Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
My thoughts are like what John Stewart said on the daily show. Fear of an imaginary dystopic future, preventing them from addressing our actual dystopic present.
But doesn't he still address the actual "dystopic" present in the video with his alternative solutions? Unless you don't think his alternative solutions are solutions at all. If that's the case, why aren't they?
I like John Stewart but that seems to be a cute punch phrase more than an actual argument.
It's a completely valid point. We're a truer Republic now than we've ever been. Sure people rightfully still hate the system, but at least blacks and women get to vote now.
We've enslaved, wrongfully executed thousands.
We basically imprisoned every Asian in America during WW2, for the crime of being Asian. Definition of that: Dystopic. So, it begs to question, by the logic of you freedom-loving gun-enthusiasts, should every law-abiding Asian-American not have grabbed their gun and shot back at those of us persecuting them? Because, yes, that is what this argument of "gun freedom" boils down to. [sarcasm]How wonderful that would've been, to have these wrongfully persecuted Americans rightfully rebel against their government.[/sarcasm]
I mentioned in an earlier post, Sacco and Venzetti, but there are just so many examples of egregious government control over our people. Freedoms should not to be confused with privileges, that our government may not grant you, but other countries may. We're hardly the most free people that have ever existed.
We're also in many ways one of the worst police-states. We literally imprison a higher percentage of our population than most other countries in the world.
Since our War on Terror, we've imprisoned American citizens without due process. Annie grab your gun? Why aren't you and other Constitution lovers helping all these victims of American oppression? Simple cowardice?
So it seems the argument of "We need our guns to keep our government from having too much power over us", is actually code for "We need our guns in case the government prevents us from having guns".
To which the only real reply is, "**** you, you don't get to hold our Republic hostage".
I don't know why you're presuming you know my stance on gun control and the second amendment, and then mocking me for it, but you should avoid generalizations and personal attacks if you actually want to have an intellectual discussion, not to mention randomly straw-manning anyone who shows signs of disagreeing with you.
You didn't even answer what I was asking either because you didn't once address why his alternative solution of having more strict gun laws, background checks, etc, isn't a solution at all to preventing further killings with firearms. So, you have yet to demonstrate why this wouldn't be a solution to addressing our "dystopic" present of gun-related killings.
Your argument that having guns puts us in no stronger a position to ultimately resist dystopic tyranny is interesting though, and if true, it directly shuts down Shapiro's defense of the second amendment. Whether it's actually true or not, I'm not so sure as you.
Read that post again. I said nothing about your stance, or was addressing you personally, or at least didn't intend to. I was just jumping into discussion off of one thing you said. I was addressing the point Jon Stewart made, which you disagreed with. The hypothetical statement and reply, is purely hypothetical. Didn't mean offense.
If that wasn't your intention, then no offense taken.
It is a bit misleading through to say "you freedom-loving gun-enthusiasts" and "Why aren't you and other Constitution lovers helping all these victims of American oppression?" in responding to my quoted post though, hopefully you can understand how I could have thought that you were addressing me.
If you accept the premise that the United States is more violent then essentially every other Western country, then I just don't see how easy access to guns is a good thing (see: intentional homicide rates). The key issue is definitely access in my opinion. You can hang onto a misinformed interpretation of the second amendment if you please but why should it be so damn easy?
In today's technology why is it so hard to have an efficient and accurate national register for gun ownership with strong sanctions for failure to comply? Why aren't mental health checks and background checks absolutely one hundred percent required with every single gun purchase at every single store across the country without fail, again with stiff sanctions for on-compliance. If you want to buy some fancy weapon with suppressors and whatever then why can't you wait weeks or even months? If your motive is truly as a collector then your passion will allow you to wait. And after all that why should none if these laws apply if you happen to be at a gun show?
You should be able to force nationwide registration of firearms combined with stricter access laws to guns. Or am I grossly missing something?
On January 12 2013 08:27 Kimaker wrote: Interesting numbers I found:
Firearm related suicides account for roughly 60% of all suicides and also count under firearms related deaths, thus artificially inflating the seeming danger of firearms to the public. If you remove firearm related suicides, the firearms related death rate in the United States falls from 31,347 to 12,612. That's 4.204 deaths per 100000 people. Fairly negligible.
I'm not convinced guns cause enough deaths to warrant their wholesale removal, or even limitation based on the current gun ownership.
Why does the fact that firearms are used in the majority of suicides detract from the regulation argument? It seems quite reasonable to think that a reduction in careless firearm sales would lead to fewer suicides, which is a good thing. It is significantly harder to kill yoursf without a gun.
Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. They have almost no guns. Ergo, guns do not cause suicides.
Even if they did, big whoop. If someone wants to die, I'm not going to stop them. That's their choice.
Your logic and compassion are similarly bankrupt. The very nature of psychological disorder muddles the very notion of rational decision making within an individual, meaning that many who extemporaneously suffer from suicidal ideation may very well not truly want to die.Keeping that in mind, firearms avoid a great number of the average person's life or death defense mechanisms through the sudden and highly effective delivery of the killing blow, and it is precisely that expediency that a suicidal individual ought to avoid. Additionally, if arguments for why the lack of guns in Europe and the according reduction in homicide rates are related are to be discounted on the basis of the idiosyncrasy of the situation within the United States (which I agree with to some extent), then why are we to make a terrible error in extrapolation merely to prove some snarky point in reference to a country with a very real problem with widespread suicide?
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand: Guns/Gun control. I appreciate the illustrative nature of what you're trying to do, but it detracts from the purpose of all this in the first place, your implication that my assertion, that the stats are unfairly used to inflate the number of gun related deaths in the public's mind, is wrong since if these people did not have access to firearms they would be incapable of so readily committing suicide. While this may have a degree of truth to it, I would be tempted to say that based on Millitron's point and common sense and first hand knowledge about what leads a person to suicide, they're probably outliers who would be stopped by a lack of a gun.
As for the lower homicide rates in Europe, I'd chalk that up to a number of things, foremost amongst them culture. So yeah, them thar idiosyncrasies.
And as for your post which I missed:
No. It's an easy way to kill yourself. Stop trying to conflate suicide and gun-ownership. If mental health is the problem, then mental health is the problem, what comes after or what is used in what comes after.
I am conflating nothing, for the evidence itself does that for me. Let's take a look.
States are doing a terrible job of updating mental health records in the national gun dealer database, a clear sign of a lax system of regulation that needs tightening up. According to this McGill Meta-Analysis amongst a host of other research materials with similar figures, 87% of victims of suicide were diagnosable with a mental disorder based on history from their friends and family after their death. Now of course we ought to consider the failings of the psychiatric infrastructure itself when discussing this, for better diagnostic techniques alongside better mental health awareness are certainly worthwhile goals. In any case, the fact that suicide and mental disorder are so closely linked, when viewed in concert with both the statistic that firearms are involved in 60% of suicides and that state governments are currently doing a poor job of keeping mental health records updated in the national gun dealer database, seems like obvious evidence that suicide and gun control are linked with enough significance to warrant attention. So, nunez, Millitron, and Kimaker, why should we ignore this?
First off: I'm not ignoring anything. It seems obvious to me that in a society where guns are prevalent, people who are suicidal are going to pick the fastest,easiest way out: a gun. In societies where there are no guns, they find different ways to kill themselves.
Second: What are you suggesting? That people who are depressed not be allowed to own guns? Horseshit. I have seasonal depression, would that disqualify me? I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you could write out your point like a thesis or something that might help.
On January 12 2013 15:15 bkrow wrote: If you accept the premise that the United States is more violent then essentially every other Western country, then I just don't see how easy access to guns is a good thing (see: intentional homicide rates). The key issue is definitely access in my opinion. You can hang onto a misinformed interpretation of the second amendment if you please but why should it be so damn easy?
In today's technology why is it so hard to have an efficient and accurate national register for gun ownership with strong sanctions for failure to comply? Why aren't mental health checks and background checks absolutely one hundred percent required with every single gun purchase at every single store across the country without fail, again with stiff sanctions for on-compliance. If you want to buy some fancy weapon with suppressors and whatever then why can't you wait weeks or even months? If your motive is truly as a collector then your passion will allow you to wait. And after all that why should none if these laws apply if you happen to be at a gun show?
You should be able to force nationwide registration of firearms combined with stricter access laws to guns. Or am I grossly missing something?
a lot of states have laws where there are waiting periods, and in any state there is a waiting period for handguns unless you have a concealed weapons permit, that in which you have already taken a safety course and can walk out the door with whatever firearm you want immediately.
every single licensed firearm seller in the united states such as walmart, dicks sporting goods, bass pro shops individual stores, etc, are required to call in background checks. the only place where background checks practically never occur is when you sell from person to person.
On January 12 2013 08:27 Kimaker wrote: Interesting numbers I found:
Firearm related suicides account for roughly 60% of all suicides and also count under firearms related deaths, thus artificially inflating the seeming danger of firearms to the public. If you remove firearm related suicides, the firearms related death rate in the United States falls from 31,347 to 12,612. That's 4.204 deaths per 100000 people. Fairly negligible.
I'm not convinced guns cause enough deaths to warrant their wholesale removal, or even limitation based on the current gun ownership.
Why does the fact that firearms are used in the majority of suicides detract from the regulation argument? It seems quite reasonable to think that a reduction in careless firearm sales would lead to fewer suicides, which is a good thing. It is significantly harder to kill yoursf without a gun.
Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. They have almost no guns. Ergo, guns do not cause suicides.
Even if they did, big whoop. If someone wants to die, I'm not going to stop them. That's their choice.
Your logic and compassion are similarly bankrupt. The very nature of psychological disorder muddles the very notion of rational decision making within an individual, meaning that many who extemporaneously suffer from suicidal ideation may very well not truly want to die.Keeping that in mind, firearms avoid a great number of the average person's life or death defense mechanisms through the sudden and highly effective delivery of the killing blow, and it is precisely that expediency that a suicidal individual ought to avoid. Additionally, if arguments for why the lack of guns in Europe and the according reduction in homicide rates are related are to be discounted on the basis of the idiosyncrasy of the situation within the United States (which I agree with to some extent), then why are we to make a terrible error in extrapolation merely to prove some snarky point in reference to a country with a very real problem with widespread suicide?
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand: Guns/Gun control. I appreciate the illustrative nature of what you're trying to do, but it detracts from the purpose of all this in the first place, your implication that my assertion, that the stats are unfairly used to inflate the number of gun related deaths in the public's mind, is wrong since if these people did not have access to firearms they would be incapable of so readily committing suicide. While this may have a degree of truth to it, I would be tempted to say that based on Millitron's point and common sense and first hand knowledge about what leads a person to suicide, they're probably outliers who would be stopped by a lack of a gun.
As for the lower homicide rates in Europe, I'd chalk that up to a number of things, foremost amongst them culture. So yeah, them thar idiosyncrasies.
And as for your post which I missed:
No. It's an easy way to kill yourself. Stop trying to conflate suicide and gun-ownership. If mental health is the problem, then mental health is the problem, what comes after or what is used in what comes after.
I am conflating nothing, for the evidence itself does that for me. Let's take a look.
States are doing a terrible job of updating mental health records in the national gun dealer database, a clear sign of a lax system of regulation that needs tightening up. According to this McGill Meta-Analysis amongst a host of other research materials with similar figures, 87% of victims of suicide were diagnosable with a mental disorder based on history from their friends and family after their death. Now of course we ought to consider the failings of the psychiatric infrastructure itself when discussing this, for better diagnostic techniques alongside better mental health awareness are certainly worthwhile goals. In any case, the fact that suicide and mental disorder are so closely linked, when viewed in concert with both the statistic that firearms are involved in 60% of suicides and that state governments are currently doing a poor job of keeping mental health records updated in the national gun dealer database, seems like obvious evidence that suicide and gun control are linked with enough significance to warrant attention. So, nunez, Millitron, and Kimaker, why should we ignore this?
First off: I'm not ignoring anything. It seems obvious to me that in a society where guns are prevalent, people who are suicidal are going to pick the fastest,easiest way out: a gun. In societies where there are no guns, they find different ways to kill themselves.
Second: What are you suggesting? That people who are depressed not be allowed to own guns? Horseshit. I have seasonal depression, would that disqualify me? I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you could write out your point like a thesis or something that might help.
Sorry, I just feel like I'm missing something.
I am not a psychologist, so I cannot be the one to draw a line in the sand and say what sorts of disorders warrant a reconsideration of gun ownership, and am fairly certain that seasonal depression does not and would not disqualify an individual from owning a gun, given that the person is treated appropriately.
All I am suggesting is that at this moment, the current infrastructure of gun regulation, especially amongst state governments, does a poor job of bringing together important pieces of information, with mental health records being a prime example. With such a large number of suicides resulting from firearms in the US, I think we ought to consider the possibility that our lax gun regulation in terms of mental health might be contributing to this phenomena. That is all.
On January 12 2013 11:54 SCkad wrote: also americans have you considered that if you think your government is going to betray you/turn on you that you might want to try and change the system? you know instead of waiting for some point after they have started this uprising which might succeed but certainly cost lives and THEN change the system?
Who are you to say that we are not? Just because I drive responsibly doesn't mean I don't wear a seat-belt just in case.
no but you make laws so that everyone wears seat-belts just in case too. you encourage people to be safer as a matter of course but you also have laws to make some precautions necessary, such as seat-belts and speed limits
i think my main stance on guns can be summed up by this: i feel safer knowing no one around me has a gun, than knowing everyone around me COULD have a gun.you wouldn't let someone have an artillery piece because its overkill, and i view high RoF weapons in the same way.
i understand that you view your weapons as a birthright but it shouldn't IMO be seen as right and more of a privilege and they shouldn't be stockpiled to such a huge extent as they can be.
other than that i think its a fundamental cultural difference between the UK and America, and as such i find it hard to convey my point.
also as an aside, in the UK you can actually be prosecuted if you use "grossly disproportional force" on a burglar, but other than that your allowed to defend yourself
The whole article was trying to downplay the whole issue as a non issue. It's not. There have been 695 gun deaths already since newtown, that's only 1 month.
How many were in Chicago and NYC, where guns are basically outlawed already? I understand some 530 gun murders in Chicago last year even with the gun bans? Gun bans do not deter criminals.
On January 12 2013 15:15 bkrow wrote: If you accept the premise that the United States is more violent then essentially every other Western country, then I just don't see how easy access to guns is a good thing (see: intentional homicide rates). The key issue is definitely access in my opinion. You can hang onto a misinformed interpretation of the second amendment if you please but why should it be so damn easy?
In today's technology why is it so hard to have an efficient and accurate national register for gun ownership with strong sanctions for failure to comply? Why aren't mental health checks and background checks absolutely one hundred percent required with every single gun purchase at every single store across the country without fail, again with stiff sanctions for on-compliance. If you want to buy some fancy weapon with suppressors and whatever then why can't you wait weeks or even months? If your motive is truly as a collector then your passion will allow you to wait. And after all that why should none if these laws apply if you happen to be at a gun show?
You should be able to force nationwide registration of firearms combined with stricter access laws to guns. Or am I grossly missing something?
I love it when people not from america tell me I have a misinformed interpretation of my own constitution.
America isn't as violent as the UK we have a fifth of their violent crime rate. The fact that we do it with guns more often then not shouldn't be that big of a deal. People don't want to register their guns what can't you see going wrong with a system like that? Because most gun sales to gang members are going to be off the books and its still not going to change shit by inconveniencing the law abiding citizens that arn't killing eachother with cheap handguns to even make this a problem in the first place. The gun show loophole is just an NRA lobbying thing they used to flex for their biggest monetary supporters (gun makers).
Like I don't think you understand where a lot of people stand on issues. Even the NRA the wildest anti gun control people in the land support background checks and a far reaching upgrade on that sounds cool and a ban on "assault weapons" sounds cool but in the end what is going to happen from these laws? Nothing to change the situation that we have today. People are going to buy pre ban high capacity magazines, gangsters are still going to buy cheap handguns illegally with the serial numbers shaved off so they can't trace it anywhere, and mass murderers are just going to find some other way to kill a bunch of people.
And if all these laws arn't going to change the situation in any way why would we have them on the books cluttering space with all the other hundreds of gun laws that are either unenforced, ineffective, or completely outdated?
The whole article was trying to downplay the whole issue as a non issue. It's not. There have been 695 gun deaths already since newtown, that's only 1 month.
How many were in Chicago and NYC, where guns are basically outlawed already? I understand some 530 gun murders in Chicago last year even with the gun bans? Gun bans do not deter criminals.
The gun bans weren't the worst problem although they would have manifested the problem sooner or later. Its the gun buy-back programs that disarmed anyone who isn't a criminal that caused the bloodbath they had in the first quarter that was why they had that record.
On January 13 2013 00:42 Sermokala wrote: To be fair even if its against the law 9/10 you won't get charged with shit or you'll win the court case easy.
That's only with an American jury I guess. In my country if you shot at someone who doesn't hold a gun himself you would go through quite some troubles. The defence must be proportional to the offence, that is to prevent unnecessary violence. The thin line I tryed to stress was in fact the difference between protect and grab a gun and shot. Here the whole idea to fight fire with fire is the problem. I understand that it is the reflection of your (personal or of most Americans) liberal thinking but still it causes more accidents than benefits.
On January 12 2013 15:15 bkrow wrote: If you accept the premise that the United States is more violent then essentially every other Western country, then I just don't see how easy access to guns is a good thing (see: intentional homicide rates). The key issue is definitely access in my opinion. You can hang onto a misinformed interpretation of the second amendment if you please but why should it be so damn easy?
In today's technology why is it so hard to have an efficient and accurate national register for gun ownership with strong sanctions for failure to comply? Why aren't mental health checks and background checks absolutely one hundred percent required with every single gun purchase at every single store across the country without fail, again with stiff sanctions for on-compliance. If you want to buy some fancy weapon with suppressors and whatever then why can't you wait weeks or even months? If your motive is truly as a collector then your passion will allow you to wait. And after all that why should none if these laws apply if you happen to be at a gun show?
You should be able to force nationwide registration of firearms combined with stricter access laws to guns. Or am I grossly missing something?
I think I need to address this.
First off, our intentional homicide rates aren't astronomically higher. They are higher than most, but it's a price our society is willing to pay for the privilege to own guns. It's not the wild west here. 80% of murders are done with handguns, and most of those are gang related violence in poor urban areas. It's not exactly "innocent" people getting killed with them, which is why much of it is tolerated (whether you agree with that or not).
Second, the Second Amendment unequivocally guarantees the right to bear arms. These "militia" requirements derive from a creative argument presented by anti-gun groups. If you read the history and prior judicial opinions, it is rather clear that DC v Heller was the correct decision (I would argue it's even too generous to the anti-gun crowd). You are wrong about your understanding of the US Constitution.
You do bring up some good points about registration, and I think that's the area where compromise and movement forward can happen. The NRA will fight it, but I think Republicans in general are open to that type of discussion. I think it's worth noting that this likely won't have much of an effect on gun violence, however.
First off, our intentional homicide rates aren't astronomically higher. They are higher than most, but it's a price our society is willing to pay for the privilege to own guns. It's not the wild west here. 80% of murders are done with handguns, and most of those are gang related violence in poor urban areas. It's not exactly "innocent" people getting killed with them, which is why much of it is tolerated (whether you agree with that or not).
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to pay that price. To me, that says "we have to be okay with groups of children getting murdered with assault rifles every now and then because owning guns is more important." I also find it offensive that you'd assume that a certain percentage of people getting murdered with guns isn't a bad thing because they live in impoverished societies. Violent gang culture does immeasurable harm to so many communities through promoting irresponsible use of guns and ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
Second, the Second Amendment unequivocally guarantees the right to bear arms. These "militia" requirements derive from a creative argument presented by anti-gun groups. If you read the history and prior judicial opinions, it is rather clear that DC v Heller was the correct decision (I would argue it's even too generous to the anti-gun crowd). You are wrong about your understanding of the US Constitution.
The Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, but it does not preclude the government's ability to responsibly and reasonably regulate the use of those arms in this country. What is responsible and reasonable is up for debate - unless you're the NRA, in which case nothing aside from more guns is reasonable.
You do bring up some good points about registration, and I think that's the area where compromise and movement forward can happen. The NRA will fight it, but I think Republicans in general are open to that type of discussion. I think it's worth noting that this likely won't have much of an effect on gun violence, however.
I hope you're right. I think people should have the right to defend themselves, and that responsibly owning a reasonably potent firearm can be part of that equation, and that laws aimed at maintaining reasonable and responsible use of them shouldn't be discouraged.
However, I'm also a school teacher, and the thought of a loaded handgun anywhere on my campus that isn't being held by a law enforcement officer makes my blood boil. Quite frankly, those that would say I should keep a gun in my classroom desk can go fuck themselves. We have laws against less lethal materials (alcohol, drugs, tobacco) being restricted in certain areas of society and we need to stop pretending that guns are special and not able to be part of similar, continued conversations.
First off, our intentional homicide rates aren't astronomically higher. They are higher than most, but it's a price our society is willing to pay for the privilege to own guns. It's not the wild west here. 80% of murders are done with handguns, and most of those are gang related violence in poor urban areas. It's not exactly "innocent" people getting killed with them, which is why much of it is tolerated (whether you agree with that or not).
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to pay that price. To me, that says "we have to be okay with groups of children getting murdered with assault rifles every now and then because owning guns is more important." I also find it offensive that you'd assume that a certain percentage of people getting murdered with guns isn't a bad thing because they live in impoverished societies. Violent gang culture does immeasurable harm to so many communities through promoting irresponsible use of guns and ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
Second, the Second Amendment unequivocally guarantees the right to bear arms. These "militia" requirements derive from a creative argument presented by anti-gun groups. If you read the history and prior judicial opinions, it is rather clear that DC v Heller was the correct decision (I would argue it's even too generous to the anti-gun crowd). You are wrong about your understanding of the US Constitution.
The Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, but it does not preclude the government's ability to responsibly and reasonably regulate the use of those arms in this country. What is responsible and reasonable is up for debate - unless you're the NRA, in which case nothing aside from more guns is reasonable.
You do bring up some good points about registration, and I think that's the area where compromise and movement forward can happen. The NRA will fight it, but I think Republicans in general are open to that type of discussion. I think it's worth noting that this likely won't have much of an effect on gun violence, however.
I hope you're right. I think people should have the right to defend themselves, and that responsibly owning a reasonably potent firearm can be part of that equation, and that laws aimed at maintaining reasonable and responsible use of them shouldn't be discouraged.
However, I'm also a school teacher, and the thought of a loaded handgun anywhere on my campus that isn't being held by a law enforcement officer makes my blood boil. Quite frankly, those that would say I should keep a gun in my classroom desk can go fuck themselves. We have laws against less lethal materials (alcohol, drugs, tobacco) being restricted in certain areas of society and we need to stop pretending that guns are special and not able to be part of similar, continued conversations.
Assault rifles aren't really the problem though. With the way lockdown procedures work, it doesn't really matter what gun they have. Lockdown procedures mostly consist of just having the students hide in the corner and hope. If you're not going to fight back, they could have a musket and be just as effective.
Apparently that moderator is a Ravens fan. So little humor amongst that group (he'll probably ban me for this joke).
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to pay that price. To me, that says "we have to be okay with groups of children getting murdered with assault rifles every now and then because owning guns is more important." I also find it offensive that you'd assume that a certain percentage of people getting murdered with guns isn't a bad thing because they live in impoverished societies. Violent gang culture does immeasurable harm to so many communities through promoting irresponsible use of guns and ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
Right. So they'll get murdered with handguns instead. That makes EVERYTHING better. *rolls eyes*
Maybe you misunderstood me. I never said it was "ok" that poor people get murdered. But I'm not going to restrict firearm rights because one gang member shot another gang member. And that is what something like 80% of all firearm related homocides are about. They are fighting over drug dealing turf. WTF does a firearm ban have anything to do with that? You really think they're going to just stop fighting over millions of dollars because some PTA moms get mad? I mean, the guns they use for those crimes are ALREADY ILLEGAL, and ALREADY have HUGE criminal penalties attached to their use in hundreds of different crimes. Hell, just having a gun on you when you are caught with dope adds years and years to a punishment.
"Assault rifles" (which is an extremely misused word by the media narrative) have basically nothing to do with gun violence in the USA. It's statistically insignificant. If we let emotions run our country, we'd be f***ed. I'm just looking at it objectively. You have to take your emotions out of it when you discuss things like this, otherwise people say stupid stuff like "you hate poor people!" as if it's actually true. I spent a year working at a homeless shelter. I don't hate poor people. And just to cut off your future arguments, I'm not racist either. Or classist. Or whatever other stereotype you're going to paint me as.
The Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, but it does not preclude the government's ability to responsibly and reasonably regulate the use of those arms in this country. What is responsible and reasonable is up for debate - unless you're the NRA, in which case nothing aside from more guns is reasonable.
He was talking about the militia interpretation, I believe. Nobody was talking about what constitutes reasonable regulation.
On January 13 2013 15:10 BluePanther wrote: Apparently that moderator is a Ravens fan. So little humor amongst that group (he'll probably ban me for this joke).
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to pay that price. To me, that says "we have to be okay with groups of children getting murdered with assault rifles every now and then because owning guns is more important." I also find it offensive that you'd assume that a certain percentage of people getting murdered with guns isn't a bad thing because they live in impoverished societies. Violent gang culture does immeasurable harm to so many communities through promoting irresponsible use of guns and ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
Right. So they'll get murdered with handguns instead. That makes EVERYTHING better. *rolls eyes*
Maybe you misunderstood me. I never said it was "ok" that poor people get murdered. But I'm not going to restrict firearm rights because one gang member shot another gang member. And that is what something like 80% of all firearm related homocides are about. They are fighting over drug dealing turf. WTF does a firearm ban have anything to do with that? You really think they're going to just stop fighting over millions of dollars because some PTA moms get mad? I mean, the guns they use for those crimes are ALREADY ILLEGAL, and ALREADY have HUGE criminal penalties attached to their use in hundreds of different crimes. Hell, just having a gun on you when you are caught with dope adds years and years to a punishment.
"Assault rifles" (which is an extremely misused word by the media narrative) have basically nothing to do with gun violence in the USA. It's statistically insignificant. If we let emotions run our country, we'd be f***ed. I'm just looking at it objectively. You have to take your emotions out of it when you discuss things like this, otherwise people say stupid stuff like "you hate poor people!" as if it's actually true. I spent a year working at a homeless shelter. I don't hate poor people. And just to cut off your future arguments, I'm not racist either. Or classist. Or whatever other stereotype you're going to paint me as.
The Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, but it does not preclude the government's ability to responsibly and reasonably regulate the use of those arms in this country. What is responsible and reasonable is up for debate - unless you're the NRA, in which case nothing aside from more guns is reasonable.
He was talking about the militia interpretation, I believe. Nobody was talking about what constitutes reasonable regulation.
1 - You want to distract from the argument about gun violence by debating semantics? Fine. The Aurora, CO movie theater shooter fired 30 rounds in 27 seconds. That's horrifying. If the Smith & Wesson MP15 Semi-automatic rifle with a 100 Round Drum Magazine he was firing didn't malfunction, imagine how many more people would have died? There's no emotion in the logic that guns that fire less bullets at a lower rate don't kill people as fast as guns that do.
2 - If you don't want people to call you insensitive, then don't say things that are insensitive. I didn't say "You hate poor people", but I'm sure there are lots of people out there who would take offense to the idea of their loved ones' deaths being tolerated because you in your high chair deem them less "innocent." Who are you to judge what constitutes an "innocent" person getting killed? And "PTA Moms"? Really? Could you possibly have used a worse (and, perhaps, revealing into your mindset) choice of words?
3 - I don't think it's objectively looking at the situation if you're unwilling to consider guns as part of the problem for what's being done with, I don't know, guns? The problem is that, for some reason, we're confusing regulating anything related to gun use with the intent to ban them outright. "Put codes on bullets and register them" or "limit magazine size" or "create a national gun database" gets heard as "They're taking our guns! Aaaaah! Tyrannical government! Tyranny! Tyranny!"
To quote Jon Stewart, for some reason, we are for some reason so afraid of some dystopic possible future that we're unwilling to do anything to address our own actual dystopic present. Until we nut up and act, we're going to keep having schools, theaters, malls, colleges, and offices get shot up.
On January 13 2013 15:10 BluePanther wrote: Apparently that moderator is a Ravens fan. So little humor amongst that group (he'll probably ban me for this joke).
I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to pay that price. To me, that says "we have to be okay with groups of children getting murdered with assault rifles every now and then because owning guns is more important." I also find it offensive that you'd assume that a certain percentage of people getting murdered with guns isn't a bad thing because they live in impoverished societies. Violent gang culture does immeasurable harm to so many communities through promoting irresponsible use of guns and ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away.
Right. So they'll get murdered with handguns instead. That makes EVERYTHING better. *rolls eyes*
Maybe you misunderstood me. I never said it was "ok" that poor people get murdered. But I'm not going to restrict firearm rights because one gang member shot another gang member. And that is what something like 80% of all firearm related homocides are about. They are fighting over drug dealing turf. WTF does a firearm ban have anything to do with that? You really think they're going to just stop fighting over millions of dollars because some PTA moms get mad? I mean, the guns they use for those crimes are ALREADY ILLEGAL, and ALREADY have HUGE criminal penalties attached to their use in hundreds of different crimes. Hell, just having a gun on you when you are caught with dope adds years and years to a punishment.
"Assault rifles" (which is an extremely misused word by the media narrative) have basically nothing to do with gun violence in the USA. It's statistically insignificant. If we let emotions run our country, we'd be f***ed. I'm just looking at it objectively. You have to take your emotions out of it when you discuss things like this, otherwise people say stupid stuff like "you hate poor people!" as if it's actually true. I spent a year working at a homeless shelter. I don't hate poor people. And just to cut off your future arguments, I'm not racist either. Or classist. Or whatever other stereotype you're going to paint me as.
The Second Amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, but it does not preclude the government's ability to responsibly and reasonably regulate the use of those arms in this country. What is responsible and reasonable is up for debate - unless you're the NRA, in which case nothing aside from more guns is reasonable.
He was talking about the militia interpretation, I believe. Nobody was talking about what constitutes reasonable regulation.
1 - You want to distract from the argument about gun violence by debating semantics? Fine. The Aurora, CO movie theater shooter fired 30 rounds in 27 seconds. That's horrifying. If the Smith & Wesson MP15 Semi-automatic rifle with a 100 Round Drum Magazine he was firing didn't malfunction, imagine how many more people would have died? There's no emotion in the logic that guns that fire less bullets at a lower rate don't kill people as fast as guns that do.
2 - If you don't want people to call you insensitive, then don't say things that are insensitive. I didn't say "You hate poor people", but I'm sure there are lots of people out there who would take offense to the idea of their loved ones' deaths being tolerated because you in your high chair deem them less "innocent." Who are you to judge what constitutes an "innocent" person getting killed? And "PTA Moms"? Really? Could you possibly have used a worse (and, perhaps, revealing into your mindset) choice of words?
3 - I don't think it's objectively looking at the situation if you're unwilling to consider guns as part of the problem for what's being done with, I don't know, guns? The problem is that, for some reason, we're confusing regulating anything related to gun use with the intent to ban them outright. "Put codes on bullets and register them" or "limit magazine size" or "create a national gun database" gets heard as "They're taking our guns! Aaaaah! Tyrannical government! Tyranny! Tyranny!"
To quote Jon Stewart, for some reason, we are for some reason so afraid of some dystopic possible future that we're unwilling to do anything to address our own actual dystopic present. Until we nut up and act, we're going to keep having schools, theaters, malls, colleges, and offices get shot up.
Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
On January 14 2013 01:40 Sermokala wrote: Your. Ompletly missing his point the guy could have locked the doors thrown in a barrel of napalm and burned them all alive using simple things he could buy in a supermarket. The difficulty in obtaining tools to kill masses of people isn't going to slowdown someone who is mental illness and wants to kill that many people. There are many more hurrying ways to kill people then what's given to us by the media. Why take away things that our constitution gives us in favor or worse things?
The rest of your post is rehashed propaganda that's been repeated over and over again and doesn't accomplish anything.
I laid out an argument and you called it names and responded with hyperbole and hypothesis instead of addressing any of it.
I've come to expect no less from the pro-gun right.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.blackouttees.com/artifacts/images/design_data/design-618-46-16-2012-10-22-22-50-42.jpg)
