ExiledInIllinois Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 My purpose of saying those are important is simply to point out that they exist and that they mean something. What they mean...whatever. I have my opinion it's known in here it's the most "left" of anyone except Joe Six who goes further than me (I think)...others are on their own level...people come all over the board. But the idea that we don't have the most guns and the most gun violence is not an idea..b/c those are not the facts. And in most discussions about any other topic that means something. For some reason with guns...to some people...it does not. But it should. Even to the most pro-gun people...they need to accept these facts a starting point to discussion whether they want to have the discussion or not. I think they do understand the facts about the violence... They just don't give a ****. It is all about their selfishness and lack of accountability that is most important to the pro-gun owner. They don't care what the !@#$ happens, just don't take their guns away. What should be done? Common laws. Laws without borders. Common jurisdictions. We can debate how far we go with or without gun laws after the commonality issue is resolved. Until then, nothing will be resolved with a patchwork of vastly different ideas trying to out compete each other. Guns will win out. Guns cross jurisdictional borders with or without control laws. Like it or not, we aren't isolated regions anymore... We are becoming more and more unified as one country, interdependent on each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I think This is where I stopped since the rest was inevitably ignorant and likely incoherent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 What in the world does the number of guns owned have to do with anything? A madman walks into a theater and kills people, and the left can't stop yapping about gun control. But when their government intentionally walks "assault" weapons into the hands of the Mexican cartel so they can murder a border agent, the same idiots get embarrassingly quiet. When a white Hispanic guns down a black man in self-defense, there is hell to pay for a man who hunted down a man like an animal and killed him exclusively because of the color of his skin...but have a black gangbanger earning his stripes murder a 6-year-old black girl selling candy on a neighborhood street corner...and you hear crickets. Note to you dumbass liberals and progressive and every other moron who has an opinion about guns: you can't have it both ways. It can't be bad to murder certain Americans and perfectly acceptable to murder others simply because it suits your narrative. Either get it together completely or or the love of all that is holy, STFU about guns. Jesus. Could you idiots be more transparently stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 My purpose of saying those are important is simply to point out that they exist and that they mean something. What they mean...whatever. I have my opinion it's known in here it's the most "left" of anyone except Joe Six who goes further than me (I think)...others are on their own level...people come all over the board. But the idea that we don't have the most guns and the most gun violence is not an idea..b/c those are not the facts. And in most discussions about any other topic that means something. For some reason with guns...to some people...it does not. But it should. Even to the most pro-gun people...they need to accept these facts a starting point to discussion whether they want to have the discussion or not. I still wait your solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) I still wait your solution. Read the thread I've not held back. And btw, I don't have a solution. I don't have the answers to fix healthcare perfectly with one bill, to reduce gun violence the most it can be with a single federal act, to counteract human-influenced climate change, or to help the American economy come out on top in this global down turn. Nobody does. I'm not on an high horse here I really am not. Like every issue though, I do have have an general starting point that I can be moved off of when in discussion (easily). But if you want to know where I'm at mentally to discuss...it's simple. As I see it (only me I'm talking about) there's hunting and protection. Certain guns are commonly used for hunting. Certain guns are carried as concealed weapons and by common street police in most jurisdictions. Anything not used for those purposes seems, to my naive mind, to be overboard. The starting point for my admittedly "liberal" attitude for this discussion is simply that the sale of guns not commonly used for hunting or as carried as concealed weapons by law abiding citizens for protection should be stopped...and furthermore they should be made illegal. That is to say yes, if I were king, I would take those weapons away whatever I determined them to be with the aid of advisers and after debate with those I respected. I am not king. And with good reason. And I'm not God. I don't have some huge answer. But I fail to see at this point, why at the very least there are gun show loop holes, or even federal documented sales of guns that can kill as many people in a minute as a huge bomb. I'm not a gun expert. I'm not a policy expert. I don't claim to have all the answers. But I don't like hearing that it's all about mental health. It isn't all about mental health. That much is obvious. And that is my point. Once the most extreme on both sides of this issue accept this, we can engage in the debate in a way that makes sense. I understand guns don't kill people, but people who want to kill people often use guns. This is common sense. Edited July 30, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) I still wait your solution. Solution's simple Jim and there are other countries to use as models of how to make the transition. But really what's the point offering it to the dirty Harry's in here? Anything that involves giving up guns won't be acceptable. Edited July 30, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Solution's simple Jim and there are other countries to use as models of how to make the transition. But really what's the point offering it to the dirty Harry's in here? Anything that involves giving up guns won't be acceptable. I'm going to admit when Mitt brought up Norway as if he was a message board poster in the Morgan interview I almost threw up. You want to compare Norway to us in gun violence and mass murder? Lets do this Mitt. The lack of follow up was pathetic. No balls. Edited July 30, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 This is where I stopped since the rest was inevitably ignorant and likely incoherent. BS. Why don't you be done and just block me then? That is all you have... As usual, nothing but insults... And the same old copouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I still wait your solution. Do I need to repeat myself? Bah Bah Bah Mitt sucks is not a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Solution's simple Jim and there are other countries to use as models of how to make the transition. But really what's the point offering it to the dirty Harry's in here? Anything that involves giving up guns won't be acceptable. Dirty Harry. Perfect. I get my opinion from a movie I saw once. You go ahead and model the US after other countries. Being the back woods unsophisticated hicks we are I am certain the help will be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 What does everyone think about the intent of the 2nd amendment actually ensuring private citizens the ability to keep and bear arms to protect their freedom from a potential authoritative and freedom restricting government ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 My purpose of saying those are important is simply to point out that they exist and that they mean something. What they mean...whatever. I have my opinion it's known in here it's the most "left" of anyone except Joe Six who goes further than me (I think)...others are on their own level...people come all over the board. But the idea that we don't have the most guns and the most gun violence is not an idea..b/c those are not the facts. And in most discussions about any other topic that means something. For some reason with guns...to some people...it does not. But it should. Even to the most pro-gun people...they need to accept these facts a starting point to discussion whether they want to have the discussion or not. Your analysis requires an arbitrary level of abstraction to hold water. If you're just interested in justifying your opinion that's fine, but if you want to understand this on a meaningful level you have to look a little closer. Take Richmond, VA for example. For years we were among the top 5 cities for highest murder rate per capita. However, roughly 80% of the murders occurred in less than 20% of the city. You could look at the raw numbers & draw a lot of conclusions that don't reflect the reality of the situation. You'd think this was a scary & dangerous place to live, but growing up we never knew or heard of anyone we knew getting shot or murdered even though most of our parents had guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 What does everyone think about the intent of the 2nd amendment actually ensuring private citizens the ability to keep and bear arms to protect their freedom from a potential authoritative and freedom restricting government ? Dem commas, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Your analysis requires an arbitrary level of abstraction to hold water. If you're just interested in justifying your opinion that's fine, but if you want to understand this on a meaningful level you have to look a little closer. Take Richmond, VA for example. For years we were among the top 5 cities for highest murder rate per capita. However, roughly 80% of the murders occurred in less than 20% of the city. You could look at the raw numbers & draw a lot of conclusions that don't reflect the reality of the situation. You'd think this was a scary & dangerous place to live, but growing up we never knew or heard of anyone we knew getting shot or murdered even though most of our parents had guns. We have by far the most guns, and we have the most gun violence. We have the most mass shootings, and it's really easy to get weapons good for mass shootings. This isn't arbitrary abstraction. We're pretty safe right now relative to our past selves...but gun crimes have been increasing over the last decade the only such crime to do so...these stats are arbitrary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Dem commas, man. Posting from my phone...too much effort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 We have by far the most guns, and we have the most gun violence. We have the most mass shootings, and it's really easy to get weapons good for mass shootings. This isn't arbitrary abstraction. We're pretty safe right now relative to our past selves...but gun crimes have been increasing over the last decade the only such crime to do so...these stats are arbitrary? So the only reason gun crimes have been increasing is due to the number of guns we have? You're wanting some kind of legislation based around a statistic without trying to figure out what the real problem is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Posting from my phone...too much effort I didn't mean you. I meant the Second Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Anything not used for those purposes seems, to my naive mind, to be overboard. To me this is the major issue. Do I think there should be come common sense applied to what it manufactured, made available, and able to be purchased? Yes. Hell, we might even agree on what that is. The difference is, I don't want my opinion, or our agreed upon opinion legislated. Because at some point the legislation is no longer based off my opinion. It's based off someone else's that I disagree with. I'm willing to deal with some dangers in society in order to not have that line drawn for me. You apparently are not, that's our real difference of opinion. All the statistics, and comparisons, and other crap isn't relevant. This is the crux of our disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) We have by far the most guns, and we have the most gun violence. We have the most mass shootings, and it's really easy to get weapons good for mass shootings. This isn't arbitrary abstraction. We're pretty safe right now relative to our past selves...but gun crimes have been increasing over the last decade the only such crime to do so...these stats are arbitrary? It's absolutely an arbitrary level of abstraction. You're holding all other variables constant because closer analysis confounds your conclusion. Solution's simple Jim and there are other countries to use as models of how to make the transition. But really what's the point offering it to the dirty Harry's in here? Anything that involves giving up guns won't be acceptable. What's your solution? I must have missed it. Are you suggesting an outright gun ban? If so stop beating around the bush and say it outright. Edited July 30, 2012 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Read the thread I've not held back. And btw, I don't have a solution. I don't have the answers to fix healthcare perfectly with one bill, to reduce gun violence the most it can be with a single federal act, to counteract human-influenced climate change, or to help the American economy come out on top in this global down turn. Nobody does. I'm not on an high horse here I really am not. Like every issue though, I do have have an general starting point that I can be moved off of when in discussion (easily). But if you want to know where I'm at mentally to discuss...it's simple. As I see it (only me I'm talking about) there's hunting and protection. Certain guns are commonly used for hunting. Certain guns are carried as concealed weapons and by common street police in most jurisdictions. Anything not used for those purposes seems, to my naive mind, to be overboard. The starting point for my admittedly "liberal" attitude for this discussion is simply that the sale of guns not commonly used for hunting or as carried as concealed weapons by law abiding citizens for protection should be stopped...and furthermore they should be made illegal. That is to say yes, if I were king, I would take those weapons away whatever I determined them to be with the aid of advisers and after debate with those I respected. I am not king. And with good reason. And I'm not God. I don't have some huge answer. But I fail to see at this point, why at the very least there are gun show loop holes, or even federal documented sales of guns that can kill as many people in a minute as a huge bomb. I'm not a gun expert. I'm not a policy expert. I don't claim to have all the answers. But I don't like hearing that it's all about mental health. It isn't all about mental health. That much is obvious. And that is my point. Once the most extreme on both sides of this issue accept this, we can engage in the debate in a way that makes sense. I understand guns don't kill people, but people who want to kill people often use guns. This is common sense. So you are for confiscation then. And how would you go about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts