the main reason the Patriot Act succeeded was though.
The psychological damage? It would depend on where the shooting took place I think. The Beltway Sniper definitely seemed to do a psychological number on DC/Maryland/Virginia.
I do agree with you on what the main reason the Patriot Act succeeded was though.
Having been in the region when the Beltway sniper crap went down, I'd disagree completely. Nobody was glued to the television for weeks, nobody was not going to school or work, etc. Even the news wasn't covering it non-stop.
Thanks for making my point for me. Before you even fully replied, you already went to the well of "You're more likely to be killed by X than a mass shooting".
Just because it's not likely to happen to every single person in the US, does that mean that the situation should be ignored or that we should somehow pretend that any reaction to them is an "emotional reaction"?
We got the Patriot Act, the increased security at airports, and all kinds of wonderful things as a result of the September 11th attacks and the need to "prevent something like this from ever happening again"...yet somehow increased control over firearms to prevent more Auroras, more Sandy Hooks, more Columbines, or more Virginia Techs is government overreach?
You clearly do not understand the mathematics involved here.
The above, in bold, does not even begin to approach the improbability of the situation. The odds are something like 1 in 2 and a half MILLION. That is so statistically improbable as to be completely absurd to even consider in your every day life especially when compared with the myriad other things that can kill you.
Your argument is based on irrational emotions. Or, at the very least, it is not founded in reality.
I'm not going to bother to address your second point as you're either trolling or didn't read my other posts in this thread. I'm not OK with ANY government overreach. Most gun owners are livid about things like the Patriot Act, Net Neutrality, etc.
I think it's funny, seeing all the anti gun people on here saying guns are bad because they kill people, yet alcohol kills way more people in a year and from the posts of a lot of them, they use it and serve it to others. Funny.
I have actually never seen a weapon pick itself up and fire off into a crowd all by lonesome self. Never sprouted arms or eyeball...no hovering around traversing to kill zone...now I have seen someone drop a weapon and have it go off but that resulted in butt hurt for the weapon carrier...for locking the bolt back and loaded magazine..but there is always a human behind the trigger....well a primate can do it to...9lbs trigger squeeze..
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?
Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?
Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.
I don't think that was really his point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: I would pay money to see a live debate between the people here on Dakka over a good many subjects, this being one of them.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?
Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.
Yes, because the desire to have a navy 10 times the size of anybody else on the planet has nothing to do with our ideas on guns and their usefulness.
MWHistorian wrote: You're misunderstanding. Gusn aren't there to protect civil liberties. That's what the ballot box is for. It's once the ballot and soap box don't work, that's when the armed disobedieance comes in. It's the parachute to be used only after everything else has failed.
I'm not misunderstanding, I'm pointing out that ballot boxes, activism and effective court systems have provided a strong check on government over a long period of time... while guns haven't. Ever.
Because there just isn't a nice, easy point where government just starts being a bunch of dicks that everyone can clearly point to and say 'yep, everyone get your guns let's do this'.
And when government does go bad enough long enough that you get a decent number of people wanting to attempt armed resistance, then getting your hands on guns isn't the hard bit.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.
That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.
That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.
considering that the vast majority of democrats ALSO voted in favour of the patriot act in 2001, you cant really take the high road and say they didnt support it, because they most certainly did.
democrats have also supported expansion of the patriot act during obamas term.
both sides of the spectrum's politicians have fully backed crushing the 1st/4th amendments.
both sides of the spectrum's voters are almost unanimously opposed to this crushing...
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.
That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.
considering that the vast majority of democrats ALSO voted in favour of the patriot act in 2001, you cant really take the high road and say they didnt support it, because they most certainly did.
democrats have also supported expansion of the patriot act during obamas term.
both sides of the spectrum's politicians have fully backed crushing the 1st/4th amendments.
both sides of the spectrum's voters are almost unanimously opposed to this crushing...
I agree both sides did this (or more accurately, one side did it, and the other continued it, not that it matters). But, we're moving the goalposts now, aren't we, and having a different argument? The original premise that Nuggs pushed forward was that conservatives somehow opposed all of this Patriot Act/surveillance stuff. That is laughably untrue and the worst kind of revisionism.
I misread what he said about Net Neutrality, though, he's right about that.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.
That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.
You think that Republican politicians are conservatives? That's adorable.
This two party system we have is forged from diametrically opposed polar opposites. True conservatives (like myself and many others) oppose all big government interventionism.
George W was a more Christian Evangelist than conservative.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?
Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.
Yes, because the desire to have a navy 10 times the size of anybody else on the planet has nothing to do with our ideas on guns and their usefulness.
Great Britain had the largest, most powerful navy for quite a while, and yet they didn't have the same idea of guns. Correlation does not prove causation.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?
Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.
Yes, because the desire to have a navy 10 times the size of anybody else on the planet has nothing to do with our ideas on guns and their usefulness.
Great Britain had the largest, most powerful navy for quite a while, and yet they didn't have the same idea of guns. Correlation does not prove causation.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Isn't it adorable watching people talk who don't know anything about what they are talking about?
Just keep on those pink glasses and listen to HAL9000 everything is ok Dave.
Back to topic, Gun love is so ingrained in American society that making major changes will cost the parties only votes.
And you keep basking in the protection that our gun-centric society affords you. or has japan been turned into a Chinese province yet?
Yeah, all those privately owned handguns are totally what's keeping China from being more expansionist.
Yes, because the desire to have a navy 10 times the size of anybody else on the planet has nothing to do with our ideas on guns and their usefulness.
Great Britain had the largest, most powerful navy for quite a while, and yet they didn't have the same idea of guns. Correlation does not prove causation.
You're ignorant of history then. Before laws banning firearms were put in place, there were many many firerarms there. You even had full blown rebellions.
One suspects land ownership/hunting rights and the lack of actual wilderness with dangerous critters in it have played a significant role in this.
And most of our rebellions haven't really utilised that many guns really. Too expensive for the peasants and the powder was needed more for cannons to crack open castles and the like.
sebster wrote: I'm not misunderstanding, I'm pointing out that ballot boxes, activism and effective court systems have provided a strong check on government over a long period of time... while guns haven't. Ever.
The Revolutionary War disagrees with you
reds8n wrote: And most of our rebellions haven't really utilised that many guns really. Too expensive for the peasants and the powder was needed more for cannons to crack open castles and the like.
Most of our revolts were with swords, bows etc.
The more recent history of Ireland begs to differ, unless you're concentrating on historical periods when firearms were not readily available
One suspects land ownership/hunting rights and the lack of actual wilderness with dangerous critters in it have played a significant role in this.
And most of our rebellions haven't really utilised that many guns really. Too expensive for the peasants and the powder was needed more for cannons to crack open castles and the like.
Most of our revolts were with swords, bows etc.
Not as much, no. We were busy taking the land from its rightful owner and had greater need. But you were quite equipped. The plethora of British revolvers in the 1850s - 1890s reflects that. Brits even invented an "automatic" revolver. Crazy crazy...
NuggzTheNinja wrote: You think that Republican politicians are conservatives? That's adorable.
This two party system we have is forged from diametrically opposed polar opposites. True conservatives (like myself and many others) oppose all big government interventionism.
Are you making the argument your political movement has elected no national officials in the last, like, 12 years?
easysauce wrote: both sides supported starting it, both sides support continuing it and expanding it.
I'm not at all absolving anyone of responsibility, I'm refuting someone else's attempt to do so.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: You think that Republican politicians are conservatives? That's adorable.
This two party system we have is forged from diametrically opposed polar opposites. True conservatives (like myself and many others) oppose all big government interventionism.
Are you making the argument your political movement has elected no national officials in the last, like, 12 years?
easysauce wrote: both sides supported starting it, both sides support continuing it and expanding it.
I'm not at all absolving anyone of responsibility, I'm refuting someone else's attempt to do so.
Why would you assume I am making that argument? That's absurd.
The Patriot Act was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 that I disagreed with then, and disagree with now. I didn't vote for GWB in that election, so I really don't see why you are trying to make me take responsibility for the Patriot Act in any way.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Net Neutrality, the NSA stuff, Patriot Act...these are all "Big Government" operations, which conservatives (by definition) oppose very strongly. You've got a viewpoint constructed of emotion rather than fact.
Yeah, conservatives opposed the Patriot Act (which expanded the surveillance powers the NSA now enjoys) so strongly they voted for it unanimously and then it was signed by George W Bush, and then again unanimously voted to re-authorize it in 2006. They so strongly support Net Neutrality they managed to get an opposition to it written into the goddamn Republican Party platform.
That latter sentence in your post is super ironic considering the one which preceded it.
You think that Republican politicians are conservatives? That's adorable.
This two party system we have is forged from diametrically opposed polar opposites. True conservatives (like myself and many others) oppose all big government interventionism.
George W was a more Christian Evangelist than conservative.
And here I thought there was different levels of conservatives.
Well Obama finally got some chest hair and is now willing to use executive orders like he should have done from the start.
FDR is my fav president for this reason.
Don't like my political policies and orders? Sue me
Hopefully he implements sweeping legislation in as many areas as he can, my life runs on the tears of so called "constitution lovers" when they have no idea what they are talking about as executive orders are not unconstitutional.
Never mind people treat the damned Constitution like its some fething holy document, even though we have had to amend it so many damn times.
I'm not a fan. Rifleman doesn't suck to bad, but its pretty bad. Their gun reviews are like bird poop.
I like the Armed Citizen reports. It's not that bad a rag, maybe a bit dated in format. I like Gun World for content/layout. I get my reviews from a number of sources, both online and print.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote: Well Obama finally got some chest hair and is now willing to use executive orders like he should have done from the start.
FDR is my fav president for this reason.
Don't like my political policies and orders? Sue me
Hopefully he implements sweeping legislation in as many areas as he can, my life runs on the tears of so called "constitution lovers" when they have no idea what they are talking about as executive orders are not unconstitutional.
Never mind people treat the damned Constitution like its some fething holy document, even though we have had to amend it so many damn times.
Alexzandvar wrote: Cool you jets marvin I was just taking the piss out of the uber stingy constitutionalists
Unless you're a Brit you can't say "taking the piss out" of anything, except clothing at a cleaners. Your flag says DamnYankee.
But I am right that Executive orders are constitutional, people need to really just read up on there law before they get all upset.
It depends on the order. Were the executive orders putting people into camps in WWII constitutional?
But what do I know? Im a crazy person who things we should bring back the Civilian Conservation Corp!
Evidently you also are down with dictatorship, because that Constitution thing just gets in the way. That on those stingy constitutionalists. The ACLU should be put in camps.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
like the Armed Citizen reports. It's not that bad a rag, maybe a bit dated in format. I like Gun World for content/layout. I get my reviews from a number of sources, both online and print.
Gun Tests. Its not perfect, but they don't take advertising. You can tell because they occasionally say a gun is crap after a test.
Alexzandvar wrote: Cool you jets marvin I was just taking the piss out of the uber stingy constitutionalists
But I am right that Executive orders are constitutional, people need to really just read up on there law before they get all upset.
But what do I know? Im a crazy person who things we should bring back the Civilian Conservation Corp!
You have to be careful there... EO are only constitutional when there's a) explicit authority from constitution or b) authorized by current statutes.
He can't willy billy pull an EO out of his ass and deem it "constitutional" because he says so....
Perfect example is his delay of the PPACA Employer Mandate. The constitution and the actual law grants him no authority to do that. If this ever makes it to the Supreme Court, the court will strike down that EO.
Alexzandvar wrote: Cool you jets marvin I was just taking the piss out of the uber stingy constitutionalists
But I am right that Executive orders are constitutional, people need to really just read up on there law before they get all upset.
But what do I know? Im a crazy person who things we should bring back the Civilian Conservation Corp!
You have to be careful there... EO are only constitutional when there's a) explicit authority from constitution or b) authorized by current statutes.
He can't willy billy pull an EO out of his ass and deem it "constitutional" because he says so....
Perfect example is his delay of the PPACA Employer Mandate. The constitution and the actual law grants him no authority to do that. If this ever makes it to the Supreme Court, the court will strike down that EO.
The chance of it ever being taken to court is rare, and history shows unless the constitution explicitly DENIES it rather than simply not mention it in his power nothing will be done.
And yet after any of these mass shootings, you have the gun owners and NRA trying to point the blame at anything but guns.
I usually blame the shooters, myself. But then, I actually know what I'm talking about.
Sure, the shooters definitely have a share of blame. They made the choice to do what they did after all.
But do you think the Aurora theater shootings would have happened if he had to use a knife? What about Sandy Hook?
I know this was last page, but I did want to point out the aurora shooter had to help police disarm the bombs on his apartment. So, yes, I think if he hadn't had access to guns (and don't forget, one jammed on him and didn't fire a single round), that he still would have killed a lot of people. More, most likely, than he actually did.
Frazzled wrote: He could have filled a van full of gas ran it into the theater lobby and blew it up.
Gas doesn't go up in an explosion very well.
A van full of diesel would be much more effective if you desired a rapid explosion of fire.
And pressure cookers and bomb take a lot more time to set up then say getting a gun and some ammo.
Why do people not realize that guns are for killing things? I mean really, guns exist as an effiecent way of killing things, admit it, I'm in a gun own family and to even being to treat guns with proper respect you have to recognize that guns are useful only as deadly weapons.
I wish people would stop trying to lump guns in with Alcohol as Alcohol isn't a weapon designed to inflict death on other people.
I have read many posts regarding firearm ownership in the U.S on various forums articles and so forth, many people bring up it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but I am not to well verse on the U.S Constitution so I may be wrong but dose not the 2nd amendment state the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia (or something along those lines like I said I am not very knowledgeable about the US constitution just the basics from what I learned in school), So how is one person with enough guns to arm a small army considered a well regulatet militia . Like I said I am just asking a question
Frazzled wrote: The intent was for all able bodied free citizens to be able to use firearms. At the time militia meant any free man.
And it still technically does. The intent of the militia statement will hold for all time. Yes we have a standing army, but there may come a point where that will not be enough, and the citizenry will have to defend itself. That is the intent behind the militia portion. The 2nd Amendment is much more then just that though.
Frazzled wrote: The intent was for all able bodied free citizens to be able to use firearms. At the time militia meant any free man.
And it still technically does. The intent of the militia statement will hold for all time. Yes we have a standing army, but there may come a point where that will not be enough, and the citizenry will have to defend itself. That is the intent behind the militia portion. The 2nd Amendment is much more then just that though.
Actually it isn't. The militia's were extremely important parts of the Colonies defense as the military simply couldn't be in every place at once to defend against raiders, Indians, bandits, pirates or what ever have you.
Nowadays in the age of global warfare militia's don't really serve any point other than a hobby for crazy people to run around in the wildness and pretend to be soldiers. Not to mention the fact that the country is not under any threat were the citizenry would have to defend itself barring a zombie apocalypse.
The right of every free man to own a gun is an inferred right rather than a stated one, similar to the right to privacy. If you want to get literal, you have no right to privacy or to own weapons outside of a militia specifically formed for the defense of the nation (when allowed by the government).
But nowadays we have what we call "Inferred rights", rights that we can interpret the constitution to give us, rather than outright stating it.
Frazzled wrote: The intent was for all able bodied free citizens to be able to use firearms. At the time militia meant any free man.
And it still technically does. The intent of the militia statement will hold for all time. Yes we have a standing army, but there may come a point where that will not be enough, and the citizenry will have to defend itself. That is the intent behind the militia portion. The 2nd Amendment is much more then just that though.
Actually it isn't. The militia's were extremely important parts of the Colonies defense as the military simply couldn't be in every place at once to defend against raiders, Indians, bandits, pirates or what ever have you.
Nowadays in the age of global warfare militia's don't really serve any point other than a hobby for crazy people to run around in the wildness and pretend to be soldiers. Not to mention the fact that the country is not under any threat were the citizenry would have to defend itself barring a zombie apocalypse.
The right of every free man to own a gun is an inferred right rather than a stated one, similar to the right to privacy. If you want to get literal, you have no right to privacy or to own weapons outside of a militia specifically formed for the defense of the nation (when allowed by the government).
But nowadays we have what we call "Inferred rights", rights that we can interpret the constitution to give us, rather than outright stating it.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Heller vs. DC. Their most basic finding.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia
No its a stated right. Your statements fall in the face of the direct language of the Bill of RIghts.
Here's a hint-read the language of the Second Amendment. Now here's the hard part. Please point to the right of privacy enumerated in the Bill of Rights or otherwise in the Constitution. It might take a while. And please don't give the "all other rights reserved" crap. That crap's been thrown out the window since your heroe FDR threatened to pack the SCOTUS.
The point of an Inferred right is that it is one not directly stated but still holds as much power and authority as one that is.
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
See? It states the right to bear arms in connected with a well regulated Militia. That is the LITERAL interpretation.
The inferred right from this is that everyone can "bear arms" as it were.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: No its a stated right. Your statements fall in the face of the direct language of the Bill of RIghts.
Here's a hint-read the language of the Second Amendment. Now here's the hard part. Please point to the right of privacy enumerated in the Bill of Rights or otherwise in the Constitution. It might take a while. And please don't give the "all other rights reserved" crap. That crap's been thrown out the window since your heroe FDR threatened to pack the SCOTUS.
Actually it wasn't and FDR DID pack the SCOTUS, that's what's so awesome about it .
Nixon was able to use Executive orders, Reagan did it to, so stop acting like Obama is the first president on earth to use his power to get done what he need to get done.
EDIT: Also Obama and Hillary in 2016 will ensure we have a majority of progressive Judges, so I guess Obama is finally realizing his responsibility as the head of Federal Power.
Er no. Methinks it don’t mean what you think it means.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inferred 1. To conclude from evidence or premises. 2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable. 3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy). 4. To hint; imply. v.intr. To draw inferences.
Constitutionally it doesn't matter, but obfiscating plain language vs. interpretetd language drawing from support from multiple amendments is a big damn difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote: The point of an Inferred right is that it is one not directly stated but still holds as much power and authority as one that is.
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
See? It states the right to bear arms in connected with a well regulated Militia. That is the LITERAL interpretation.
The inferred right from this is that everyone can "bear arms" as it were.
ok. I've done what I can here. Oh and this is the one actually authenticated and signed off:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Sorry Charlie.
Umm, that was a revolution. Quite a different thing to what I posted " provided a strong check on government over a long period of time".
And a revolution about taxation without representation is not a strong check on government, aided by firearms? If that is your stance I don't think that I can say anything further.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alexzandvar wrote: Nixon was able to use Executive orders, Reagan did it to, so stop acting like Obama is the first president on earth to use his power to get done what he need to get done.
Making the fatal error that people oppose Executive Orders simply because of who issues them, rather than understanding that some people object to end-arounds of the democratic process.
Umm, that was a revolution. Quite a different thing to what I posted " provided a strong check on government over a long period of time".
And a revolution about taxation without representation is not a strong check on government, aided by firearms? If that is your stance I don't think that I can say anything further.
So the phrase about taxation without representation originated in the 1750's, and it wasn't until 1775 that the Revolutionary War was fought (which lasted until 1783). 20+ years seems like a pretty significant build up of time.
Alpha 1 wrote:I have read many posts regarding firearm ownership in the U.S on various forums articles and so forth, many people bring up it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but I am not to well verse on the U.S Constitution so I may be wrong but dose not the 2nd amendment state the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia (or something along those lines like I said I am not very knowledgeable about the US constitution just the basics from what I learned in school), So how is one person with enough guns to arm a small army considered a well regulatet militia . Like I said I am just asking a question
It's a good question, and this might surprise you, but it was actually a sort of open question until fairly recently. Specifically, the idea that there isn't a right to bear arms that is divorced from being part of an organized militia - this rationale was behind handgun bans such as in Washington DC. It was decided in 2008 that the militia service is not a prerequisite and that there is an individual right to bear arms.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:Making the fatal error that people oppose Executive Orders simply because of who issues them, rather than understanding that some people object to end-arounds of the democratic process.
I also dislike Executive Orders because I prefer a more weakened executive in general, relative to the Congress. That being said executive orders and recess appointments are core functions of the democratic process and are working as intended, rather than an end run around it. I hope it wasn't super pedantic to express that thought.
I also dislike Executive Orders because I prefer a more weakened executive in general, relative to the Congress. That being said executive orders and recess appointments are core functions of the democratic process and are working as intended, rather than an end run around it. I hope it wasn't super pedantic to express that thought.
While it's meant to give the executive flexibility in an emergency, I really think it blurrs the line of separation of powers. I know it's there for use in an Emergency, but it's been used more and more lately to simply bypass the system.
Personally, I own guns because people who don't like me own guns, and they are not too concerned if their guns are legal or not.
There actually hasn't been a rise in the average number of executive orders issued, something which surprised me when I checked it. The average under HW was 40 per year (excluding 1993 since he was only there for 20 days), the average under W was 35.75 (excluding 2009), and the average so far under Obama is 33.4 (excluding 2014).
2013 actually saw the least use of executive orders in any given year for at least as far back as Reagan, with only 20 issued.
The substance might be different though; exactly how far reaching executive orders were in the past would be interesting to look at in comparison to today.
The thing that surprised me the most about executive order totals is that with the increased use of the filibuster you'd think the number of executive orders would have increased over time, but the slope is actually slightly downward (admittedly over a small sample size, from 40/year under HW, to 44 under Clinton, to 35 under W, to 33.4 under Obama).
Alpha 1 wrote: I have read many posts regarding firearm ownership in the U.S on various forums articles and so forth, many people bring up it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but I am not to well verse on the U.S Constitution so I may be wrong but dose not the 2nd amendment state the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia (or something along those lines like I said I am not very knowledgeable about the US constitution just the basics from what I learned in school), So how is one person with enough guns to arm a small army considered a well regulatet militia . Like I said I am just asking a question
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's the text of it. I don't see anything in it suggesting one needs to be part of a militia in order to keep and bear arms.
Alpha 1 wrote: I have read many posts regarding firearm ownership in the U.S on various forums articles and so forth, many people bring up it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment but I am not to well verse on the U.S Constitution so I may be wrong but dose not the 2nd amendment state the right to bare arms as part of a well regulated militia (or something along those lines like I said I am not very knowledgeable about the US constitution just the basics from what I learned in school), So how is one person with enough guns to arm a small army considered a well regulatet militia . Like I said I am just asking a question
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's the text of it. I don't see anything in it suggesting one needs to be part of a militia in order to keep and bear arms.
And as I quoted up above, the Supreme Court agrees.
Not that it really matters, since the Supreme Court has already decided that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but I know that in Ohio, the militia is made up of two parts: the organized militia, which includes the National Guard and state defense forces, and the unorganized militia, which basically includes everyone else older than 17 and no older than 67. The unorganized militia can still be called up for state service, but with the caveat that the organized militia must be called up first. So in Ohio, even if you're not in the National Guard or state defense forces, there's a good chance you're still technically a member of the state militia.
I'm guessing Ohio isn't the only state with a similar militia system.
Hordini wrote: Not that it really matters, since the Supreme Court has already decided that the right to bear arms is an individual right, but I know that in Ohio, the militia is made up of two parts: the organized militia, which includes the National Guard and state defense forces, and the unorganized militia, which basically includes everyone else older than 17 and no older than 67. The unorganized militia can still be called up for state service, but with the caveat that the organized militia must be called up first. So in Ohio, even if you're not in the National Guard or state defense forces, there's a good chance you're still technically a member of the state militia.
I'm guessing Ohio isn't the only state with a similar militia system.
Washington state does. However, I'll point out that the following law is still on the Federal books:
Title 10 US Code 311
Militia Composition and Classes
a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Title 10 U.S. Code 312 - Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
BTW: Russia has some pretty strict gun laws and this still just happened
No thanks brah.
ok. I've done what I can here. Oh and this is the one actually authenticated and signed off:
