Fezmid Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Think I'm kidding? Dog kills man. Subway kills man. Refused change, homeless man kills with baseball bat. Children killed while swimming. Children killed by drones. oops, that should be part of Homeland. People killed by waterspout. Help us BO! Help us! Help us, help us, help us! We're in danger! We need more laws to protect us. For Gosh's sake man, do something! We need to ban balloons too. Seriously, balloons don't have any real purpose other than to float around. Think of the children! https://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=236029 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Don't forget to ban cell phones and sandwiches also.... http://downtownwilmington.wect.com/news/crime/60884-prosecutors-teen-killed-cell-phone-10-and-sandwich-suspect-speaks-out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 What Closing the Gun-Show Loophole Won’t Do It is an article of faith that closing the “gun-show loophole” would make America a safer place. But that is what it is: faith. In 2008, three criminologists (one of them not at all friendly to guns) studied the effects on murder and suicide rates in California (which prohibits private sales without a background check) and Texas (which does not). They looked at homicide and suicide rates for adjacent ZIP codes for a week after gun shows. They found no change in suicide rates, and in Texas, which has no restrictions on private party sales, a small but statistically significant reduction in gun homicides. This might seem surprising, and at first glance, it is. Except for one little detail: Criminals appear not to buy guns at gun shows, because guns are expensive. It is so much cheaper to steal guns instead. At Newtown, the killer first murdered his mother to steal the gun. At Clackamas Mall in Oregon in December, the shooter used a rifle he’d acquired by stealing it from a friend. In April of 2007, David Logsdon of Kansas City, Mo., murdered his neighbor and stole her late husband’s rifle for a mass murder. I do not have a serious problem with requiring all firearms sales to go through a background check. But I do have a serious problem with pretending that this is going to make much of a difference in murder rates. You want to do something about murder? Look at the typical murders — not the highly atypical ones. . "I do not have a serious problem with requiring all firearms sales to go through a background check" I DO have a problem with requiring background checks on private sales. How could the law be enforced unless ALL guns where registered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 (edited) Not outwardly, that would defeat the purpose. They act real sad, and probably even convince themselves that they're really devastated by the whole thing, but at the same time this growing happiness wells up in them at the realization that this will be great PR for their anti-gun movement. I just don't believe that someone could simultaneously be as moved by this situation as so many of these guys pretend to be, and at the same time so shamelessly exploit it to further their own ends. C'mon man...I have been hearing since January of 2008 that Barack Obama is "coming to take all of our guns"... this is hardly the first opportunity anti-gun people would have had to "politicize" their point of view. You consider this "politicizing", while others might see it as an opportunity to give some meaning to such a hideous act. If you only know libs who were doing internal somersaults than I am sorry for you...you are surrounded by ****ty people. The impression many on the advocacy side are giving is that their right to have a few toys and gadgets is more important than the safety of some kids. I would really give some thought to questioning how bad people feel about something like this. In the immediate aftermath of this event, I remember hearing just as many on the gun advocacy side, like you, saying "this is just the excuse they are going to have to take our guns." Like they had to take the first swing, to make this political. From all the polls I have seen (I know, polls aren't an exact science) it seems as though most Americans are on the side of more gun control. And I know, like you have posted elsewhere, you are at least willing to acknowledge that some more restrictions might not be the worst idea. I haven't heard anyone from the NRA, or any other national gun advocates acknowledge this...none. It is just, "don't mess with me, or you'll be sorry". As I see it, there is a fair amount of politicizing on both sides of this issue. Edited January 16, 2013 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) C'mon man...I have been hearing since January of 2008 that Barack Obama is "coming to take all of our guns"... this is hardly the first opportunity anti-gun people would have had to "politicize" their point of view. You consider this "politicizing", while others might see it as an opportunity to give some meaning to such a hideous act. If you only know libs who were doing internal somersaults than I am sorry for you...you are surrounded by ****ty people. The impression many on the advocacy side are giving is that their right to have a few toys and gadgets is more important than the safety of some kids. I would really give some thought to questioning how bad people feel about something like this. In the immediate aftermath of this event, I remember hearing just as many on the gun advocacy side, like you, saying "this is just the excuse they are going to have to take our guns." Like they had to take the first swing, to make this political. From all the polls I have seen (I know, polls aren't an exact science) it seems as though most Americans are on the side of more gun control. And I know, like you have posted elsewhere, you are at least willing to acknowledge that some more restrictions might not be the worst idea. I haven't heard anyone from the NRA, or any other national gun advocates acknowledge this...none. It is just, "don't mess with me, or you'll be sorry". As I see it, there is a fair amount of politicizing on both sides of this issue. I don't have a problem with politicizing it, but rather with exploiting it. The people who said Obama was coming after their guns, & were scoffed at for it, have now been vindicated because he waited for this opportunity & then jumped on it. This incident is not an objectively significant reason to change gun policy. There's nothing objectively different about the gun debate since Sandy Hook other than they now have an anecdotal incident to yank at heart strings. It's always horrible when children are killed but this case is poorly suited to base a gun control argument b/c there's little evidence any proposed gun laws would have made a difference, and in a country of 300,000,000 people national policy, especially that which raises constitutional questions, should not be undertaken on an incident like this. But make no mistake, this incident is the catalyst for all of this. Also, I don't advocate additional gun regulation, I just stated that some regulation is proper. Also, anyone who thinks this is about keeping toys really doesn't get it. Edited January 17, 2013 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I'm waiting for the uber liberal Physchiatric industry to declare that anyone that wants to own a gun is mentally ill and for the President to approve $billions in research grants to the pharm companies to develop a drug that suppresses the desire to own or shoot a gun. Bring back Qualudes!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 C'mon man...I have been hearing since January of 2008 that Barack Obama is "coming to take all of our guns"... this is hardly the first opportunity anti-gun people would have had to "politicize" their point of view. You consider this "politicizing", while others might see it as an opportunity to give some meaning to such a hideous act. If you only know libs who were doing internal somersaults than I am sorry for you...you are surrounded by ****ty people. The impression many on the advocacy side are giving is that their right to have a few toys and gadgets is more important than the safety of some kids. I would really give some thought to questioning how bad people feel about something like this. In the immediate aftermath of this event, I remember hearing just as many on the gun advocacy side, like you, saying "this is just the excuse they are going to have to take our guns." Like they had to take the first swing, to make this political. From all the polls I have seen (I know, polls aren't an exact science) it seems as though most Americans are on the side of more gun control. And I know, like you have posted elsewhere, you are at least willing to acknowledge that some more restrictions might not be the worst idea. I haven't heard anyone from the NRA, or any other national gun advocates acknowledge this...none. It is just, "don't mess with me, or you'll be sorry". As I see it, there is a fair amount of politicizing on both sides of this issue. So, the 2nd Amendment is about toys & gadgets? This is why there is such a large disconnect on this subject. You advocate for more gun owner inconvenience by mocking the Constitution, rather than looking for solutions that would actually solve or lessen the problem. Now in reality, Obama's proposals won't do a damn thing to reduce killing. If Obama was serious (and in extension, his disciples) then maybe reducing speed limits, doing away with ethanol or bringing back DDT would go alot further in reducing deaths in this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 here's the real reason for all the arguing, lobbying and strong-arming http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/u-firearms-industry-inside-numbers-184833993.html. isn't it always? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 It absolutely does not sound that way to any reasonable thinking person. A war against police officers would be to actively stalk them out in order to perpetrate violence against them. What is actually being described is an instance in which police officers are engaging in a proactive war against gun owning citizens. Absolutely incorrect on every level. The law doesn't create rights, it either protects them or infringes upon them. Your argument logically leads to the notion that women living under Sharia Law aren't being abused, because the law has decided they are not. It pardons the forced labor camps of Myanmar. It justifies slavery, and shouts down the women's lib movement. Rights are a philisophical construct that exist independant of law, and any law which deprives a man of his natural rights is unjust, and should be opposed as such. No, it wouldn't be murder. Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning, and your example doesn't meet it. Self defense is not murder. Defending your property against an aggressor is not murder. It is killing, but all killing is not murder. I'll buttress this point by repeating something I said earlier in this thread: "The Freedom of Speech is not protected by the Constitution, the Congress, or the Supreme Court. Nor is it protected by your voice or your opinion. Similarly, your Freedom of the Press and your Right to Peaceably Assemble or The Freedom of Associate are not safeguarded by the pen and your desire to spend time with others of your choosing respectively. Your Freedom of Religion is not shielded by your faith. Your Right to Travel is not insured by your legs. Your Right to Vote is not guarenteed by your ballot. And even more to the point... your Right to Bear Arms is not protected by the Second Amendment. All of these rights we hold dear, every last solitary one of them, are defended by guns and the men and women willing to use them in that defense, who value the concept of freedom for their children more than they value their own lives." Given that we live in a world that is conducting an assault on my second amendment rights, how does it make one a lunitic to be concerned that other rights may be next, given that they are already attempting to take from me my right to defend them? aaaaand... /crickets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 (edited) I don't have a problem with politicizing it, but rather with exploiting it. The people who said Obama was coming after their guns, & were scoffed at for it, have now been vindicated because he waited for this opportunity & then jumped on it. This incident is not an objectively significant reason to change gun policy. There's nothing objectively different about the gun debate since Sandy Hook other than they now have an anecdotal incident to yank at heart strings. It's always horrible when children are killed but this case is poorly suited to base a gun control argument b/c there's little evidence any proposed gun laws would have made a difference, and in a country of 300,000,000 people national policy, especially that which raises constitutional questions, should not be undertaken on an incident like this. But make no mistake, this incident is the catalyst for all of this. Also, I don't advocate additional gun regulation, I just stated that some regulation is proper. Also, anyone who thinks this is about keeping toys really doesn't get it. Okay...sorry, didn't mean to mis-characterize your stance by using the word "additional" instead of "some". I guess enforcing the laws we already have in place would be a place to start. Has anyone, seriously, advocated taking all guns away from everyone? I have not heard that. That is what we are talking about..."some" regulation. So, the 2nd Amendment is about toys & gadgets? This is why there is such a large disconnect on this subject. You advocate for more gun owner inconvenience by mocking the Constitution, rather than looking for solutions that would actually solve or lessen the problem. Now in reality, Obama's proposals won't do a damn thing to reduce killing. If Obama was serious (and in extension, his disciples) then maybe reducing speed limits, doing away with ethanol or bringing back DDT would go alot further in reducing deaths in this world. Yes, 3rdning...the tired old argument about all the other things that cause deaths. I am sure you would be falling all over yourselves to support reducing speed limits, doing away with ethanol, etc etc... you (and others) are so sure that these laws won't do any good, but have no real solutions to offer...so we are back at square one....lets do nothing and hope nothing ever happens again. Lets' give lip service to "mental health" issues, lets' arm everyone.... and if you are being inconvenienced as a gun owner, so be it....it shouldn't be as easy. The comment about "toys & gadgets" was merely me mirroring Rob's rather cynical questioning of the true feelings and motivations of people who are on the other side of the issue. The Sandy Hook shootings are just the latest, not the first, incident like this...at what point do you say "enough" and start the ball rolling to change the way we do some things? Nobody is threatening to take your deer hunting rifles away. We have more guns on our streets than any other country, and we have more murders than any other country. Maybe you can't draw the correlation that more guns equal more murders, but you certainly can't draw the conclusion that it is making things any safer. Edited January 17, 2013 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 and here's the real reason everyday people think they need ar 15's or rpg's or tanks: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights. take the time to read this. scalia is truly the judicial equivalent of a fundamentalist religious leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 We have more guns on our streets than any other country, and we have more murders than any other country. Maybe you can't draw the correlation that more guns equal more murders, but you certainly can't draw the conclusion that it is making things any safer. Does that really have to do with the amount of guns on the streets given the below? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html It seems to be widely accepted that America is the most violent of the developed nations but is that really the case or is it simply the result of having the largest number of cities filled with a significant amount of poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Okay...sorry, didn't mean to mis-characterize your stance by using the word "additional" instead of "some". I guess enforcing the laws we already have in place would be a place to start. Has anyone, seriously, advocated taking all guns away from everyone? I have not heard that. That is what we are talking about..."some" regulation. Yes, 3rdning...the tired old argument about all the other things that cause deaths. I am sure you would be falling all over yourselves to support reducing speed limits, doing away with ethanol, etc etc... you (and others) are so sure that these laws won't do any good, but have no real solutions to offer...so we are back at square one....lets do nothing and hope nothing ever happens again. Lets' give lip service to "mental health" issues, lets' arm everyone.... and if you are being inconvenienced as a gun owner, so be it....it shouldn't be as easy. We have more guns on our streets than any other country, and we have more murders than any other country. Maybe you can't draw the correlation that more guns equal more murders, but you certainly can't draw the conclusion that it is making things any safer. You totally missed my point. When you trivialize the 2nd Amendment your argument falls on deaf ears. Guns aren't toys or gadgets. Not one thing that Obama is proposing will make one iota of a difference. Come up with a solution that will solve the problem and you might get people on the other side to consider it. Making a rule only putting 7 cartridges in an 8 cartridge clip is really going to throw a wet blanket on the next idiots plans. I don't care myself if the speed limit gets changed but I'm really for getting rid of ethanol and all its problems along with bringing back DDT in order to save lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I wonder if those advocating for clip limitations have any idea how many times trained police officers have emptied entire clips, and hit nothing at all. All the seven cartridge limitation creates is a situation where an assailant only needs to get a home owner to fire seven times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 and here's the real reason everyday people think they need ar 15's or rpg's or tanks: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights. take the time to read this. scalia is truly the judicial equivalent of a fundamentalist religious leader. Unless, of course, you read what he said rather than what you think he meant. Scalia's clearly stated that guns could be regulated. His answers were measured & rightly so. I love the way you guys interpret things. "We don't need more gun control" somehow means we need RPGs & automatic weapons. It would be like if you said "premarital sex should not be illegal" & I responded "why do you need to sleep with 8 year olds?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I think one thing we could do here at PPP that would improve things considerably would be to reduce the amount of similar threads. TYTT, you may have received responses to your posts, but in another thread. This is no plea for the mods getting involved, it's simply a suggestion that we all take a close look at it and see if we as individuals can do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I think one thing we could do here at PPP that would improve things considerably would be to reduce the amount of similar threads. TYTT, you may have received responses to your posts, but in another thread. This is no plea for the mods getting involved, it's simply a suggestion that we all take a close look at it and see if we as individuals can do better. There would be no problem if not for Gene and joe the 6 pack. They seem to have a deep rooted fear of gun's, and lie awake all night thinking of a excuse to start a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 There would be no problem if not for Gene and joe the 6 pack. They seem to have a deep rooted fear of gun's, and lie awake all night thinking of a excuse to start a new thread. And before that it was DIN/Park/Duck constantly starting anti-Romney threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 My thoughts on this whole debate: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 And before that it was DIN/Park/Duck constantly starting anti-Romney threads. They seem to have disappeared. Maybe shot by a EBR [evil black rifle]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts