Other Resources The Political Joe » Gun Advocates, What Say You?? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 16
 
 
2015-10-19 7:52 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

Originally posted by dmiller5

I think the phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness implies that all three of these things only exist without the other two.

I agree, but that's too many words for a bumper sticker.   And the pronunciation may be problematic for some readers.

My point is; people getting killed every day by senseless gun accidents 'should'....SHOULD....trump some peoples notion that ANY condition of gun ownership, be that registration, education etc., is an infringement upon their Liberty.    

Newsflash.  The Govt. is NOT coming for your dang guns.  



2015-10-19 7:55 AM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by dmiller5

I think the phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness implies that all three of these things only exist without the other two.

I agree, but that's too many words for a bumper sticker.   And the pronunciation may be problematic for some readers.

My point is; people getting killed every day by senseless gun accidents 'should'....SHOULD....trump some peoples notion that ANY condition of gun ownership, be that registration, education etc., is an infringement upon their Liberty.    

Newsflash.  The Govt. is NOT coming for your dang guns.  

oh I'm 100000% with you.  guns do not equal liberty, life, and if its happiness, rent them from a shooting range.

I do think that people who live in the backcountry should be allowed to have guns, but not in populated areas

2015-10-19 8:24 AM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by Left Brain

Originally posted by jeffnboise

I think 2A is fundamentally flawed thinking; but the SCOTUS does not-so that's that.

Mental Health professionals should be able, with the touch of a button, to 'deny' someone the ability to buy and/or posses a firearm if they feel that person is a risk; but HIPPA and patient privacy prevents that from happening, as well.

Gun Ownership 'should' require more extensive Education and Training.  At least similar to Driver's Ed.  And it should be reoccurring.  Will it prevent mass shootings?  NO, but it 'may' prevent some accidental deaths.  And if it saves even ONE child....if that's YOUR child, then one is enough.

However....

When this thread started I had a very clear idea of what my OWN opinions were regarding Gun Violence and Gun Ownership. 

Now, after reading all of your posts, I'm not so sure  what the way forward is. 

Someone said it earlier  sic. "We keep trying to solve problems from the middle-not from the beginning".  (apologies for paraphrasing)

Oh no......you did NOT just invoke the "for the children" clause.

Yes.  Yes I did.  

As a country we spend billions of dollars teaching parents to use car seats correctly.  Hows about we teach gun owners to be more responsible around children.   Because a lot of them, obviously, didn't get the memo. 

There are few phrases in the english language that strike as much concern as "if it can safe just one life, isn't it worth it".  You can justify pretty much anything with such a phrase.  Seriously government control of every aspect of your life, your job, your hobbies, and most especially the ability to own firearms can be justified.

As an example, we should have mandatory counseling and ultrasounds for anyone considering an abortion because it could save just one life.  We should make it mandatory for all people to be in their homes by 10:00 every night because it could save just one life.  We should ban cars and make everyone ride bikes, i mean if it saves just one life.  We should make everyone go to church to learn about morality from the Bible because it could save one life you know.

I'm not advocating any of these things of course, but the "if it saves one life" is simply an absurd emotional argument no matter what the topic is.

In the end......no lives will be saved.....it's a certainty.  

And here's where YOUR argument falls apart.....

Give me a number?  HOW MANY LIVES do we have to save before anything is 'worth it'.  

5?   10?    100?    1000?   You all put your heads together and come up with a number that the rest of us can use as a goalpost.  Say, it's a 1000; and it can be determined  that  "xxx" method will potentially save a 1000-THEN do we get some meaningful reform?   Of course we won't-the goals will move again. It'll be another 'unwinnable' argument.  THIS is why the NRA is so hell bent on NEVER allowing the Govt. to collect any kind of meaningful data regarding gun violence.  Because if we have tangible facts, then it goes without saying that we could incorporate 'meaningful' changes to existing laws.   And rabid pro-2A folks simply won't allow that.  Not for 1 life-not for a 1000.   IMO

 

You do realize I could take the exact same paragraph you posted and change the subject to abortion and substitute NRA for PP and it would fit quite nicely.  However, you will likely argue that it's a woman constitutional right and it should not be infringed upon under any circumstance.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but I recognize the laws of our land and the legal interpretation of the constitution.  You're not a fan of guns, but you still have to respect the laws of the land and the legal interpretation of the constitution.  You trying to push more and more hoops and regulations on guns is the exact same thing as religious conservatives trying to push more and more hoops and regulations on abortion.

 

2015-10-19 8:30 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

 

2015-10-19 8:45 AM
in reply to: jeffnboise

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

Originally posted by jeffnboise

Originally posted by dmiller5

I think the phrase life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness implies that all three of these things only exist without the other two.

I agree, but that's too many words for a bumper sticker.   And the pronunciation may be problematic for some readers.

My point is; people getting killed every day by senseless gun accidents 'should'....SHOULD....trump some peoples notion that ANY condition of gun ownership, be that registration, education etc., is an infringement upon their Liberty.    

Newsflash.  The Govt. is NOT coming for your dang guns.  

I don't think there's any one of us who wouldn't want to increase gun safety, but it has to be done in a meaningful way.  Many 2A opponents want to increase gun safety by "banning guns" or reducing magazine capacities, but cringe at the idea of actually teaching gun safety.
The meaningful way to increase safety IMHO is to mandate children go through a gun safety class as part of a standard education.  Ironically when I was in middle school we had a one day class sponsored by the NRA (at my public school) that taught us all gun safety.   We even got a little card stating that we went through gun/hunter safety which would allow us to get a hunting permit.  
My Dad had a gun in his closet with ammunition and he never once uttered a single word about safety or even leave it alone.  I was a typical (ok maybe not typical) teenager and I would go and "play" with his gun and even loaded it a few times.  However, as dumb as this sounds I knew how to do it safely because of that class.  I never put my finger on the trigger I kept the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, etc.

2015-10-19 8:49 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

Originally posted by dmiller5

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

 

but if mandatory counseling or ultrasounds saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it.  

I'm with you that we don't need to devolve this thread into an abortion debate (didn't we just have one of those), but I was trying to show the similarity in the arguments.



2015-10-19 9:13 AM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Extreme Veteran
3025
2000100025
Maryland
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

 

but if mandatory counseling or ultrasounds saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it.  

I'm with you that we don't need to devolve this thread into an abortion debate (didn't we just have one of those), but I was trying to show the similarity in the arguments.

agreed its not an abortion debate.  I just don't think the arguments are as similar as some like to make it seem.  No one will argue that a person shot by a gun wasn't a person....you can make that argument in the other debate.

We need to do something about gun violence, I believe we have all agreed about that.  However, it seems the pro gun folks think every single idea is bad.

laws? no they don't work on criminals
Take the guns? no that's impossible and second amendment
better controls? HIPPA and it doesn't matter because criminals

so whats the answer? it can't be shite we give up.

2015-10-19 9:38 AM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

 

but if mandatory counseling or ultrasounds saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it.  

I'm with you that we don't need to devolve this thread into an abortion debate (didn't we just have one of those), but I was trying to show the similarity in the arguments.

agreed its not an abortion debate.  I just don't think the arguments are as similar as some like to make it seem.  No one will argue that a person shot by a gun wasn't a person....you can make that argument in the other debate.

We need to do something about gun violence, I believe we have all agreed about that.  However, it seems the pro gun folks think every single idea is bad.

laws? no they don't work on criminals
Take the guns? no that's impossible and second amendment
better controls? HIPPA and it doesn't matter because criminals

so whats the answer? it can't be shite we give up.

The key point is "gun violence".

There are laws we can put in place to help reduce accentual gun deaths such as mandatory education.  That would have a measurable reduction in accidental gun deaths, but have a near zero impact on gun violence.

Hypothetically, we could ban all guns but as we've already discussed the criminals will not turn any in and there are a gazillion of them in circulation already.  This would have either a zero reduction in gun violence or potentially increase it with the criminals knowing that the law abiding citizens are unarmed.

Conceptually I like the idea of mental health evaluation being considered, but knowing how subjective the mental health medial field is I don't think it's practical.  Most of the mentally ill people who have done mass shootings were previously undiagnosed, or obtained their guns illegally anyways.

Similar to LB, I am all for tougher sentencing on violent gun crimes, but I'm also for elimination of all "gun free zones" and a federal conceal carry law.  If you can legally own a handgun then you can legally carry it concealed anywhere in the country.  I'm OK with government buildings such as courthouses, police stations, etc. and political rallies being gun free because they have armed security there already.

I live in NE and we're fairly 2A friendly here.  There are a lot of people carrying everywhere you go, so anybody intent on doing a mass shooting is most certainly going to target gun free zone areas.  We've had a couple mass shootings in the past several years and both were in gun free zones. (mall/school)

2015-10-19 11:56 AM
in reply to: #5147365

User image

Expert
2180
2000100252525
Boise, Idaho
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Now is where I wait for the ardent 2A supporters explain how ANY conditions on gun ownership would be unfathomable. They'll talk about the "slippery slope" of losing their constitutionally protected Right to Bear Arms (overlooking the rest of the clause that mentioned something about a well REGULATED militia). No one's Liberty is being jeopardized. IMO. It's just a weak argument put forth by folks who somehow really, truly believe our govt. is out to get them and they think gun ownership is going to change that.
I disagree.
BTW, I've worn a duty weapon for +25 yrs. I'm not anti gun.
2015-10-19 12:37 PM
in reply to: #5147613

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
And I Ihave still been waiting for ardent gun control supporters to give me one law of gun regulation that actually addresses the actual problem of gun violence and mass shootings.

As far as accidents... A very rough extrapolation of shootings and deaths show roughly a 1/3 mortality rate for guns. Even though Hollywood likes you to believe getting shot means instant death. 600 accidental deaths. 1800 accidental shootings. How many shots fired a year? Half a billion? So 600 is the number we want to focus on fixing? If you pull up the list from the CDC of accidental deaths, guns are at the very bottom.
2015-10-19 1:26 PM
in reply to: 0

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

 

but if mandatory counseling or ultrasounds saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it.  

I'm with you that we don't need to devolve this thread into an abortion debate (didn't we just have one of those), but I was trying to show the similarity in the arguments.

agreed its not an abortion debate.  I just don't think the arguments are as similar as some like to make it seem.  No one will argue that a person shot by a gun wasn't a person....you can make that argument in the other debate.

We need to do something about gun violence, I believe we have all agreed about that.  However, it seems the pro gun folks think every single idea is bad.

laws? no they don't work on criminals
Take the guns? no that's impossible and second amendment
better controls? HIPPA and it doesn't matter because criminals

so whats the answer? it can't be shite we give up.




You kind of brought the abortion debate into the thread a few pages back arguing as if the two were moral equivalents.

The communities that have the highest incidents of gun violence are the same communities with the strictest gun laws. How are restrictive guns laws working in Chicago? So until you can tell me how more gun laws is going to create less gun violence, I guess I am going to think all your ideas to restrict gun ownership by lawful citizens are bad.

Personally, I think reversing government policies that have created an environment where the overwhelming majority of kids born to women under thirty are living without fathers in their homes is good start to not producing angry, socially maladjusted adults with happy trigger fingers.

But, that would be uncomfortable for progressives to admit.



Edited by Jackemy1 2015-10-19 1:32 PM


2015-10-19 1:28 PM
in reply to: powerman


108
100
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
I was watching the 1971 All-Star game on youtube yesterday, which included the commercials. One commercial was by a company that sold gun locks. It was a mother, with her child next to her, reminding people to keep their guns safe. I did a little research and the commercials are no longer allowed on television because apparently it some how promotes gun violence

My question is, anti-gun people, what say you? You are not going to get guns off the streets or out of the hands of losers living with their parents in their 20s who then go commit mass murder, so WHY are you soooo against a commercial that is a public service, keep your guns safe commercial? it doesn't condone gun ownership, it doesn't condone gun violence, it is not pro or anti gun, it is a keep your guns and your kids safe message.

The reality is more people - mostly kids - are killed every day by accidental shootings then the psychos. So why are you so against this type of commercial? This whole all or nothing approach is not good for either side of the debate and only further alienates. I come from a family of hunters. Nobody owns a hand gun and nobody own a semi-automatic. Nobody has anything stock piled, and nobody keeps the gun on display anywhere. Yet, when the anti-gun people demand no guns for anyone, guess what side of the debate they join.

I also have a friend that is a prosecutor and she has a hand gun that she carries for protection. She does not think people need semi-automatics and she does not have a stock pile. Yet, when the anti-gun people demand no guns for anyone, guess what side of the debate she joins.

I do not own a gun. I have never gone hunting and I have no desire to do so. I have shot guns at firing ranges and in the desert with my cousin the law enforcement officer. One of the most disturbing things I have seen is an 8 year old at a gun range learning how to use a hand gun. It troubles me when my 14 year old nephew goes deer hunting. Yet, when the anti-gun people demand no guns for anyone, guess what side of the debate I join.

I am all for these things:

- under 16, no admittance to gun ranges (I pick 16 because if we are going to say they are responsible enough to drive an F-250 down the roads at 80 mph, then it would be hypocritical to say they are not old enough to shoot a gun)
- no semi-automatics
- no machine gun types of guns
- no open carry in stores or restaurants

HOWEVER, I do not think the gun "problem" is a gun problem, I think it's a society problem. The pyschos are always the losers living at home well into their 20s with zero responsibilities. No job, no sports, no activities, no responsibilities, yet they some how have money. By letting them be losers living at home, parents are telling their kids that they too think they are losers, but it isn't their fault, it is society's fault. Now what do you think is going to happen? They have zero going on to make themselves feel good about themselves, way too much time to obsess about how they have it too bad while getting free tv and internet to remind them of how society has cheated them out of what they "deserve." So really, what do you think is going to happen? Guns or pressure cooker bombs - same result. Losers that never had a job, never had a responsibility, somehow had money, and blame society for feeling bad about themselves.


2015-10-19 3:02 PM
in reply to: #5144743

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
So if the gun isn't the problem, then why no semi-automatics which have been in wide spread use for the better part of the last century?
2015-10-19 3:31 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Originally posted by Jackemy1

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

 

but if mandatory counseling or ultrasounds saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it.  

I'm with you that we don't need to devolve this thread into an abortion debate (didn't we just have one of those), but I was trying to show the similarity in the arguments.

agreed its not an abortion debate.  I just don't think the arguments are as similar as some like to make it seem.  No one will argue that a person shot by a gun wasn't a person....you can make that argument in the other debate.

We need to do something about gun violence, I believe we have all agreed about that.  However, it seems the pro gun folks think every single idea is bad.

laws? no they don't work on criminals
Take the guns? no that's impossible and second amendment
better controls? HIPPA and it doesn't matter because criminals

so whats the answer? it can't be shite we give up.




You kind of brought the abortion debate into the thread a few pages back arguing as if the two were moral equivalents.

The communities that have the highest incidents of gun violence are the same communities with the strictest gun laws. How are restrictive guns laws working in Chicago? So until you can tell me how more gun laws is going to create less gun violence, I guess I am going to think all your ideas to restrict gun ownership by lawful citizens are bad.


That's not exactly true. Or at least not universally so. If you look at a list of the cities with the most gun-related homices per capita, it's a pretty even split between places with strict laws (Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore) and with lenient laws (NoLa, Memphis, Tulsa)

New York has stricter gun laws than New Orleans, Houston and Arizona and yet there is significantly less gun violence in New York than in Houston/Phoenix/NoLA.

I know of no poorer argument against (or, for that matter, for) gun laws than trying to equate the strictness of the guns laws in a particular area with crime. It seems to me that the statistics are all over the place. You've got places with strict laws and little crime (NYC), strict laws and lots of crime (Chicago), lenient laws and lots of crime (NoLA) and lenient laws and little crime (that little town in GA where gun ownership is supposedly mandatory).

I can't really think of a big metropolis (1.5M+ people) with very lenient gun laws that has relatively little gun crime. Is there one?
2015-10-19 3:35 PM
in reply to: dmiller5

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Originally posted by dmiller5laws? no they don't work on criminals
Take the guns? no that's impossible and second amendment
better controls? HIPPA and it doesn't matter because criminals

so whats the answer? it can't be shite we give up.

Laws... Background checks are good. The ones we have are good. More will not change anything. Take guns away.... It's possible. Repeal the 2ABetter controls... Assuming mentally ill... Well at least it addresses a segment of the population that is part of the problem... Instead of the entire population which isn't. I've said some solutions, but crickets.... Change our prison and sentencing structure. Maximum security is for violent offenders. Lengthen sentences. Use a gun in the commission of a crime and get life without. Address the ones actually causing harm. End the drug war. Restructure sentences to minimum security, or make it misdemeanor. Legalize. Shift money to drug treatment. Actually address the #1 fuel for gun violence in this country. Mental health... Shift money to treat it better. Give more help to suicide prevention. Give more help to identifying those that might cause harm and help them more aggressively. Actually address a leading cause for gun deaths by suicide and mass shootings by those actually causing gun deaths.I would like to call my proposal "Common sense life saving regulations". Because who doesn't want to save lives, and if you don't agree I can summarily dismiss your opinion because obviously you have no common sense. I realize it's just fancy marketing spin, but it seems to work well with other subjects
2015-10-19 3:54 PM
in reply to: Dutchcrush

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Originally posted by Dutchcrush

I was watching the 1971 All-Star game on youtube yesterday, which included the commercials. One commercial was by a company that sold gun locks. It was a mother, with her child next to her, reminding people to keep their guns safe. I did a little research and the commercials are no longer allowed on television because apparently it some how promotes gun violence

My question is, anti-gun people, what say you? You are not going to get guns off the streets or out of the hands of losers living with their parents in their 20s who then go commit mass murder, so ? it doesn't condone gun ownership, it doesn't condone gun violence, it is not pro or anti gun, it is a keep your guns and your kids safe message.

The reality is more people - mostly kids - are killed every day by accidental shootings then the psychos. So why are you so against this type of commercial? This whole all or nothing approach is not good for either side of the debate and only further alienates. I come from a family of hunters. Nobody owns a hand gun and nobody own a semi-automatic. Nobody has anything stock piled, and nobody keeps the gun on display anywhere. Yet, when the anti-gun people demand no guns for anyone, guess what side of the debate they join.

I also have a friend that is a prosecutor and she has a hand gun that she carries for protection. She does not think people need semi-automatics and she does not have a stock pile. Yet, when the anti-gun people demand no guns for anyone, guess what side of the debate she joins.

I do not own a gun. I have never gone hunting and I have no desire to do so. I have shot guns at firing ranges and in the desert with my cousin the law enforcement officer. One of the most disturbing things I have seen is an 8 year old at a gun range learning how to use a hand gun. It troubles me when my 14 year old nephew goes deer hunting. Yet, when the anti-gun people demand no guns for anyone, guess what side of the debate I join.

I am all for these things:

- under 16, no admittance to gun ranges (I pick 16 because if we are going to say they are responsible enough to drive an F-250 down the roads at 80 mph, then it would be hypocritical to say they are not old enough to shoot a gun)
- no semi-automatics
- no machine gun types of guns
- no open carry in stores or restaurants

HOWEVER, I do not think the gun "problem" is a gun problem, I think it's a society problem. The pyschos are always the losers living at home well into their 20s with zero responsibilities. No job, no sports, no activities, no responsibilities, yet they some how have money. By letting them be losers living at home, parents are telling their kids that they too think they are losers, but it isn't their fault, it is society's fault. Now what do you think is going to happen? They have zero going on to make themselves feel good about themselves, way too much time to obsess about how they have it too bad while getting free tv and internet to remind them of how society has cheated them out of what they "deserve." So really, what do you think is going to happen? Guns or pressure cooker bombs - same result. Losers that never had a job, never had a responsibility, somehow had money, and blame society for feeling bad about themselves.


A couple of things: I think it's kind of silly to trot out a commercial that's almost 50 years old and ask people on this thread why "they" are opposed to it. (You said, "WHY are you soooo against a commercial that is a public service, keep your guns safe commercial"). I can't speak for anyone else here, but I was three years old at the time. Personally, I'm not really against it, but I wouldn't be opposed to ads for hard liquor or condoms or a lot of other things you don't see commmercials for in prime time. Do you think that a commercial advertising trigger locks would inspire lots of otherwise irresponsible people to go, "Wow-- what was I thinking leaving my gun unsecured all the time? I need to get one of those things! Thank you, All-Star-Game Commercial!"

I honestly don't know a lot of "anti-gun" pepople who are of the "no guns for anyone" mentality. I guess they're out there, but I think there's a false narrative that the NRA has convinced many people of which is that "anyone talking about gun control wants to take everyone's guns away." Likewise, I think there's a similarly false narrative that says that "Every person who owns a gun is in favor of 100% unfettered access to any kind of firearm, all the time, by anyone." As far as I know, the only person who feels that way is powerman. I kid, I kid....

As LB is fond of pointing out, I think that 80% of people are in agreement on about 80% of the issues around guns, but we're all busy being distracted by the arguments of the 20% on the fringes who say that "THe only way to address gun violence in any way is to get rid of all of the guns" or "There is nothing whatsoever that can be done without bringing an end to freedom as we know it in this country."


2015-10-19 5:45 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

I don't think anyone can say that the Govt. isn't capable or won't come after guns.  In fact, I could think of a number of ways we could do just that if the 2A were repealed or ownership of guns was somehow made illegal.  I guess the reason I feel that way is because I work for the govt......and I've got news for you, we take people's property every day.  In fact......alone I have been responsible for the confiscation of millions and millions in assets from people who committed drug crimes.  It's REALLY easy.....and the burden of proof is WAY less than a criminal proceeding where "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard.  All I have to show is probable cause.....it's a civil procedure, not a criminal one.

My opinions are, admittedly, clouded by my experiences.

2015-10-19 5:58 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Seriously JMK.... That's was funny. I agree with the spirit of your post.
2015-10-19 6:01 PM
in reply to: #5147671

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Civil forefieture is straight up criminal. Seriously.
2015-10-20 8:45 AM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by Jackemy1

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

 

but if mandatory counseling or ultrasounds saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it.  

I'm with you that we don't need to devolve this thread into an abortion debate (didn't we just have one of those), but I was trying to show the similarity in the arguments.

agreed its not an abortion debate.  I just don't think the arguments are as similar as some like to make it seem.  No one will argue that a person shot by a gun wasn't a person....you can make that argument in the other debate.

We need to do something about gun violence, I believe we have all agreed about that.  However, it seems the pro gun folks think every single idea is bad.

laws? no they don't work on criminals
Take the guns? no that's impossible and second amendment
better controls? HIPPA and it doesn't matter because criminals

so whats the answer? it can't be shite we give up.




You kind of brought the abortion debate into the thread a few pages back arguing as if the two were moral equivalents.

The communities that have the highest incidents of gun violence are the same communities with the strictest gun laws. How are restrictive guns laws working in Chicago? So until you can tell me how more gun laws is going to create less gun violence, I guess I am going to think all your ideas to restrict gun ownership by lawful citizens are bad.


That's not exactly true. Or at least not universally so. If you look at a list of the cities with the most gun-related homices per capita, it's a pretty even split between places with strict laws (Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore) and with lenient laws (NoLa, Memphis, Tulsa)

New York has stricter gun laws than New Orleans, Houston and Arizona and yet there is significantly less gun violence in New York than in Houston/Phoenix/NoLA.

I know of no poorer argument against (or, for that matter, for) gun laws than trying to equate the strictness of the guns laws in a particular area with crime. It seems to me that the statistics are all over the place. You've got places with strict laws and little crime (NYC), strict laws and lots of crime (Chicago), lenient laws and lots of crime (NoLA) and lenient laws and little crime (that little town in GA where gun ownership is supposedly mandatory).

I can't really think of a big metropolis (1.5M+ people) with very lenient gun laws that has relatively little gun crime. Is there one?


your city examples are kind of like saying Ted Cruz is a liberal when looking at Ron Paul.

Just for contrast, in my city, the largest in the state, I can conceal carry without a license, without a safety course class, and with an unregistered firearm. The murder rate in my city is practically zero. So the examples you provided as lenient are actually pretty strict on the scale.

But, I'll agree with the direction that you are going with your statement. There is no correlation between gun violence and gun laws. There are lots of humans that commit horrible acts against other humans regardless of what barriers we place on the legal possession of firearms by lawful citizens.

The anit-gun folks just haven't proven the argument that we need more guns laws to prevent gun violence. There has been no compelling argument see from the from the anti-gun and left crowd. The only argument I see are emotional and the framing that gun owners are bad people. In my opinion, laws based in emotion and scapegoating are usually bad laws.

So yeah, I'm not for trading in my individual rights when there is absolutely no overwhelming societal benefit.
2015-10-20 9:59 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
I can't really think of a big metropolis (1.5M+ people) with very lenient gun laws that has relatively little gun crime. Is there one?


I think San Antonio probably fits in here. I think officially we're in at 1.5m. 'Unofficially'? I imagine there are at least another 500K. Our city is spread out all over the place with outlying communities similar to LA. So the overall area that is loosely regarded as being SA would have even more people. There are so many slow nights around here that our weatherman kills airtime showing his vegetable garden.By August we were fairly low at 63. http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/UniformCrimeReports.aspx. I can't find the breakdown, but we have a lot of knife murders and assaults. Those are usually tavern related at 1AM. Unfortunately, our crime rate has soared since I moved here in 99. But so has our population, so I guess it is unavoidable.

I guess our relatively low crime rate kind of shoots the Donald's theory of, "those people" swimming across the border to commit crimes, right in the buttocks...




ETA - We do rule when it comes to DWI, obesity and diabetes rates!

Edited by mdg2003 2015-10-20 10:00 AM


2015-10-20 12:09 PM
in reply to: Jackemy1

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Originally posted by Jackemy1

Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn

Originally posted by Jackemy1

Originally posted by dmiller5

Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by dmiller5

a woman's abortion can't accidently shoot someone in the face.

and we can get into a conversation of viability etc about a fetus, but we all know that a walking talking human killed by a gun is no argument.

 

but if mandatory counseling or ultrasounds saved one life, wouldn't it be worth it.  

I'm with you that we don't need to devolve this thread into an abortion debate (didn't we just have one of those), but I was trying to show the similarity in the arguments.

agreed its not an abortion debate.  I just don't think the arguments are as similar as some like to make it seem.  No one will argue that a person shot by a gun wasn't a person....you can make that argument in the other debate.

We need to do something about gun violence, I believe we have all agreed about that.  However, it seems the pro gun folks think every single idea is bad.

laws? no they don't work on criminals
Take the guns? no that's impossible and second amendment
better controls? HIPPA and it doesn't matter because criminals

so whats the answer? it can't be shite we give up.




You kind of brought the abortion debate into the thread a few pages back arguing as if the two were moral equivalents.

The communities that have the highest incidents of gun violence are the same communities with the strictest gun laws. How are restrictive guns laws working in Chicago? So until you can tell me how more gun laws is going to create less gun violence, I guess I am going to think all your ideas to restrict gun ownership by lawful citizens are bad.


That's not exactly true. Or at least not universally so. If you look at a list of the cities with the most gun-related homices per capita, it's a pretty even split between places with strict laws (Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore) and with lenient laws (NoLa, Memphis, Tulsa)

New York has stricter gun laws than New Orleans, Houston and Arizona and yet there is significantly less gun violence in New York than in Houston/Phoenix/NoLA.

I know of no poorer argument against (or, for that matter, for) gun laws than trying to equate the strictness of the guns laws in a particular area with crime. It seems to me that the statistics are all over the place. You've got places with strict laws and little crime (NYC), strict laws and lots of crime (Chicago), lenient laws and lots of crime (NoLA) and lenient laws and little crime (that little town in GA where gun ownership is supposedly mandatory).

I can't really think of a big metropolis (1.5M+ people) with very lenient gun laws that has relatively little gun crime. Is there one?


your city examples are kind of like saying Ted Cruz is a liberal when looking at Ron Paul.

Just for contrast, in my city, the largest in the state, I can conceal carry without a license, without a safety course class, and with an unregistered firearm. The murder rate in my city is practically zero. So the examples you provided as lenient are actually pretty strict on the scale.

But, I'll agree with the direction that you are going with your statement. There is no correlation between gun violence and gun laws. There are lots of humans that commit horrible acts against other humans regardless of what barriers we place on the legal possession of firearms by lawful citizens.

The anit-gun folks just haven't proven the argument that we need more guns laws to prevent gun violence. There has been no compelling argument see from the from the anti-gun and left crowd. The only argument I see are emotional and the framing that gun owners are bad people. In my opinion, laws based in emotion and scapegoating are usually bad laws.

So yeah, I'm not for trading in my individual rights when there is absolutely no overwhelming societal benefit.


I'm not sure I understand your Cruz/Paul analogy...? Are you saying that the examples I gave of cities with lenient gun laws aren't that lenient? I was trying to stick to major cities, because I don't think that small cities provide a large enough sample to be valid. You need a large cross-section of population in multiple socioeconomic groups in order to try to ascribe any relevance to something like gun laws/crime, IMO, and I don't think small cities/large towns are diverse enough, typically, to provide one. Anyway, I guess it's neither here nor there, since I think we're mostly saying the same thing.

But my point is that I don't think either side has proven a direct correlation between gun laws and crime, one way or the other. New York's laws are pretty strict and it's the safest large city in the country. By contrast, San Antonio, while not as big a sample as NYC, has more lenient laws and it's pretty safe too. While Detroit and New Orleans both have a lot of crime despite having very different ideas about gun regulation.

So you're right that the anti-gun people haven't done a great job of proving that less guns= less crime, but neither have the pro-gun people done a good job of proving that more guns=less crime.

And the line about "The only argument I see are emotional and the framing that gun owners are bad people" is just inflammatory nonsense. Come on-- who's being emotional now?
2015-10-20 12:09 PM
in reply to: mdg2003

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??

Originally posted by mdg2003 I can't really think of a big metropolis (1.5M+ people) with very lenient gun laws that has relatively little gun crime. Is there one? I think San Antonio probably fits in here. I think officially we're in at 1.5m. 'Unofficially'? I imagine there are at least another 500K. Our city is spread out all over the place with outlying communities similar to LA. So the overall area that is loosely regarded as being SA would have even more people. There are so many slow nights around here that our weatherman kills airtime showing his vegetable garden.By August we were fairly low at 63. http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/UniformCrimeReports.aspx. I can't find the breakdown, but we have a lot of knife murders and assaults. Those are usually tavern related at 1AM. Unfortunately, our crime rate has soared since I moved here in 99. But so has our population, so I guess it is unavoidable. I guess our relatively low crime rate kind of shoots the Donald's theory of, "those people" swimming across the border to commit crimes, right in the buttocks... ETA - We do rule when it comes to DWI, obesity and diabetes rates!

Just to throw in a quick context adjustment on Trump's statements:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. …They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Trump

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte released data earlier this year that showed deportations as well as arrests of criminal aliens dropped about 30 percent during the first six months of this fiscal year. Moreover, the 30,558 criminal aliens that ICE released back on the streets in 2014 garnered almost 80,000 convictions. These included 250 homicides, 186 kidnappings, 373 sexual assaults, 13,636 convictions for driving under the influence, 1,589 weapons offenses, 994 aggravated assaults, 56 arsons and 31 smuggling offenses.

Trump's statement was obviously leaning more on the most are bad side of the argument versus most are good, but I also don't think you can completely ignore the criminal impact of illegal immigration in America and pretend like it's not happening.

2015-10-20 12:59 PM
in reply to: tuwood

User image

Pro
6838
5000100050010010010025
Tejas
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Originally posted by tuwood

Originally posted by mdg2003 I can't really think of a big metropolis (1.5M+ people) with very lenient gun laws that has relatively little gun crime. Is there one? I think San Antonio probably fits in here. I think officially we're in at 1.5m. 'Unofficially'? I imagine there are at least another 500K. Our city is spread out all over the place with outlying communities similar to LA. So the overall area that is loosely regarded as being SA would have even more people. There are so many slow nights around here that our weatherman kills airtime showing his vegetable garden.By August we were fairly low at 63. http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/UniformCrimeReports.aspx. I can't find the breakdown, but we have a lot of knife murders and assaults. Those are usually tavern related at 1AM. Unfortunately, our crime rate has soared since I moved here in 99. But so has our population, so I guess it is unavoidable. I guess our relatively low crime rate kind of shoots the Donald's theory of, "those people" swimming across the border to commit crimes, right in the buttocks... ETA - We do rule when it comes to DWI, obesity and diabetes rates!

Just to throw in a quick context adjustment on Trump's statements:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. …They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems to us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." - Trump

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte released data earlier this year that showed deportations as well as arrests of criminal aliens dropped about 30 percent during the first six months of this fiscal year. Moreover, the 30,558 criminal aliens that ICE released back on the streets in 2014 garnered almost 80,000 convictions. These included 250 homicides, 186 kidnappings, 373 sexual assaults, 13,636 convictions for driving under the influence, 1,589 weapons offenses, 994 aggravated assaults, 56 arsons and 31 smuggling offenses.

Trump's statement was obviously leaning more on the most are bad side of the argument versus most are good, but I also don't think you can completely ignore the criminal impact of illegal immigration in America and pretend like it's not happening.




I know exactly what Trump said. I was just taking a light hearted poke at him. However, Mexico is not sending their people as he says. The people in question are doing whatever possible to leave Mexico. Yes, there are loads of trash coming in with the ones seeking better lives. Let' stop here because this line of discussion can turn into a major hijack!
2015-10-20 1:13 PM
in reply to: jmk-brooklyn

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Gun Advocates, What Say You??
Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn




So you're right that the anti-gun people haven't done a great job of proving that less guns= less crime, but neither have the pro-gun people done a good job of proving that more guns=less crime.




I don't think us pro gun people are advocating for more guns. We are advocating for the individual right to to defend oneself with a firearm if that person wishes to do so.

But I think the burden of proof is with the guys who want to change the laws. You need to prove to me why I should relinquish my rights. I shouldn't have to prove to you why I should keep my rights.
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Gun Advocates, What Say You?? Rss Feed  
 
 
of 16
 
 
RELATED POSTS

Gun advocates plan 5k run Pages: 1 2

Started by DanielG
Views: 2765 Posts: 27

2013-07-05 3:15 PM 1_Mad_Madone

Medical Groups Oppose Gun-Law Change To Share Mental Health Records

Started by DanielG
Views: 1885 Posts: 11

2013-06-19 2:04 PM powerman

CA "Gun Control" Bill basically bans all firearms

Started by bcart1991
Views: 2144 Posts: 6

2013-06-03 10:30 PM SevenZulu

'The' Gun Thread Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48

Started by Ron
Views: 40922 Posts: 1177

2013-06-21 10:20 AM powerman

Gun threads - UPDATE

Started by Ron
Views: 2890 Posts: 2

2013-06-06 12:18 PM Ron
RELATED ARTICLES
date : March 19, 2013
author : AMSSM
comments : 4
The doctor says not to run again. Ever. Needless to say, I’m not taking this very well. Can I recover from this? Where should I go from here?