Freedumb

[bronzeage]

Well for sure there are a lot of people who think the right to carry guns is really important. So then I have a question for you. Say your innocent child gets killed in a mass shooting at their school and you have to bury them. Are you going to accept that murder in exchange for your right, and that of everyone else, to carry a gun?

Seems like too high a price to pay.

Of course, this point can be countered with the need to find another way to prevent the death of your child other than banning many sorts of guns etc etc., but what is that other way and is it really viable?

It sounds bad when you put it that way.

However, plenty of kids, innocent and the other kind, have been killed at school and we have not changed a thing. What seems like too high a price is the price we paid, and we will pay it again.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You can't compare Alaska to California for gun violence or really nearly anything it's unfair to all involved.

'
Tell it to Aglaopheme shes' the one that pointed it out and said 'look more guns = more crime".

That being said California has higher rates of poverty than Alaska does. It's a lot more racially diverse than Alaska. The population density isn't even comparible.

OHHHHHH SO IT IS NOT, JUST MORE GUNZ = MORE CRIME NOW IS IT?

And we've been over this multiple times. Crime is down across the nation.

Again you prove my point....if more guns = more crime then crime should be skyrocketing right now because record sales since 2009 just going up and up and up.

So once again it's a BIT more complicated than 'more guns = more crime'....

In order for your argument to hold true one thing is necessary. If when EVERYTHING ELSE is exactly the same for equal or more people to be shot in an environment with guns than without.

You already agreed with me....it's more complicated than 'more guns = more crime'

I can sit here all day and point out various ways that's demonstrably false.

Anything else and your argument is simply incorrect.

Sorry, it's simply not. Even you agree....

 

[Sean Renaud]

Except I didn't. No amount of complexity changed the fact that more guns=more violence. You cannot have gun violence without guns. That right there makes your entire argument false. We can debate on if it leads to more or less violence over all or more or less crime over all if we want to dig into the minutae but the simple fact remains.

 

[OjosMojo]

Always reads like the Olsen twins jousting with pygmy dildos.

 

[richard_daily]

Depends on how often kids are getting killed at my school with kitchen knives. If kids were getting killed on a monthly basis at my school you're damn right I'd push to heavily restrict kitchen knives by any means possible.

This isn't an accident, and it's not a tragedy when you can remember the last time it happened. It's Tuesday. What is gross is not "using" the situation to push your agenda. This idiotic ideal only holds in America and only for guns. Two planes hitting some buildings meant the time for talking about massive security and freedom changes wasn't even necessary. We demanded immediate action. (Whether those actions were correct or not is beside the point.) Sharks get a handful of kills world wide annually. Let one be spotted near a beach and see the hoops people jump through. Look at all the research that goes into preventing shark attacks for that matter. I remember a banking tragedy about eight years ago. . .seems it wasn't too soon to talk about that either.

Guns are unique. We don't want to have the conversation. And that's fine but lets be honest. We like guns. We accept the blood on our hands. We understand that for our freedom people will die and some of them will be children and it's worth it. When mass shootings happen so often they don't even make the news if they don't do something more impressive than kill four people we can't not use the tragedy to push an agenda because there is always a fresh tragedy. The bodies are never cold because we pile them too quickly for that.

You're getting overly emotional here.

The "blood" isn't on my hands anymore than the blood is on my hands for Herzegovina or Ukraine, or Tienanmen Square. If you want to take a noble stand for humanity, accept that tacit American consumerism kills a lot more people than random US gun violence ever has.

Guns aren't unique in the way you're framing it. You're attempting to frame it as unique so that you can attempt to discuss it in a vacuum that doesn't actually exist.

Name these schools where gun violence happens every week. We're hearing different shootings at different schools every week because it's being overly reported on, and because there's a bias and an agenda behind that bias.

I had several stabbings at my high school over the time I was there. Only one incident of a kid getting arrested for having a gun, and it was a fully automatic Mac 10. None of it was reported in the local or national newspaper, but if the mac 10 was brought to class in a duffle bag by a Latin King, it would be national news... the stabbings however, wouldn't be.

I think your analogy of the Patriot Act is a fair one. Do you think that we should have enacted such broad reaching and heavy handed tactics to deal with a small group of individuals that were created by the CIA to fight the soviets in Afghanistan?

 

[richard_daily]

Except I didn't. No amount of complexity changed the fact that more guns=more violence. You cannot have gun violence without guns. That right there makes your entire argument false. We can debate on if it leads to more or less violence over all or more or less crime over all if we want to dig into the minutae but the simple fact remains.

So which is it?

If more guns = more violence, how come crime is down, yet we have more guns in this country than we ever have had?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[phrodeau]

Please stop pretending like you care about kid's lives. This is identity politics.

At least kids are harder to hit with a bullet. The Tennessee 5th-grader used a shotgun.

 

[about_average]

Did you stop reading my post after those two sentences?

No, but I quoted the relevant part, that more guns will always lead to more gun violence, no matter who owns them.

I've no idea what may or may not cause you to decide to shoot someone.

Yet your statement was that the mere fact of me buying more means I will shoot someone.

 

[about_average]

There may be some strange cases where more guns =/= more violence but realistically more guns equal more violence and you have to be simply denying reality to claim otherwise.

The statement was that no matter who owns them having more will mean more gun violence. That's BS or ignorance.

Yep. Zero guns=zero gun deaths.

True, but in many cases it would equal some other death.
In this case it likely would have ended in 3 crowbar deaths.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia...uder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/

 

[BotanyBoy]

Except I didn't.

If more guns = more gun violence then explain this excuse??

That being said California has higher rates of poverty than Alaska does. It's a lot more racially diverse than Alaska. The population density isn't even comparible.

I thought more gunz = more crime???

CA haz moar gunz!! why is AK more violent?

You think maybe environment, economy and cultural demographics might have a say so?

You think that might be the reason more guns doesn't always mean more violence??

How about this, I'll compromise with liburhul pride here.....let's call "more guns=more violence" a half truth, because there's a whole lot of situations where it doesn't hold up the fuck at all.

No amount of complexity changed the fact that more guns=more violence.

That's not a fact and if it were crime would be skyrocketing with gun sales.

I'm sorry the slogan for the simpletons is just not the all encompassing eval/solution to America's gun issues the line toeing left wishes it was, it's more fuckin' complicated than that.

You cannot have gun violence without guns.

That's the problem here, you are arguing both points as if they were one and they are not the same argument.

More/less implies rather explicitly that there is a gun presence in some capacity, as it should be because guns are fucking everywhere and so is gun violence. It's sure as shit more rarefied in pretty much every other modern nation, but it's still there too. Now that we've established that"without guns" is a fantasy that doesn't exist....we can just quit with those nonsense arguments yea?

If more guns=more violence then why is CA not more violent than AK?

How come gun free zones get shot up so much more often than gun ranges/shows/shops??

How do cops and the military even function?

Why is crime in my gun happy county practically unheard of just like shit tons of other gun happy communities?

We can debate on if it leads to more or less violence over all or more or less crime over all if we want to dig into the minutae but the simple fact remains.

That's the only real argument, guns are everywhere, gun violence happens everywhere. It's just a matter of frequency. Any of the absolutes dealing with everyone armed or no guns at all is just dishonest bullshitting.

 

[about_average]

Two planes hitting some buildings meant the time for talking about massive security and freedom changes wasn't even necessary. We demanded immediate action.

Only because the vast majority of the population are idiots and want feel good solutions rather than something that actually protects them.
And it's still going on. People feel safer with full body scanners even though your odds of actually dying from cancer caused by the scan is greater than the odds of your plane being blown up by terrorists.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're getting overly emotional here.

The "blood" isn't on my hands anymore than the blood is on my hands for Herzegovina or Ukraine, or Tienanmen Square. If you want to take a noble stand for humanity, accept that tacit American consumerism kills a lot more people than random US gun violence ever has.

Guns aren't unique in the way you're framing it. You're attempting to frame it as unique so that you can attempt to discuss it in a vacuum that doesn't actually exist.

Name these schools where gun violence happens every week. We're hearing different shootings at different schools every week because it's being overly reported on, and because there's a bias and an agenda behind that bias.

I had several stabbings at my high school over the time I was there. Only one incident of a kid getting arrested for having a gun, and it was a fully automatic Mac 10. None of it was reported in the local or national newspaper, but if the mac 10 was brought to class in a duffle bag by a Latin King, it would be national news... the stabbings however, wouldn't be.

I think your analogy of the Patriot Act is a fair one. Do you think that we should have enacted such broad reaching and heavy handed tactics to deal with a small group of individuals that were created by the CIA to fight the soviets in Afghanistan?

No, I'm getting factual here. The blood is on your hands and you can pretend it's not but that doesn't change the facts one iota.

Yes. Guns are exactly unique in the way that I'm framing it. Name one other thing fatal or not that happens in the US where we en masse say "You can't have that conversation right now." As I mentioned it's not terrorism. It's not sharks. It's not drugs. While ultimately the conversation may have amounted to "he's a rap star whatcha gonna do?" It wasn't Chris Brown beating Rhianna. Please enlighten me to these other subjects where the argument is "please not right now."

I didn't say there were schools where shooting were happening every week. That's your own addition to the argument.

I call bullshit on your school. If stabbings at a school didn't make it to the paper they were some combination of so incredibly non-threatening and your school is located somewhere between Mordor and Hell. The local paper generally covers fatal car accidents for fucks sake.

Now the nationals you have to be pretty goddamn good to get to the nationals. Just being a mass shooter (4 or more) doesn't get you coverage at that level. They need to be kids or or news reporters or caught on camera or something.

No, I don't think our reaction to 9/11 was appropriate. I think we grossly over reacted in a number of ways. The Patriot Act goes to far and while we've dialed it back a bit there is more that needs doing. Gitmo is a stain on our country. The TSA is out of fucking hand. The militarization of the police can at least in part be blamed on them getting all sorts of neat toys from Iraq. I could go on on and on.

The importance of 9/11 was there was nobody saying "Hey we can't discuss this! The bodies aren't even cold yet! You can't politicize this for to further your political ideals! That's disgusting!" Nope we declared war. . .and then did it again on perhaps not an innocent man but all evidence (Even at the time) was innocent of any involvement with that attack. Which was my only point.

Can you please direct me tot he people saying it's too soon to go after the auto industry for the people who died from faulty ignition switches? Or did that not happen either. Maybe you're talking about the BP oil spill. Was that the time?

The debate we're having isn't about if people always react appropriately. They don't either on an individual basis nor on a mass basis. When it comes to regulations and this is pretty much universal, you cannot have a conversation without blood. If we go a full year without any gun violence well what conversation is there to have except "Good job everybody!" We can't talk about regulating banks or Wall Street except in the midst of a melt down. (Lets be honest, anything Obama didn't do prior to 2010 on that isn't getting done until 2024 04 or so at the earliest. And that's just because recessions do seem to hit on a quasi regular basis. Regular enough that I wouldn't be shocked if 2024 has at least a mild recession. Same goes for drunk driving, AIDS or for that matter whatever teh new drug turns out to be. People don't regulate things that aren't causing problems and we have fairly short attention spans.

I'm not particularly against guns. Personally I'd happily have the government personally give everybody a rifle and shotgun as your 18th birthday gift from the government along with classes on how to use them on a regular basis. I very well might ban handguns or at least seriously restrict them given same omnipotence. However all the arguments people make for guns are ignorant.

And yes I accept that the blood is on my hands as well. If I don't like it I can vote for people who will ban firearms. Until I do that however I don't really get to bitch. Same way I don't get to bitch about DUIs if I won't strengthen laws somewhere. Outlawing liquor. . .well it turns out the flip side of that costs more lives and money than dealing with it otherways. We could probably extend public transportation though. . .regardless the number of people dying to DUIs is acceptable for the right to drive cars and drink (seperately). The number of people gunned down either intentionally or accidentally are acceptable (to me) in exchange for me having a gun if something stupid should happen. I don't really care that the stats clearly show that I'm more likely to kill someone I like than protect myself or that it could be my sister, brother, father, niece or even me who dies for this freedom. That's the cost associated with it and I accept it.

When they say Freedom isn't Free it shouldn't really be about our military. It's about the loss of safety.

 

[about_average]

Name one other thing fatal or not that happens in the US where we en masse say "You can't have that conversation right now."

The death and destruction, lives destroyed and money wasted by the War on Drugs.
There's a lot more discussion about guns than there is about the War on Drugs.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The death and destruction, lives destroyed and money wasted by the War on Drugs.
There's a lot more discussion about guns than there is about the War on Drugs.

Really only in legal constructs.

Where the meat hits the metal it's the same shit.

It's a commodity that people want and others want banned because of the commodities collateral damage......like most things there is a certain degree of cost/benefit analysis and we as a group decide if the benefit is worth the cost.

But then we interject the constitution and the whole 2/3's thingy, then states rights and all the other rights and restrictions and holy fuck before you know it the bewwshit is miles deep.

Like the fact that the pro gun camp is having every bit as hard of a time arguing there is no gun problem in the US as the anti gun crowd is having getting the super majority mob rule butt fuck together for the pro gun camp.

I tell you this much though they try and treat guns like they have been treating drugs? Ho Lee Phuck bro.....I tell yew whut man.....it's going to make the drug war look like a fuckin' sorority party.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The death and destruction, lives destroyed and money wasted by the War on Drugs.
There's a lot more discussion about guns than there is about the War on Drugs.

For starters you're talking about something that is on the other end of the spectrum. Literally. The blood and gold wasted in the War on Drugs is largely wasted on imprisoning people who shouldn't be imprisoned and the damage done to their families because of it. Every time a new drug pops up like say X or Bath Salts we have a conversation on if they should be legal and generally we come to some degree of "no they shouldn't be legal." Whether or not that is the proper response is another topic.

When it comes to legalizing drugs or at least relaxing the War on Drugs there isn't any similar teachable moment really. There is no Little Tim or Orphan Annie to parade in front of the media to get a conversation started. And worse if there was his name would be Ben Carson (dont' know why his father was absent just that he was before someone googles and claims he died at war or went out for a pack of cigarettes said 'smell ya later' and never smelled him again.) and all we'd talk about would be how with hard work, perseverance (and some Affirmative Action) you can become a world class neurosurgeon. Not that this is the result of broken families.

I'm not saying we talk about ending the War on Drugs half as much as we should. IT's pretty much a taboo subject but in an entirely different way. I don't think it's split nearly as evenly as gun control is and even if it were my point here is that every couple of months we have a major shooting incident. Then the evil pussy librulz talk about gun control (I'm not sure how much I think they buy it. It seems just as likely they are going through the motions as not) and the Republicans say "Show some respect! You can't talk about gun control right after a tragedy! Keep it classy!" The subject is then tabled. . .on average for three to six months when the look begins again.

 

[about_average]

But there are Little Tim stories, they just, very rarely, make the news.
Because of the war on drugs people can have their assets seized and not returned without ever being charged with a crime. If you can't prove you're not involved in drugs (how do you prove a negative?) you'll never see your money, car, house, etc. again.
But it's the war on drugs so we're not allowed to debate it. People don't give a shit about Little Tim who has to live on the street because of it.

There's a lot of conversation (albeit going pretty much nowhere) about guns, but there's essentially zero conversation about the war on drugs. We're not allowed the conversation because that would be soft on crime.

Not to mention the fact that much of the gun violence stems directly from the war on drugs.

 

[Lancecastor]

The death and destruction, lives destroyed and money wasted by the War on Drugs.
There's a lot more discussion about guns than there is about the War on Drugs.

The War on Drugs needs a makeover.

Make it an Economic Crime.

Things that are "bad" for your health will be abolished not because of their being illegal, but because of their Cost to society in terms of justice, health care, lost productivity, etc.

Likewise, drugs and guns become Economic Crimes by virtue of skirting the Taxes needed to fund the social programs their use generates.

Similarly, international money laundering and tax havens....Economic Crimes.

Buying things online to avoid jurisdictional Taxes...Economic Crimes.

Economic Crimes will be punished by Fines, not Incarceration.

 

[Aglaopheme]

The statement was that no matter who owns them having more will mean more gun violence. That's BS or ignorance.

True, but in many cases it would equal some other death.
In this case it likely would have ended in 3 crowbar deaths.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia...uder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/

I never said "no matter who owns them" or you in particular, I said exactly the opposite. I've already pointed this out. Nor did I ever say I'm advocating for zero guns.

Of course my statement was oversimplified. It was a sarcastic off the cuff remark. Oversimplified, sarcastic and true.

As for the war on drugs, here there seems to be some potential for some bipartisan movement.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-sentencing-20151007-story.html

 

[Sean Renaud]

But there are Little Tim stories, they just, very rarely, make the news.
Because of the war on drugs people can have their assets seized and not returned without ever being charged with a crime. If you can't prove you're not involved in drugs (how do you prove a negative?) you'll never see your money, car, house, etc. again.
But it's the war on drugs so we're not allowed to debate it. People don't give a shit about Little Tim who has to live on the street because of it.

There's a lot of conversation (albeit going pretty much nowhere) about guns, but there's essentially zero conversation about the war on drugs. We're not allowed the conversation because that would be soft on crime.

Not to mention the fact that much of the gun violence stems directly from the war on drugs.

Again, please show me who is saying we cannot have the conversation. Not that we aren't having it. We aren't having the conversatioin. We aren't having the conversation on the War on Terror or the growing income and wealth gaps either but nobody is saying we can't, we simply don't.

It being soft on crime is a halfway descent argument but nobody brings that up. It's perhaps an unsaid part of the conversation. Like why we don't cut Social Security, but we have that talk every couple of years combined with how it will go bankrupt in five years (and never seems to manage it) but we can have the conversation.

A fair amount of the gun violence does stem from the war on drugs. (Though seeing how many are among friends and family It's clearly not the biggest influence.) I don't deny that. I don't deny that there are a lot of things, things we could probably get a lot of people behind that would do wonders to decease gun violence.

You can claim the Little Tim stories don't make the news which is probably true but that would be because first they are boring, and two as I pointed out we only cover the triumph stories not the boring statistics. When someone is the third generation of their family sent to jail for grand theft, it makes the national news and then we have people saying "We can't talk about changing the justice system! His family is still reeling from the results!" You'd have a point.

 

[richard_daily]

What's next? Are you going to trot out the large placards of dead babies and call me a murderer?

You're seriously delving into God Hates Fags territory now.

We definitely had a quieting of descent after 9/11, and if you don't remember that, I can provide you with a huge amount of examples.

The general consensus there was that the nation needed to act, and act now... there wasn't time for rational conversation, much in the way that you're declaring that we need to act and act now. As you admitted, the reaction to 9/11 was heavy handed and over-reaching, and that's exactly what you're advocating here.

You're saying handguns should be banned. Does that include for police officers and military?

I have conceal-carry permits and sometimes carry large amounts of cash on me due to my job, and I travel to neighborhoods that you probably wouldn't go to. Should I give up the right to defend myself and depend on 9-11 whose response time in those areas is upwards of 45 minutes?

Youre saying that blood is on my hands because I believe in the right to defend myself and other innocent people is a false equivalency, unless you're advocating my right to carry a rifle or shotgun in an open carry situation, which I wouldn't personally do because I feel it's threatening and confrontational.

You can call bullshit on my school all you want, but it's the truth. I grew up in the inner city and I'm not the only one that can share experiences like this, and my school isnt' the only place where it is under-reported. Stabbings don't fit a narrative, and white flight had already happened by the time I was in school.

The media tends to focus on sensationalized reports that are designed to strike fear into the populace, and that fear is then often used to pass bills that are against the interest of the populace; ie the Patriot Act.

There was no real justification for that law, but the wool was pulled over the people's eyes with it.

This is the exact same thing, and you're buying into it.

No, I'm getting factual here. The blood is on your hands and you can pretend it's not but that doesn't change the facts one iota.

Yes. Guns are exactly unique in the way that I'm framing it. Name one other thing fatal or not that happens in the US where we en masse say "You can't have that conversation right now." As I mentioned it's not terrorism. It's not sharks. It's not drugs. While ultimately the conversation may have amounted to "he's a rap star whatcha gonna do?" It wasn't Chris Brown beating Rhianna. Please enlighten me to these other subjects where the argument is "please not right now."

I didn't say there were schools where shooting were happening every week. That's your own addition to the argument.

I call bullshit on your school. If stabbings at a school didn't make it to the paper they were some combination of so incredibly non-threatening and your school is located somewhere between Mordor and Hell. The local paper generally covers fatal car accidents for fucks sake.

Now the nationals you have to be pretty goddamn good to get to the nationals. Just being a mass shooter (4 or more) doesn't get you coverage at that level. They need to be kids or or news reporters or caught on camera or something.

No, I don't think our reaction to 9/11 was appropriate. I think we grossly over reacted in a number of ways. The Patriot Act goes to far and while we've dialed it back a bit there is more that needs doing. Gitmo is a stain on our country. The TSA is out of fucking hand. The militarization of the police can at least in part be blamed on them getting all sorts of neat toys from Iraq. I could go on on and on.

The importance of 9/11 was there was nobody saying "Hey we can't discuss this! The bodies aren't even cold yet! You can't politicize this for to further your political ideals! That's disgusting!" Nope we declared war. . .and then did it again on perhaps not an innocent man but all evidence (Even at the time) was innocent of any involvement with that attack. Which was my only point.

Can you please direct me tot he people saying it's too soon to go after the auto industry for the people who died from faulty ignition switches? Or did that not happen either. Maybe you're talking about the BP oil spill. Was that the time?

The debate we're having isn't about if people always react appropriately. They don't either on an individual basis nor on a mass basis. When it comes to regulations and this is pretty much universal, you cannot have a conversation without blood. If we go a full year without any gun violence well what conversation is there to have except "Good job everybody!" We can't talk about regulating banks or Wall Street except in the midst of a melt down. (Lets be honest, anything Obama didn't do prior to 2010 on that isn't getting done until 2024 04 or so at the earliest. And that's just because recessions do seem to hit on a quasi regular basis. Regular enough that I wouldn't be shocked if 2024 has at least a mild recession. Same goes for drunk driving, AIDS or for that matter whatever teh new drug turns out to be. People don't regulate things that aren't causing problems and we have fairly short attention spans.

I'm not particularly against guns. Personally I'd happily have the government personally give everybody a rifle and shotgun as your 18th birthday gift from the government along with classes on how to use them on a regular basis. I very well might ban handguns or at least seriously restrict them given same omnipotence. However all the arguments people make for guns are ignorant.

And yes I accept that the blood is on my hands as well. If I don't like it I can vote for people who will ban firearms. Until I do that however I don't really get to bitch. Same way I don't get to bitch about DUIs if I won't strengthen laws somewhere. Outlawing liquor. . .well it turns out the flip side of that costs more lives and money than dealing with it otherways. We could probably extend public transportation though. . .regardless the number of people dying to DUIs is acceptable for the right to drive cars and drink (seperately). The number of people gunned down either intentionally or accidentally are acceptable (to me) in exchange for me having a gun if something stupid should happen. I don't really care that the stats clearly show that I'm more likely to kill someone I like than protect myself or that it could be my sister, brother, father, niece or even me who dies for this freedom. That's the cost associated with it and I accept it.

When they say Freedom isn't Free it shouldn't really be about our military. It's about the loss of safety.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

11-year-old boy accused of shooting, killing 8-year-old neighbor after disagreement over puppy

But, if the 8 year old girl had a gun, then she could have shot the 11 year old boy before he shot her, because she did not want him to pet her puppy. Do you see how Freedumb works?

God Bless America, and pass the ammunition. Amen.

yes because the gun is the murder. regard

 

[phrodeau]

(edited)

I have conceal-carry permits and sometimes carry large amounts of cash on me due to my job, and I travel to neighborhoods that you probably wouldn't go to. Should I give up the right to defend myself and depend on 9-11 whose response time in those areas is upwards of 45 minutes?

Sounds like you're a drug dealer, so yeah.

 

[richard_daily]

Here's the problem with the arguments that everyone is making for gun control within this thread... the general consensus seems to be:

"Why are there schools shootings?"

and the answer that the people against guns are coming up with is "guns".

The real reasons that there are school shootings don't come from the fact that there are guns, they stem from a long list of complicated problems that involve class privilege and wealth inequality, lack of jobs, lack of opportunity, and lack of access to health care.

People don't just pick up a gun and go shoot people simply because there's a gun available, anymore than someone doesn't just take their car and go run into a crowd of pedestrians simply because there's a crowd of pedestrians there and they're in a car.

You can't stop people from acting crazy if you're simultaneously lowering the real wage and replacing decent paying jobs with shit paying service industry jobs.

You can provide more opportunity and equality across the spectrum in this country, and that would have a larger impact than any of the arguments that we're having in this thread.

One only need look at the failed attempts at gun control throughout the 90s for proof of that the line of argument that some people are advocating in this thread simply does not work.

The AWB, and handgun bans don't work. Look at Chicago, DC, LA, Baltimore, and NYC for clear examples of that. The FBI stats are available online for anyone who wants to look at them. I'd be happy to share them with interested parties.

 

[richard_daily]

Sounds like you're a drug dealer, so yeah.

Worse... I'm a landlord.