Gun Control

[Sean Renaud]

Yes the numbers matter. In fact when setting policy absolutely nothing is more important than the numbers. They do not however exist in a vacuum like you're trying to make it out to be.

There are more car owners than gun owners. Car owners (at least employed ones) are likely to drive their car multiple times a week. Your average gun owner is not going do this. So the numbers are not comprable.

As for banning booze we tried that and the cost was simply to high. In short the numbers didn't work out in our favor so we unfucked that.

No matter how you dice this your logic doesn't hold together, certainly not on the math side of things.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I love how divisive this is.....it's either ban or free for all and M'uricuh won't accept ANYTHING short of one or the other.

 

[Mr_Jon_Thon]

Take the guns away from the cops. It'll sort itself out.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I love how divisive this is.....it's either ban or free for all and M'uricuh won't accept ANYTHING short of one or the other.

I simply don't bother to state every time someone brings up that 'x' won't work that I'm not actually supporting a ban on guns. Only pointing out that these arguments don't actually hold.

Take the guns away from the cops. It'll sort itself out.

Why not? One of the primary arguments Republicans attempt to make is that bleeding heart liberals only want the police armed so they can take over the country in a heart beat.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

This is how Nancy Lanza expressed her 2nd Amendment Rights, before her son killed her, six women and twenty children:

The police found a check in the Lanza home for a CZ 83 pistol, which Nancy Lanza intended to give to her son over the holidays, according to a report released by a Connecticut state's attorney. The check’s date section read “Christmas Day.”

“The mother wanted to buy the shooter a CZ 83 pistol for Christmas and had prepared a check for that purchase to give the shooter,” the report reads.

The Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle Lanza used in the elementary school, as well as the four other weapons recovered from the crime scenes, belonged to his mother. She purchased them legally, and had a permit for their use.

 

[Mr_Jon_Thon]

Why not? One of the primary arguments Republicans attempt to make is that bleeding heart liberals only want the police armed so they can take over the country in a heart beat.

That's what the U.N. is for.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

Yes the numbers matter. In fact when setting policy absolutely nothing is more important than the numbers. They do not however exist in a vacuum like you're trying to make it out to be.

There are more car owners than gun owners. Car owners (at least employed ones) are likely to drive their car multiple times a week. Your average gun owner is not going do this. So the numbers are not comprable.

As for banning booze we tried that and the cost was simply to high. In short the numbers didn't work out in our favor so we unfucked that.

No matter how you dice this your logic doesn't hold together, certainly not on the math side of things.

There is no vacuum here on the number. Greater number of cars driven more should lead to a lower number as they have more practice and gave to pass a test to get a license to use the automobile.

Either way you look at it though. The amount of crimes committed is absurdly low compared to the massive amount that are out there in the wild. Guns that never have and never will be used for anything other than target practice at the most. Millions of them.

Sure there is shock value in a single event or a seeming string of them but again the true numbers reveal that it is not the fault of the existence of guns. If it was 5 percent of guns were used maybe you would have apoint. But no, it's not even close to a half of one percent or even a hundredth of one percent.

Given the amount of people, the incidents are aberrations and nothing more. Truly horrific and sad but you cannot blame the existence of guns. It has to lie with the person and society at large instead.

 

[snugglestruggle]

This is how Nancy Lanza expressed her 2nd Amendment Rights, before her son killed her, six women and twenty children:

The police found a check in the Lanza home for a CZ 83 pistol, which Nancy Lanza intended to give to her son over the holidays, according to a report released by a Connecticut state's attorney. The check’s date section read “Christmas Day.”

“The mother wanted to buy the shooter a CZ 83 pistol for Christmas and had prepared a check for that purchase to give the shooter,” the report reads.

The Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle Lanza used in the elementary school, as well as the four other weapons recovered from the crime scenes, belonged to his mother. She purchased them legally, and had a permit for their use.

Your a poster boy for why we can't have a serious discussion on what to do about guns getting into the wrong hands.

She wasn't exercising her 2nd amendment rights. She was an idiot because she let her kid with mental issues have access to guns. It's sad that a bunch of innocent kids died because of her stupidity.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

So idiots do not have 2nd amendment rights?

 

[snugglestruggle]

If you ever filled out form 4473 you would know the answer to that. It sounds like You advocating knowingly giving firearms to the mentally impaired.

Yale warned Lanza's Mother, she ignored the advice

 

[BotanyBoy]

Given the amount of people, the incidents are aberrations and nothing more. Truly horrific and sad but you cannot blame the existence of guns. It has to lie with the person and society at large instead.

If you believe this then you must admit that the government (society at large) has a responsibility to use the instruments at it's disposal (laws/enforcement) to address these issues.

That means gun control.....

So idiots do not have 2nd amendment rights?

You must have missed it the first time....

Your a poster boy for why we can't have a serious discussion on what to do about guns getting into the wrong hands..

I simply don't bother to state every time someone brings up that 'x' won't work that I'm not actually supporting a ban on guns. Only pointing out that these arguments don't actually hold.

Oh I'm not blaming you for it, just pointing out that the conversation never goes anywhere because it ALWAYS....ALWAYS.....gets stuck in a black and white ban/free for all bullshit fest.

Because nothing else could POSSIBLY work right folks? TOTAL ban and TOTAL unregulated free for all are the ONLY two fucking options possible for teh USA right??

God damn ya know what? M'uricuh is so fucking stupid we should just start passing out 9mm and ak's to every man woman and child.....then get rid of all laws because criminals don't listen anyhow.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

If you ever filled out form 4473 you would know the answer to that. It sounds like You advocating knowingly giving firearms to the mentally impaired.

Yale warned Lanza's Mother, she ignored the advice

So you tell me what should be done about "a" Nancy Lanza. As far as I can tell everything with respect to her obtaining firearms was lawful.

 

[I_jerk_off_alot]

I have to say this:

I am not against registration of guns. Hell, I can admit it's a good idea. I even support the new idea where when a new gun is manufactured that test round is fired through it and registered with the FBI so that it's easier to track. That's a great idea.

I even support a mental health notice where guns are taken from the mentally ill when a doctor notifies the state.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So you tell me what should be done about Nancy Lanza. As far as I can tell everything with respect to her obtaining firearms was lawful.

I know! Dig her up and thrash her corpse in a public square while screaming some bullshit about unloaded guns killing billions a second every second of every day.....

 

[snugglestruggle]

Because nothing else could POSSIBLY work right folks? TOTAL ban and TOTAL unregulated free for all are the ONLY two fucking options possible for teh USA right??

:

While I strongly believe in a persons 2nd amendment right to protect their life, property and liberty, I also believe responsibility goes with owning a firearm. For example not giving your mentally disturbed kid access to your guns.

As long as the law does not present too high a hurdle which would make it akin to a burden to owning a firearm (cost prohibitive or regulatory which some anti gun people would do if given the chance as a way to ban guns totally) there is nothing wrong with establishing a criteria for gun ownership. As the laws are now you answer what 4 questions and wait for a y/n from NICS, which is not infallible.

However all this being said you would need honest brokers at the table to hammer out something all could live with that is fair and reasonable. In this day and age that is not going to happen so nothing will change.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

I have to say this:

I am not against registration of guns. Hell, I can admit it's a good idea. I even support the new idea where when a new gun is manufactured that test round is fired through it and registered with the FBI so that it's easier to track. That's a great idea.

I even support a mental health notice where guns are taken from the mentally ill when a doctor notifies the state.

Agreed.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

While I strongly believe in a persons 2nd amendment right to protect their life, property and liberty, I also believe responsibility goes with owning a firearm. For example not giving your mentally disturbed kid access to your guns.

As long as the law does not present too high a hurdle which would make it akin to a burden to owning a firearm (cost prohibitive or regulatory which some anti gun people would do if given the chance as a way to ban guns totally) there is nothing wrong with establishing a criteria for gun ownership. As the laws are now you answer what 4 questions and wait for a y/n from NICS, which is not infallible.

However all this being said you would need honest brokers at the table to hammer out something all could live with that is fair and reasonable. In this day and age that is not going to happen so nothing will change.

You sound like a Bernie Sanders supporter:

On Gun Control
"Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country -- 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle," Sanders said in a CNN interview.

 

[Ham Murabi]

You sound like a Bernie Sanders supporter:

On Gun Control
"Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country -- 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle," Sanders said in a CNN interview.

You might want to read Steve Chapman's latest column on this topic. In it, Chapman points out Sanders is from Vermont, which has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S. It has been years since Vermont had a gun violence event with four or more deaths.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You might want to read Steve Chapman's latest column on this topic. In it, Chapman points out Sanders is from Vermont, which has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S. It has been years since Vermont had a gun violence event with four or more deaths.

I have. What is your point?

 

[Ham Murabi]

I have. What is your point?

That what so many people believe turns out to be untrue.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There is no vacuum here on the number. Greater number of cars driven more should lead to a lower number as they have more practice and gave to pass a test to get a license to use the automobile.

Either way you look at it though. The amount of crimes committed is absurdly low compared to the massive amount that are out there in the wild. Guns that never have and never will be used for anything other than target practice at the most. Millions of them.

Sure there is shock value in a single event or a seeming string of them but again the true numbers reveal that it is not the fault of the existence of guns. If it was 5 percent of guns were used maybe you would have apoint. But no, it's not even close to a half of one percent or even a hundredth of one percent.

Given the amount of people, the incidents are aberrations and nothing more. Truly horrific and sad but you cannot blame the existence of guns. It has to lie with the person and society at large instead.

You're fucking joking right? First while accidents do happen with guns the numbers you listed and I didn't bother adding to because it didn't change my point were from murders those were all intentional. Cars are rarely used as weapons, and the numbers you cited were from accidents which I honestly didn't even think to correct because it didn't matter. No amount of practice saves you from a drunk driver or some fool running a red. It's like hitting the lottery. The sheer number of drivers and amount of time spent behind the wheel should have far more than barely double the number of gun deaths. Sorry but your argument falls apart in the face of common sense.

First you're claiming those guns will be used for nothing but target practice. I'd bet tens or hundreds of thousands will never even be fired, probably not even properly maintained. That's not the point. The point you are trying to make however is my point. Numbers matter. You're unwilling for whateer reason to say that you find the number of gun related deaths acceptable but you're attempting to make that argument.

The percent of guns used in murders (and violence, and threatening people) isn't really the important number here. It's the number of kills they get which is again more than every other way of murder combined. There is no better way. If you're argument is our numbers are low enough to ignore then make your case.

Some of the blame does lie with the individual. The society as a whole tolerates the guns as a regular part of society and supports them. That is the fault of the society and the guns. It's really that fucking simple.

Your a poster boy for why we can't have a serious discussion on what to do about guns getting into the wrong hands.

She wasn't exercising her 2nd amendment rights. She was an idiot because she let her kid with mental issues have access to guns. It's sad that a bunch of innocent kids died because of her stupidity.

She owned a firearm. She didn't give her kid the weapon, he somehow got it. And if I remember properly she got dead. I doubt that was her plan. So yes she was exercising her 2nd Amendment rights. If I was a 52 year old woman in less than stellar shape with a 20 year old man with mental issues that I suspected might have the potential to turn violent you're damn right I'd own a gun. And it wouldn't be locked in a safe either. I've never had someone trying to break down a door a murder me while I fiddle with my safe before but I have had an impatient driver shouting at me while I played with a drive through ATM that wasn't cooperating. IF they are at all similar I'd say the time to open your safe is passed when someone is trying to kill you.

While I strongly believe in a persons 2nd amendment right to protect their life, property and liberty, I also believe responsibility goes with owning a firearm. For example not giving your mentally disturbed kid access to your guns.

As long as the law does not present too high a hurdle which would make it akin to a burden to owning a firearm (cost prohibitive or regulatory which some anti gun people would do if given the chance as a way to ban guns totally) there is nothing wrong with establishing a criteria for gun ownership. As the laws are now you answer what 4 questions and wait for a y/n from NICS, which is not infallible.

However all this being said you would need honest brokers at the table to hammer out something all could live with that is fair and reasonable. In this day and age that is not going to happen so nothing will change.

I don't really give a shit one way or another about the Constitution or anything in it. It's a crutch for bad arguments and a tie breaker for good ones and not a whole lot else. That said own your guns just accept that if we do not strengthen laws that when this shit happens again and it will that the blood is on our hands. (This is the generic you that applies to all people not named me so don't take it personally.)

It's difficult to set laws that provide sufficient protection without being "too high" since that is really subjective. It also undermines a lot of arguments that people make. If the purpose of owning guns is so we can defend ourselves against the government/military should they ever turn on us (which is a laughable concept at best but lets pretend it wasn't) then pretty much any restriction is a bad idea. I mean the government is going to do the testing you think that in the hypothetical world where Obama was putting you in a FEMA camp that he couldn't look at your background and declare you mentally unstable because Suzy wouldn't go with you to prom and she ended up marrying the guy who used to give you wedgies? Or get you arrested for possession of controlled substances with intent to sell? Or any of a long list of ways to get you in check?

I don't think there has ever been a time when you could get "honest brokers" on this thing. Certainly not from the right. A fair amount of the left loves guns only slightly less than the right. Remember we're the side who had a senator shot in the head, survive and pretty much the first things she did when she got better was go shooting not campaign for anything as radical as greater checks on mental health for fucks sake! We're simply irrational.

I wish we'd simply admit we don't care that people die. It's collateral damage. Freedom isn't free and the tree of liberty has to be fed with blood and not just of tyrants. The brave and the innocent have give their pound of flesh for fertilizer as well. We're not sorry, we won't cry, we won't mourn. We'll go out to the range and celebrate what they died so we could appreciate.

 

[BotanyBoy]

*~snipped because space but I agree~*

However all this being said you would need honest brokers at the table to hammer out something all could live with that is fair and reasonable. In this day and age that is not going to happen so nothing will change.

All ties back into the uber partisanship.....

You sound like a Bernie Sanders supporter:

On Gun Control
"Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country -- 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle," Sanders said in a CNN interview.

I think Bernie makes sense and is therefore totally unelectable radical......you will get Hillary Clinton and like it.

You might want to read Steve Chapman's latest column on this topic. In it, Chapman points out Sanders is from Vermont, which has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the U.S. It has been years since Vermont had a gun violence event with four or more deaths.

Vermont is also a low population density with an over all low poverty rate rural ultra white state. Put 15 million people from every walk of life in vermont and make sure 12 million of them can barely afford to feed them fucking selves and I promise it would look little different than every other uber metro area.

Or you can look at a number of countries with outright bans that have practically no gun crime by comparison...Japan for example. But there are more factors to it than that......it's a vastly complex issue and anyone trying to solve it with a sound byte/slogan they don't even understand 3/4 of the time is simply not going to work. No matter how bad the slogan spitters wish it would.

 

[Sean Renaud]

All ties back into the uber partisanship.....



I think Bernie makes sense and is therefore totally unelectable radical......you will get Hillary Clinton and like it.



Vermont is also a low population density with an over all low poverty rate rural ultra white state. Put 15 million people from every walk of life in vermont and make sure 12 million of them can barely afford to feed them fucking selves and I promise it would look little different than every other uber metro area.

Or you can look at a number of countries with outright bans that have practically no gun crime by comparison...Japan for example. But there are more factors to it than that......it's a vastly complex issue and anyone trying to solve it with a sound byte/slogan they don't even understand 3/4 of the time is simply not going to work. No matter how bad the slogan spitters wish it would.

The only way I want Hillary is if she comes with the White House. If we're gonna lose we may as well go big. I'm all about #deeznuts. Don't lie, you can't wait until the pledge is done like this:

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs4/2057154_o.gif​

It is a complex issue. It is worth noting however that just because it splinters off in a bunch of ways doesn't always change the root causes. If you look at Europe and Asia and their entertainment as a whole, video games, movies, children's games etc there is a difference. I don't think you can have kids grow up playing Cops n Robbers or Cowboys and Indians, watching G.I. Joe in a society that elevates guns to a near idolic standard and then be shocked when they think of them as problem solvers.

 

[Ham Murabi]

All ties back into the uber partisanship.....



I think Bernie makes sense and is therefore totally unelectable radical......you will get Hillary Clinton and like it.



Vermont is also a low population density with an over all low poverty rate rural ultra white state. Put 15 million people from every walk of life in vermont and make sure 12 million of them can barely afford to feed them fucking selves and I promise it would look little different than every other uber metro area.

Or you can look at a number of countries with outright bans that have practically no gun crime by comparison...Japan for example. But there are more factors to it than that......it's a vastly complex issue and anyone trying to solve it with a sound byte/slogan they don't even understand 3/4 of the time is simply not going to work. No matter how bad the slogan spitters wish it would.

I never realized my point that Bernie Sanders isn't a gun-grabber was so complex.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The only way I want Hillary is if she comes with the White House. If we're gonna lose we may as well go big. I'm all about #deeznuts. Don't lie, you can't wait until the pledge is done like this:

LOL I don't think her losing is the big loss, I hope she loses when the DNC runs her slime ball used car saleswoman ass....her winning would be the big loss.

Eh...I can't wait till there is no pledge because there is nothing to pledge to. America has bred such a vast quantity of stupidity and ineptitude I'm just waiting for the punch line so I can sit back and laugh.

It is a complex issue. It is worth noting however that just because it splinters off in a bunch of ways doesn't always change the root causes. If you look at Europe and Asia and their entertainment as a whole, video games, movies, children's games etc there is a difference. I don't think you can have kids grow up playing Cops n Robbers or Cowboys and Indians, watching G.I. Joe in a society that elevates guns to a near idolic standard and then be shocked when they think of them as problem solvers.

I never realized my point that Bernie Sanders isn't a gun-grabber was so complex.

It's not the gun issue is...but you want to be a totally obtuse twatcicle about then fine, go die in a fire, and take your fuck trophies with you so they don't continue to ruin the species.