The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 3841 - 3860 of total 5837 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 29, 2013 - 10:07pm PT
WTF???

why would ANYONE in their right mind OPPOSE tougher penalties for STRAW BUYERS?

what possible reason?


oh yeah, all of these guys got lots of their campaign re election cash from the NRA

bought and paid for by the NRA and the Republican Party

Senators who voted against tougher "straw purchase" laws:
Orrin Hatch (R)
(the tranny) Lindsey Graham (R)
John Cornyn (R)
Mike Lee (R)
Ted Cruz (R)
Jeff Flake (aptly named, huh?) (R)
Jeff Sessions (R)

well come one!

why don't you piss and moan and wring your hands about how "corrupt" those fukers are
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Mar 31, 2013 - 03:46pm PT
Happy Easter Unhinged.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 31, 2013 - 09:24pm PT
So, what's the story? Did the DA and his wife need more training? More guns? More armed guards?

Sad.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Mar 31, 2013 - 09:31pm PT
I've got level IV trauma plates in my armor system.

Stops a .30-06 at 20'.



If Joe experienced a home invasion and got ass-raped do you think he would feel like a Christian Scientist with acute appendicitis?
I suspect that, at the very least, he might lean a bit to the right (difficult while walking bow legged,..)
Besides, trolling him is fun.
Bet he uses 3 of the next 5 posts!
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Mar 31, 2013 - 10:31pm PT
you ought be on Doomsday Preppers
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Mar 31, 2013 - 11:54pm PT
Credit: pyro
this for warnerr
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 1, 2013 - 02:53am PT
Wow... we're still here and still repeating the same old arguments. Truly "entrenched positions."

How about a bit of perspective?...

There are about 100,000 gun-caused murders each year around the world. About 9,000 of them are in the USA. Taking suicides (about 60% of all gun-related deaths in the USA) and gang-related homicides out of the (higher when considering all homicides) totals (no proposed gun laws will stop these two vectors of gun-related deaths), and the USA "preventable" homicides figures are in the low thousands. That assumes, of course, that a serious crack-down on gangs could accomplish something.

By contrast, if you want to get all worked up about something that is truly preventable and the prevention of which would have a HUGE effect, let's talk about smoking and second-hand-smoke (SHS).

World-wide, tobacco kills more than 5,000,000 people annually. Of that figure, SHS is responsible for about 600,000 deaths (six times the death by gun world-wide, and more than HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined). Of those totals about 31% of the deaths attributable to smoking are children. (http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/tobacco/en/);

But let's focus on the USA.

45,000,000 (yes, those are millions) people smoke in the USA, and over 126,000,000 are regularly exposed to SHS. (http://www.cdc.gov/datastatistics/archive/second-hand-smoke.html);

Of those numbers, about 42,000 people (including children) in the USA die from SHS every year, about 900 of whom are infants. If anything, most researchers believe that these figures are significantly underestimated.

It's easy to find tons of research on this subject, and the utterly preventable, TRULY senseless death-toll is simply astounding, particularly when one realizes that people dying from SHS is a particular outrage. Just being around smokers is deadly! And the estimated annual cost to the US economy in health care and lost productivity amounts to more than $6 billion (a figure that is rising quickly).

Nowhere is smoking (or drinking alcohol, for that matter) given any positive protection in the Constitution. And just the thought that people would even want to spend their lives addicted to inhaling the smoke from a burning weed, and thereby causing their own deaths and the deaths of those around them, is mind-boggling! What a truly senseless and downright STUPID waste of life (and productivity)!

Yet the baleful results of just this ONE vice make gun-related death in this country pale in comparison.

You want to froth at the mouth about a bunch of needless suffering and death, they why don't you turn your attention to some REAL killers?!? And, again, these are killers that enjoy NO explicit Constitutional protection.

You don't like guns? Tough. In the USA they are Constitutionally protected. You can bicker all you want about what "regulations" can or cannot be implemented. But that's a LAME debate in the face of the many other causes of needless and downright stupid carnage in this country that enjoy ZERO Constitutional protection.

You want to get serous about stopping this carnage, then make ALL smoking illegal in this country. That would save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, including about 42,000 people that never intended nor wanted to smoke. They are FORCED to inhale the SHS that OTHER PEOPLE pollute the air with. And, many of those dying are children, and 900 of them are INFANTS!

Put some real and legitimate "concern" where your mouth is, and turn your attention to legislating against a TRULY senseless killer: tobacco. Until you are ALL prepared to stop smoking yourselves and legislate against it, all your hand-wringing about gun control is lame, transparently inconsistent, and futile. And while you're at it, take a look at alcohol-related death in this country.

Those of you most rabid to legislate against and "control" guns in this country, let me ask you one little question: Have you EVER, even ONCE, driven drunk? If so, then, simply: shut up. And do ANY of you smoke? If so, then, simply: shut up. YOU have nothing to say about "reducing the carnage!"

The rest of you can START by legislating against carnage-causing vices that are not Constitutionally-protected. See how far you get with that, and THEN you can start talking about "controlling" guns in this country (because you still HAVE a Constitutional hurdle to get over on that front, however you want to interpret it).

Of course, we tried legislating against alcohol. Probably have the same result with tobacco if we tried it. Result? MORE alcohol, and the gangs and black market to go along with them. "War on drugs?" Same exact result. Seeing any pattern here?

But, you know, if it can save even one life....

So, have it it. Just, please, be consistent if you really care so much. Go after the REAL and utterly senseless killers first. Then you can tangle with the Constitution regarding guns.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 1, 2013 - 12:00pm PT
By contrast, if you want to get all worked up about something that is truly preventable and the prevention of which would have a HUGE effect, let's talk about smoking and second-hand-smoke (SHS).

Okay, let's... smoking in restaurants and bars and within 200 ft(?) of building entrances is illegal, at least in progressive states like CA and UT. Also, if someone lights a cig and starts smoking in your vicinity, you can move pretty easily... if someone pulls out a gun and starts shooting, it is a little more serious. I have never felt that my life was in immediate danger when someone lit up a cig on the street. It is a silly comparison... like the rest of the straw man army amassed here.

Parents who smoke around kids and expose them to SHS should be severely punished.

You don't like guns? Tough. In the USA they are Constitutionally protected.

Not exactly. The right to keep and bare them is protected. Doesn't say ANYTHING about waiting periods, computerized background checks linked to psychiatric/medical evaluations, limiting the number of guns one can purchase in a year, safe storage requirements, stiff penalties for straw purchasers or corrupt gun shops, high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, or unlimited firepower. Surely you don't think "Arms" in the constitution means Howitzers or bazookas or nukes or the like. Surely there has to be a limit. Surely we can establish that limit, with some naturally thinking it is too soft and others thinking it is too hard.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 1, 2013 - 01:49pm PT
It is a silly comparison... like the rest of the straw man army amassed here.

Just providing you with some demonstrable facts for comparison and perspective. If that's "silly," then I guess that comparable facts are right out the window for the anti-gun-nuts.

We're 1/3 of a BILLION people! A few thousand preventable gun deaths is literally nothing to get your panties in a bunch about. And if you DO want to get all worked up about the very few children killed by guns, then for consistency's sake you've GOT to do far, far better than your dismissive "parents should be severely punished" line!

Where's your THREAD about the thousands of kids killed by SHS every year? Where's your level of outrage about this, since it causes more than an order of magnitude more child/infant deaths every year than guns do?

"Silly?" Ruhhheeellly? Well, I guess it's now clear that the gun-killed kids are really just fodder for your non-fact-contemplating arguments, because you single guns out for special condemnation rather than going after the MANY other things that really ARE preventable, that are in NO way Constitutionally-protected, and that kill a LOT more kids every year than guns do.

Not exactly. The right to keep and bare them is protected. Doesn't say ANYTHING about waiting periods, computerized background checks linked to psychiatric/medical evaluations, limiting the number of guns one can purchase in a year, safe storage requirements, stiff penalties for straw purchasers or corrupt gun shops, high capacity magazines, fully automatic weapons, or unlimited firepower.

Correct. None of those things is explicitly mentioned in the Amendment that instead just sweeping says, "...shall not be infringed." Last I read my Websters, "infringed" would neatly capture all of the restrictions you listed.

By contrast, NO aspect of smoking or alcohol consumption (that's right, not one teensy little bit) is "mentioned" in the Constitution. So, by your logic, smoking and drinking should be ENTIRELY illegal. Not-mentioned = not-explicitly-allowed. And not-explicitly-allowed = should-not-be-allowed (since they are dangerous and all). So, buying a gun without a universal background check is "dangerous" and should not be allowed. By the same logic, buying a cigarette AT ALL is "dangerous," not even mentioned by the Constitution, and should not be allowed.

Or, perhaps something that COULD get through Congress, right? What we might get to fly are "clip sizes" for packs of cigarettes, since "the weapon" and "the ammo" are one and the same thing. Imagine this....

"I'd like a pack of Marlboroughs please."

"Certainly sir. We'll just need you to fill out this affidavit that you have no children in the house, and that will be run through the database for a few days, and we'll get back to you. Oh, and will you want the five-pack or the ten-pack? You know that twenties are illegal now. And it's hard to keep tens in stock, so let me know now how many you might be wanting."

"Oh, okay, in that case, sign me up for ten of the ten-packs please."

"Sorry, sir. No can do. There's a limit on the ten-packs. You can only purchase five ten-packs at any one time; and, of course, your total purchases are tracked, so don't try to initiate purchases at multiple stores. Would you like five of the ten-packs? I can run that through with your affidavit."

"Wow, uhh, well, in that case, let's get twenty of the five-packs in the works."

"Sorry sir. The five packs are limited to ten. There's really a fifty total limit, regardless of clip size. The feds are really trying to limit the sheer quantity of the ammo in circulation. And fifty at a time really should be sufficient for anybody that doesn't have nefarious purposes in mind. So, the only question is convenience, you know: how many packs you want to have to contain your fifty."

"Uhhhh....."

Surely you don't think "Arms" in the constitution means Howitzers or bazookas or nukes or the like. Surely there has to be a limit. Surely we can establish that limit, with some naturally thinking it is too soft and others thinking it is too hard.

Lol, and you are the one calling all arguments resisting infringement "silly." This straw man is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Don't conflate qualitative with quantitative differences.

The whole point of my post was PERSPECTIVE. The supposed driving motivation behind all this anti-gun sentiment is something like "protecting the innocent, particularly kids." The fact that you don't FEEL in danger around a smoker is lame on the face of it (and actually ignorant). Statistically speaking, you ARE in danger... far more danger than being around someone responsibly owning (and even carrying) a gun.

Look, people gonna die. People gonna kill other people. You might eliminate guns entirely and eliminate gun-deaths entirely, and it would be a tiny, TINY, in fact utterly insignificant "triumph." And meanwhile, the real killers would continue to cause far more death and mayhem than your "triumph" prevented. Personally I'd much rather be shot dead than die a slow, creeping, horrible death from lung cancer. INFANTS dying from this crap, and all because their parents insist on satisfying a STUPID, pointless, expensive, and filthy vice.

So if you REALLY want to stop the carnage, as you claim, then START by going after the things that are in NO way Constitutionally protected and that kill FAR more innocents (including kids) every year than guns do. Once I see some proportionate outrage about these vices that kill, I'll believe in your "protect the innocent" motivation. Meanwhile, it all just smacks of visceral, touchy-feely-based, knee-jerk reactionism.

Too much ink (bytes of storage), debate, and political machinations are expended on what is REALLY a nationally insignificant issue. Even a complete "win" by the anti-gun-nuts would accomplish virtually nothing to "stop the carnage" because they are barking up the wrong tree if they really want to stop (or even reduce) a significant amount of carnage. Perspective is right out the window in this debate. "Gun control" is literally not worth all the attention paid to it. No more bytes of storage should be spent on this subject by anybody. It's the ATTENTION paid that really is silly!

Sorry, I should not have gotten sucked in (again). Outty.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 1, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
Well MadB,, you should have posted sooner! Well said really...
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 1, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
Where's your THREAD about the thousands of kids killed by SHS every year? Where's your level of outrage about this, since it causes more than an order of magnitude more child/infant deaths every year than guns do?

YOU are silly. NOBODY will EVER pull out a cigarette and immediately threaten my life or the life of anyone I am with. EVER. Comparing cigs to guns is absolutely 100% fuking silly.

I don't want to stop people from dying... in fact, it would be nice to see the population decline by several billion. I do want to stop people from being murdered. Big difference... consult your dictionary.

"Silly?" Ruhhheeellly?

Yep, 100% absolutely fuking silly.

Correct. None of those things is explicitly mentioned in the Amendment that instead just sweeping says, "...shall not be infringed." Last I read my Websters, "infringed" would neatly capture all of the restrictions you listed.

NONE of those things infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. They may make it slightly more inconvenient to PURCHASE them, but then... our founding fathers knew what they were doing and did NOT include the "right to purchase and acquire Arms" did they?

Statistically speaking, you ARE in danger... far more danger than being around someone responsibly owning (and even carrying) a gun.

In case you haven't noticed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States




blah blah blah blah blah... more loads of sh#t.

By your logic, why not just keep a pack of cigarettes by the nightstand to protect you from intruders? Just smoke them out.

I don't like cigarettes. If fact I hate them with a passion. I pounded on both my brother and my sister for smoking when they were younger. If you want to work for stricter legislation on cigarettes I will gladly join.

But comparing them to guns is absurd.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 1, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
Yesterday NEWS FLASH: approx 589,447,365 guns werent used in crimes nor shot anyone. STELLAR record gun owners of America.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 1, 2013 - 03:07pm PT
hahaaaaa... only you Ron!

You claim 589,447,365 guns were not used in crimes. Estimates say 89 guns per 100 US residents (wiki). With 313,000,000 people in the US that means there are approximately (89*313,000,000/100) = 278,000,000 guns owned by US citizens. Yet somehow nearly twice as many were not used in crime.

Stellar math displayed by some unknown, uncited source there!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 1, 2013 - 03:13pm PT
wes,,lil buddy,,i can TELL YOU by absolute fact,, that half the guns the average collector owns were NEVER documented. NEVER. I can tell you by knowledge that there are antigues and older weapons in millions of collections never documented in any way shape or form.

Now, i WONT even mention,, that those numbers thrown out by the mass sheeple medias havent changed since sandy hook,, YET the gun stores and shows have been selling them at a rate never before seen..Oooops i guess i did mention it..Ohw,, and i didnt know abc tallied black market counts? wonder where they get that info??

One way ONLY to get an accurate account of actual guns in this country is to go door to door searches.. Good luck with that...


Your the one thats all "facts and figures".. I suggest you get some fresh input.
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Apr 1, 2013 - 03:17pm PT
The Constitution is a living document. Some amendments (notably the Second) could and SHOULD be amended.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 1, 2013 - 03:24pm PT
Kinda contradicts an Oath you once took JD...
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Apr 1, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
I took an oath to defend my country. I'm not saying the Second Amendment should be gutted, just modified in a resonable way that reflects America in the 21st century. Moot point anyway, i know it won't happen in my lifetime.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Apr 1, 2013 - 03:36pm PT
Colorado gave me whiplash.

I was just about to move back and twist one up and only weeks later they ban hi-caps.


Oh, the irony!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Apr 1, 2013 - 03:40pm PT
Colorado's loss is Utah's gain.

DMT
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Apr 1, 2013 - 03:41pm PT
I believe they remain unconvinced, DMT.



Joe, some people need an explanation (when they can't read an avatar).
Messages 3841 - 3860 of total 5837 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews