The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5401 - 5420 of total 5937 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 14, 2014 - 02:01pm PT
And even with all the "violence" here in the USA, I'll take it ANY day over the UK: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Jul 14, 2014 - 02:43pm PT
What, exactly, do you mean by "work?"

Um, fewer schoolhouse massacres, for instance.

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/12/us-has-more-school-shootings-rest-world-combined
...The stark difference in numbers is indicative of another stark difference between the United States and the rest of the world: only the United States maintains a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Even after 25 school shootings (not to mention shootings elsewhere) and little political change, the Amendment remains.

When there was a school shooting massacre in the United Kingdom in 1996 where a 43-year-old man killed 16 children at Dunblane Primary School, the government imposed a ban of all private ownership of guns in the country following the incident.

Today, if a U.K. citizen wishes to own a gun, they cannot do so without a legitimate reason (deemed so by law) and must undergo extensive background checks and licensing procedures to gain ownership. Since then, the U.K. has seen a major decline in shootings such as Dunblane.

A similar change in firearm legality occurred in Australia, with the government banning firearms following a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. Since then, Australia has also seen a decrease in mass shootings...
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 14, 2014 - 03:44pm PT
And even with all the "violence" here in the USA, I'll take it ANY day over the UK:

Says the guy who also says he wears a gun everywhere.

While I don't read every paragraph the ones I do speak of fear.

Pervasive fear.

So I guess your characterization of the U.K. violence is not compelling
As to my opinion I think the industrial/civilian arms complex spends way too much time defending their hallowed ground of civil rights and far too little time mourning the hallowed ground of school shootings.

And with each subsequent shooting, the slippery slope protests increasingly fall upon deaf ears. As we all know they will.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:08pm PT
As to my opinion I think the industrial/civilian arms complex spends way too much time defending their hallowed ground of civil rights and far too little time mourning the hallowed ground of school shootings.

Not one single proposed gun-control law would have had anything to do with the various school shootings. Adam Lanza tried to buy guns legally but was precluded from doing so in "timely" fashion by a 14 day waiting period. A pretty stiff background check and waiting period law that kept him from legally buying a gun to commit his crime. WIN, right?

Nope, he simply stole the guns he wanted, and those guns had been acquired legally. And no proposed law would have kept THOSE guns from being legally purchased.

Another thing you have to keep in mind is that the United States has almost 1/3 of a billion people, while the UK has about 63 million. Australia has about 23 million. There is no comparison between these nations!

And we've been all around this bush before: Exactly HOW much would you need to "reduce" whack-job shootings before you would agree that it was enough? HOW much do you need to infringe on the constitutional and inalienable rights of law-abiding citizens before you have had (if you could) an adequate effect?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:10pm PT
Says the guy who also says he wears a gun everywhere.

While I don't read every paragraph the ones I do speak of fear.

Pervasive fear.

Says the guy that locks his doors, buys homeowner's insurance, and pays cops to do his dirty work FOR him. Fear. Pervasive fear.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:16pm PT
Exactly HOW much would you need to "reduce" whack-job shootings before you would agree that it was enough? HOW much do you need to infringe on the constitutional and inalienable rights of law-abiding citizens before you have had (if you could) an adequate effect?

Perfect example, thanks.

I'll let you contemplate the 'how much is too much,' question; its your question, not mine. Too bad the lives of school kids aren't inalienable, you know, like the rights the shooters had to collect whatever firearms they wanted. Smith and Wesson is always ready to accept cash....

DMT
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:30pm PT
constitutional and inalienable rights

Funny how most of the gun debate is about mundane details of the characteristics of weapons: full auto, magazine size, caliber, etc. or the process of acquiring one: waiting period, background checks, etc.

The Constitution says nothing about these things.

The NRA and the gun lobby argues these details from the point of maximizing profits not from the perspective of maximizing the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The NRA and their stooges don't have a clue what "keep and bear Arms" was supposed to mean. They don't give a fuk. They don't have to.


madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
I'll let you contemplate the 'how much is too much,' question; its your question, not mine.

Punt

Too bad the lives of school kids aren't inalienable, you know, like the rights the shooters had to collect whatever firearms they wanted.

Ridiculous statement.

And disingenuous too.

"In 2010, about 2,700 teens in the United States aged 1619 were killed and almost 282,000 were treated and released from emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes" (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html).

From the same CDC article: "In 2010, 22% of drivers aged 15 to 20 involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes were drinking."

So, in 2010, TEENS were drinking to the tune of 594 drunk-driving deaths AMONG THEMSELVES. That's not even counting the OTHER people they killed or maimed in such accidents.

Compare that to a grand total of 90 dead in school shootings throughout the ENTIRE 21st CENTURY so far.

In ONE YEAR drunk teens kill themselves and OTHER PEOPLE by the thousands! Yet you fixate on 90 dead over 14 years!?!

It's ALL tragic. But let's get some perspective, and YOU should be honest about what the real killer of young people really is.

Three million teens in this country are alcoholics (citation if you wish). And: "Despite declines in the number of young people involved in drunk driving fatalities, on average, more than 3 people under the age of 21 die each day in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2013)" (http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving/underage-drunk-driving-fatalities-under-21)

You want to talk about an epidemic of needless and utterly STUPID violence? Then talk about teenage drunk driving, which overshadows school shootings by an order of magnitude.

Of course, the media doesn't report as a "national crisis" every time some drunk kid kills himself, a carload of friends, and a few other in another vehicle. Nothing sexy or politically-loaded about such news. But THAT happens DAILY!

Oh, and is underage drinking illegal? Oh and is drinking while driving illegal? Oh and are stores required to card everybody before selling alcohol? Oh... uhhh... well....

Seems that the laws are not getting the job done. So much for LAWS making all the difference!

The decline in drunk driving among teens in the last several years is attributed entirely to educational programs.

As I KEEP saying, perhaps we should spend our resources on education rather than legislation. You know... do something that DOES WORK.




madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
The NRA and their stooges don't have a clue what "keep and bear Arms" was supposed to mean.

Spot on!
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:38pm PT
Well how am I supposed to argue with that?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:39pm PT
You want to talk about an epidemic of needless and utterly STUPID violence? Then talk about teenage drunk driving, which overshadows school shootings by an order of magnitude.

No.

See the title of the thread.

DMT
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:48pm PT
The SECOND you "prohibit" something, ALL you accomplish is to drive it underground and start pouring VAST resources into fighting a "war" that YOU started and can NEVER, EVER win.

Banning something doesn't work? How many crimes are committed with full-auto firearms each year?

Either way, I have never suggested prohibiting ownership of any guns, only actions; negligent ownership of guns, negligent sales of guns, negligent dealers, and mentally unstable untrained civilians roaming our streets with guns. With appropriate registration (the only way to ensure responsibility), anything would be legal on my island.

Your alcohol/drug analogy? I'd have anyone convicted of any form of DUI lose their driving license for life, tough sh#t. Second offense, prison. That doesn't mean I want to see a return to prohibition.

TE
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:52pm PT
Not one single proposed gun-control law would have had anything to do with the various school shootings.

If you think of it as anybody can obtain any weapon they want illegally then I can see why you think that. But in the real world these school shooters typically use what they can get from friends or relatives.

Not that I'm saying I agree with it, but an assault weapons ban would have prevented Lanza from having an assault weapon with 30 round clips and he would have had the bolt action rifle he killed his mother with instead.

Instead of killing 26 people at the school it would have been less. How many less murdered 5-7 year old kids? 5, 10, 15?

Again I'm not saying I agree with an assault weapons ban, but it clearly would have had something to do with that shooting. If you can't see that it really indicates how people who don't want gun regulations, even the most reasonable ones, don't see this objectively.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 14, 2014 - 04:55pm PT
If Smith and Wesson didn't manufacture them, you couldn't buy them.

If the industrial/civilian weapons complex actually wanted to do something to tighten up the availability of firearms, they could. No laws required.

But they're not. Because of what Kos said. Profits ahead of children, every damn time.

Every

damn

time

Each school shooting?

Profits ahead of children.

Every damn time.

DMT

DMT
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 14, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
I have an extra X Products 50 rd .308 drum for an M1A1 for sale.

PM me.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 14, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
If the industrial/civilian weapons complex actually wanted to do something to tighten up the availability of firearms, they could. No laws required.

But they're not. Because of what Kos said. Profits ahead of children, every damn time.

I TOTALLY agree. No argument here!

Just remember that the alcohol industry does the EXACT same thing, and with far more terrible implications. Those clever beer commercials? Just the alcohol industry making drunk driving "sexy," and their "please drink responsibly" line is a flagrant joke.

Throughout America, on countless fronts, it is "profits ahead of children, every damn time." Why single guns out for special condemnation because a TINY proportion of America goes on on a whacky and terrible tangent?

Again, it is NOT a "national crisis." Either by raw numbers, total frequency, rate of commission, or ANY other metric... it is just not a "national crisis" that needs the feds involved in it.

And not ONE of you has started a thread against the alcohol industry, much less with the order of magnitude MORE FERVOR than you demonstrate here.

Yes, THIS thread's subject is not alcohol abuse and the horrific effects it has on the youth of this country. So, fine: START such a thread and demonstrate the fervor there that you do here. THEN I might start finding your hand-wringing here a bit more believable.

Ohhh... ooopseeewahh.... Are any of you drinkers?

Sorry! Don't want to step on any of YOUR toes, because, of COURSE, you are all "responsible drinkers."
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:14pm PT
I TOTALLY agree. No argument here!

Just remember that the alcohol industry does the EXACT same thing, and with far more terrible implications.

There you go again, trying to change the topic. Non-starter.

See the topic header and stay on track.

DMT
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:39pm PT
Why are we given all these "statistics" that try to show everything is more dangerous then guns, but yet they feel a need to carry a gun incase of an armed confrontation?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:41pm PT
There you go again, trying to change the topic. Non-starter.

It's honestly sad to watch how you can't follow an obvious inference. If you think this is "changing the topic," then, seriously, I am sad for you.

As one final attempt to help you see this through, the argument is quite straightforward:

1) Gun control laws are STRONGLY advocated by some people because they say the school-shooting carnage is unacceptable.

2) Such gun control advocates appeal to emotion in claiming that school-shooting carnage is a "national crisis" that DEMANDS sweeping and federal gun control legislation.

3) Such gun control advocates do not seem to give a rip, nor start threads, nor express ANY horrified emotions regarding the MANY other "carnages" not involving guns that actually take the lives of orders of magnitude more children than do the school-shooting "carnages."

4) Such gun control advocates apparently do not have any internal consistency regarding their fervent appeals to emotion, or regarding the legislative changes they employ appeal to emotion to get enacted.

5) To be convincing, such gun control advocates SHOULD demonstrate at least bare consistency in their appeals to emotion.



6) Thus, such gun control advocates' appeals to emotion are not to be taken seriously, nor should they motivate legislative changes.

Follow?
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 14, 2014 - 07:49pm PT
Why are we are given all these "statistics" that try to show everything is more dangerous then guns, but yet they feel a need to carry a gun incase of an armed confrontation?

I, for one, try to cover my various bases as best I can. I even carry homeowner's insurance WITH a flood rider, even though I'm not in a flood plane. Wowza!

Of course, nobody is advocating enacting sweeping, FEDERAL legislation to "further control" (as if that were possible) things like cigarettes, alcohol (and drunk driving), high-fat-intake diets, and so forth.

Start trying to get more FEDERAL legislation on these fronts also, and I'll also strongly advocate against that.

This thread focuses on guns, and gun deaths in this country are NOT some "national crisis" that needs yet more federal involvement.

If you think gun-deaths are a "national crisis," then my point is that you've got FAR bigger fish to fry on other fronts, yet nobody is proposing FEDERAL legislation to "solve" those "national crises."

The biggest problem you guys have got is that you simply cannot produce anything approaching a compelling case to the effect that there IS a "national crisis" that needs FEDERAL intervention. Or, to be consistent, you need to be proposing a whole SLEW of FEDERAL legislation to "stop the carnage" on a host of other fronts as well.

Again, show me a fervent thread on ANY of those subjects, and I'll believe in your sincerity a lot more.

As it stands, the FACT is that you guys just don't like guns. Among the MANY "carnages" you could try to get motivated to stop, you fixate on guns.

And, ironically, this is something explicitly mentioned in the constitution. So, have fun with that. I find you all to be insincere and amazingly disingenuous!
Messages 5401 - 5420 of total 5937 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews