02-10-2013, 09:29 AM
|
#1
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Deion Sanders, Emmitt Smith, and Michael Irvin cut an ad for gun control
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:17 AM
|
#2
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2001
Location: sport
Posts: 39,431
|
Congrats to the three morons. I love the Cowboys, but I don't care what any of three goofs have to say about anything.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:51 AM
|
#3
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphy3
Congrats to the three morons. I love the Cowboys, but I don't care what any of three goofs have to say about anything.
|
Jim Carrey @JimCarrey
Any1 who would run out to buy an assault rifle after the Newtown massacre has very little left in their body or soul worth protecting. ;^\
https://twitter.com/JimCarrey/status/297788356920762368
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 12:33 PM
|
#4
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Yea...no one but the government need guns.
"
Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.
"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 12:47 PM
|
#5
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Yea...no one but the government need guns
|
As soon as you see someone try to make that case, feel free to justifiably ridicule them. Until then, leave the silly straw man out of it.
Calling for a plan hardly justifies any sort of derision. If you're not willing to even have a conversation then you're just as close minded as someone that would make the claim you're mocking above.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 02:03 PM
|
#6
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
As soon as you see someone try to make that case, feel free to justifiably ridicule them. Until then, leave the silly straw man out of it.
Calling for a plan hardly justifies any sort of derision. If you're not willing to even have a conversation then you're just as close minded as someone that would make the claim you're mocking above.
|
This whole damn discussion is a strawman. Nothing, nothing that is being proposed has anything to do with the reasonig is getting pushed. Typical lib shite ginning up a tragedy to get their way.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 07:04 PM
|
#7
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2001
Location: sport
Posts: 39,431
|
Here's my issue.. Banning the sale of assault rifles really doesn't do anything to help the situation at all. It's an emotional response that will give some a false sense of security.. but it does next to nothing to help the situation.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 07:05 PM
|
#8
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
This whole damn discussion is a strawman. Nothing, nothing that is being proposed has anything to do with the reasonig is getting pushed. Typical lib shite ginning up a tragedy to get their way.
|
Right, let's not even SEE if something could be done to prevent further tragedies. Just be sad and take no action. Sure.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 07:08 PM
|
#9
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2001
Location: sport
Posts: 39,431
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
|
I don't have alot of use in assault rifles.. again, whether or not assault rifles are legal doesn't have much impact on the newtown situation.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 07:12 PM
|
#10
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphy3
Here's my issue.. Banning the sale of assault rifles really doesn't do anything to help the situation at all. It's an emotional response that will give some a false sense of security.. but it does next to nothing to help the situation.
|
Banning assault rifles is only part of the current Federal proposal.
Also, banning assault rifles 50 years ago certainly would have helped the situation. Not as much as other options, but it would have helped. Just because the cat's out of the bag now too far to make an immediate impact doesn't mean you can't at least stop the problem from getting worse.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 09:22 PM
|
#11
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
Right, let's not even SEE if something could be done to prevent further tragedies. Just be sad and take no action. Sure.
|
Why don't you apply the same damn logic to automobile accidents. Right let's not even SEE if something could be done like mandating 40mph speed limits, massive fines and mandated breathelizers in all automobiles to prevent further tragedies.
You know if it saves just ONE child, it would all be worth it.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 09:38 PM
|
#12
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Yea...no one but the government need guns.
"
Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.
"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.
|
So you are saying those people should have used their guns to shoot at cops?
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 09:39 PM
|
#13
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murphy3
Here's my issue.. Banning the sale of assault rifles really doesn't do anything to help the situation at all. It's an emotional response that will give some a false sense of security.. but it does next to nothing to help the situation.
|
I'm in favor of banning all clips, but there is legislation to limit the clip size. That would at least reduce the amount of people killed in mass shootings. Many times these people are tackled when they are forced to reload.
Last edited by SeanL; 02-10-2013 at 09:40 PM.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 09:42 PM
|
#14
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Why don't you apply the same damn logic to automobile accidents. Right let's not even SEE if something could be done like mandating 40mph speed limits, massive fines and mandated breathelizers in all automobiles to prevent further tragedies.
You know if it saves just ONE child, it would all be worth it.
|
Well if you want to equate automobiles to guns then do you think people should pay insurance on each gun they own? That would seem like a good idea to me.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:06 PM
|
#15
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2001
Location: sport
Posts: 39,431
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
Banning assault rifles is only part of the current Federal proposal.
Also, banning assault rifles 50 years ago certainly would have helped the situation. Not as much as other options, but it would have helped. Just because the cat's out of the bag now too far to make an immediate impact doesn't mean you can't at least stop the problem from getting worse.
|
And I don't think the Federal proposal does much other than making a few people feel better.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:16 PM
|
#16
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
Well if you want to equate automobiles to guns then do you think people should pay insurance on each gun they own? That would seem like a good idea to me.
|
Yea...all the criminals who commit the vast majority of gun crimes will be sure to get their insurance.
Plus there is a little thing called a constitution, but who gives a flip about that.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:17 PM
|
#17
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeanL
So you are saying those people should have used their guns to shoot at cops?
|
No, I'm saying that I do not trust the government to be the only entity that can defend themselves.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:38 PM
|
#18
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Why don't you apply the same damn logic to automobile accidents. Right let's not even SEE if something could be done like mandating 40mph speed limits, massive fines and mandated breathelizers in all automobiles to prevent further tragedies.
You know if it saves just ONE child, it would all be worth it.
|
We DO apply the same logic to automobiles. What do you call mandatory seat belt laws? Think people weren't up in arms when those were put in place? We've had numerous changes in regulations around child safety in automobiles and billions of dollars invested in making cars and roadways safer.
Mandating 40mph speed limits is roughly analogous to outlawing all guns. It's absurd and no one with a brain is going there.
But background checks for ALL gun buyers? Completely logical, and (in terms of invasiveness) probably on par with, or even less invasive thans, a law forcing citizens to wear something in their own car.
National database of gun registration (not proposed but should be, imo)? Hell we already do that with cars.
There's a huge national focus on car safety. You could end your life reading through studies on this affect or that. There are organizations dedicated to it (MADD?).
On the flip side, you have the NRA scaring the life out of anyone that dares conduct a study on gun safety and what does (and doesn't) affect it.
The NRA and its constituents are the ones asking for a double standard here, not those asking for a rational conversation around gun laws and gun safety.
Last edited by jthig32; 02-10-2013 at 10:41 PM.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:44 PM
|
#19
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Yea...all the criminals who commit the vast majority of gun crimes will be sure to get their insurance.
Plus there is a little thing called a constitution, but who gives a flip about that.
|
People have a first amendment right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can shout fire in a crowded movie theater. All rights have limits. The second amendment is no exception.
And gun nuts live in this bizarre world where criminals can do whatever they like without consequences so there is no point making laws for anything. Maybe we should get rid of speed limits since criminals won't obey them anyways. Maybe we should get rid of laws on narcotics since criminals won't obey them anyways.
These laws are not meant to completely eliminate bad behavior, but they are meant to make illegal behavior much more difficult. Two bit criminals don't have unlimited resources to circumvent the law. Not every criminal is a member of a well connected organized crime organization. If you force people to show proof of insurance for each gun they buy then it will make it a lot harder for criminals to get these guns.
Moreover, law abiding citizens do stupid things with guns believe it or not. Making everyone have insurance for each gun they own would not be such a bad idea.
Finally, you made the comparison between guns and cars, now you are saying they are two completely different things. Seems like you are being very hypocritical.
Last edited by SeanL; 02-10-2013 at 11:42 PM.
|
|
|
02-10-2013, 10:48 PM
|
#20
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
No, I'm saying that I do not trust the government to be the only entity that can defend themselves.
|
Well considering the example you were citing you were saying that people should have guns to defend themselves against cops.
And guns do not protect you against anything:
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi...PH.2008.143099
|
|
|
02-11-2013, 01:04 PM
|
#21
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
Banning assault rifles is only part of the current Federal proposal.
Also, banning assault rifles 50 years ago certainly would have helped the situation. Not as much as other options, but it would have helped. Just because the cat's out of the bag now too far to make an immediate impact doesn't mean you can't at least stop the problem from getting worse.
|
I am just curious why you think that banning assault weapons 50 years ago would have helped.
Full automatics have been banned since prohibition -- but they still seem to find their way into certain places they shouldn't be. See the two bank robbers in LA. They lasted quite some time because they out-gunned everyone else.
Lets see -- they are currently hunting down an ex-LA police officer -- he might very well have had one even if they were outlawed -- due to his job.
I don't mind having a discussion on this one any time. The facts are that when the citizenship is armed, they are less likely to have a government that they have to become slaves to.
Guns are tools, not the problem.
Putting all kinds of regulations to make some people sleep better at night never solves the issue.
Limit the number of bullets in a clip -- and someone will build a drum magazine that holds what they want in their back garage.
Limit the ability to fire full automatic -- someone will build a full auto in their back garage, then sell it on the black market for huge amounts of money instead of a small amount of money -- or get it stolen. It will be there either way.
The only thing limiting weapons does is allow the government (or whomever is making the rules) to limit the power of the law abiding citizen. It does nothing to the un-lawful at all. It does not fix the problem of someone going in an killing children -- the just do it another way.
Cars kill, planes kill, bombs kill, pipe kills, wrenches kill, rocks kill -- they just take an unstable person wielding them.
I have no problem with people having an open discussion about it. I have little use for assault weapons, but when you try to take my semi-automatic hog killing gun away........we might have an issue.
|
|
|
02-11-2013, 01:39 PM
|
#22
|
Golden Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 1,970
|
so.. presumably there should never be any laws and regulations on anything? ever?
|
|
|
02-11-2013, 03:08 PM
|
#23
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202
Limit the number of bullets in a clip -- and someone will build a drum magazine that holds what they want in their back garage.
Limit the ability to fire full automatic -- someone will build a full auto in their back garage, then sell it on the black market for huge amounts of money instead of a small amount of money -- or get it stolen. It will be there either way.
|
And someone won't. In fact, a lot of someones won't. A whole hell of a lot.
Why is this concept seemingly so hard to grasp? Why do some people refuse to see shades of grey?
|
|
|
02-11-2013, 03:12 PM
|
#24
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Why don't you apply the same damn logic to automobile accidents. Right let's not even SEE if something could be done like mandating 40mph speed limits, massive fines and mandated breathelizers in all automobiles to prevent further tragedies.
You know if it saves just ONE child, it would all be worth it.
|
Thiggy made some counterarguments above, but a comment from me here. Why not apply the same logic? Because it would be ridiculous to, that's why. Automobile travel serves a very important function to a very large percentage of people. The risks are things that you just have to live with, because of how difficult it would be to go without automobile travel. Gun ownership? Nowhere NEAR the same level of need/utility.
|
|
|
02-11-2013, 06:34 PM
|
#25
|
Guru
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 40,410
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
Thiggy made some counterarguments above, but a comment from me here. Why not apply the same logic? Because it would be ridiculous to, that's why. Automobile travel serves a very important function to a very large percentage of people. The risks are things that you just have to live with, because of how difficult it would be to go without automobile travel. Gun ownership? Nowhere NEAR the same level of need/utility.
|
No one is talking about doing away with auto travel. Just stopping the 32000 people killed yearly. Shouldn't we do whatever we can to stop this slaughter?
Tbh I hate using this type of argument for any case. If we can just save one life isn't it worth it...well no, it may not be so make your argument on something besides a bunch of hand wringing.
__________________
"Yankees fans who say “flags fly forever’’ are right, you never lose that. It reinforces all the good things about being a fan. ... It’s black and white. You (the Mavs) won a title. That’s it and no one can say s--- about it.’’
|
|
|
02-11-2013, 09:11 PM
|
#26
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Let's give everyone an atomic bomb. Atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people. #GunNutLogic
|
|
|
02-11-2013, 09:21 PM
|
#27
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 351
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
No one is talking about doing away with auto travel. Just stopping the 32000 people killed yearly. Shouldn't we do whatever we can to stop this slaughter?
Tbh I hate using this type of argument for any case. If we can just save one life isn't it worth it...well no, it may not be so make your argument on something besides a bunch of hand wringing.
|
Not everyone can drive a 18 wheeler. You are licensed to only drive certain automobiles. You have to be insured for each car you own. At least in Texas every car MUST be inspected and if it is found lacking it can be condemned. Only people above a certain age can drive a car and to even get licensed you must have a probationary period and after passing a test you can get licensed.
If you wanted to put similar regulations on guns I would have no problem with that. Otherwise you are being a hypocrite by making that comparison.
Last edited by SeanL; 02-11-2013 at 09:22 PM.
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 12:06 AM
|
#28
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202
I am just curious why you think that banning assault weapons 50 years ago would have helped.
|
Because you'd be saying this about assault weapons:
Quote:
Assault weapons have been banned since prohibition -- but they still seem to find their way into certain places they shouldn't be. See the two bank robbers in LA. They lasted quite some time because they out-gunned everyone else.
|
"Finding their way into certain places" is a lot better than "owned by every other person in the south, including most of my family".
Quote:
I don't mind having a discussion on this one any time. The facts are that when the citizenship is armed, they are less likely to have a government that they have to become slaves to.
|
I don't disagree with this. No one within this current conversation is talking about disarming the citizenship.
Quote:
Guns are tools, not the problem.
|
They're most certainly part of the problem. Unquestionably.
Quote:
Putting all kinds of regulations to make some people sleep better at night never solves the issue.
|
Nothing *solves* an issue like this. But it can help.
Quote:
The only thing limiting weapons does is allow the government (or whomever is making the rules) to limit the power of the law abiding citizen. It does nothing to the un-lawful at all. It does not fix the problem of someone going in an killing children -- the just do it another way.
|
Let's just get rid of all the laws then. Because "laws are for the law-abiding citizens" right?
Last edited by jthig32; 02-12-2013 at 12:07 AM.
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 12:34 AM
|
#29
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
I walked through this comparison with a friend of mine the other day, and I thought it was an interesting thought process:
As kids, most of us boys (and many girls) love to play with firecrackers and BB Guns. They're probably roughly analogous in terms of fun/danger, right? You have to be pretty stupid to severely injure yourself with either, right?
And, hell, they're fun. Who doesn't love shooting something with a BB Gun? Or things that explode and make loud noises?
And as we get older, we like to escalate things, right? Except, at some point long ago, someone said "Well, here's an M80, but that's about the best I can do for you". As a society, we basically decided that we don't want recreational bombs being traded in the market.
Some probably find this disappointing. I mean how cool would it be to go buy a big ass bomb and blow it up in the middle of nowhere? It's be a freaking blast. And, generally speaking, responsible people would do so without being injured. There'd be accidents, as there will be with anything, but by and large those that wanted them for pure enjoyment would use them for that purpose. They would be, after all, tools, not the problem.And yet we live without them. Because when they fall into the wrong hands, they become incredibly efficient tools for causing mass destruction and harm. And so we all live without the freedom to buy a bomb.
On the flip side, guns continue to escalate. Yes, many guns are tools, either for hunting, or home defense or other reasons. But no one can deny the lethal nature of modern assault-type rifles. They're "literally" designed to be efficient human killers, that double as fun toys.
And make no mistake, the same inane argument about people "making their own" applies to bombs. You can make bombs. You can mix chemicals that produce a reaction. I suspect it's rather easy, with a little research. And yet, no rational person would argue that bombs being illegal hasn't affected the ability of the mass public to procure them.
Maybe this comparison only makes sense in my head, but I think it's interesting how society decides that one thing is irrelevant to freedom and one is essential. And this is not to say that assault rifles are the main problem in the gun control debate. I fully realize how lethal a simple semi-auto pistol is. I'm just musing about the differences in how we view things as a society.
Last edited by jthig32; 02-12-2013 at 12:40 AM.
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 01:28 AM
|
#30
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
Very compelling thought exercise, thiggy...and in my mind, the only reasonable way to approach the issue.
I abhor the way that some gun advocates shirk any shred of societal responsibility. Some of them would maintain that they don't care how many thousands of innocent lives are lost every year, just so long as they can legally carry around their own dick extension wherever they want to. So much for "No man is an island."
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 12:00 PM
|
#31
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jthig32
I walked through this comparison with a friend of mine the other day, and I thought it was an interesting thought process:
As kids, most of us boys (and many girls) love to play with firecrackers and BB Guns. They're probably roughly analogous in terms of fun/danger, right? You have to be pretty stupid to severely injure yourself with either, right?
And, hell, they're fun. Who doesn't love shooting something with a BB Gun? Or things that explode and make loud noises?
And as we get older, we like to escalate things, right? Except, at some point long ago, someone said "Well, here's an M80, but that's about the best I can do for you". As a society, we basically decided that we don't want recreational bombs being traded in the market.
Some probably find this disappointing. I mean how cool would it be to go buy a big ass bomb and blow it up in the middle of nowhere? It's be a freaking blast. And, generally speaking, responsible people would do so without being injured. There'd be accidents, as there will be with anything, but by and large those that wanted them for pure enjoyment would use them for that purpose. They would be, after all, tools, not the problem.And yet we live without them. Because when they fall into the wrong hands, they become incredibly efficient tools for causing mass destruction and harm. And so we all live without the freedom to buy a bomb.
On the flip side, guns continue to escalate. Yes, many guns are tools, either for hunting, or home defense or other reasons. But no one can deny the lethal nature of modern assault-type rifles. They're "literally" designed to be efficient human killers, that double as fun toys.
And make no mistake, the same inane argument about people "making their own" applies to bombs. You can make bombs. You can mix chemicals that produce a reaction. I suspect it's rather easy, with a little research. And yet, no rational person would argue that bombs being illegal hasn't affected the ability of the mass public to procure them.
Maybe this comparison only makes sense in my head, but I think it's interesting how society decides that one thing is irrelevant to freedom and one is essential. And this is not to say that assault rifles are the main problem in the gun control debate. I fully realize how lethal a simple semi-auto pistol is. I'm just musing about the differences in how we view things as a society.
|
I like your logic, but in my opinion it is terribly flawed.
Lets take your bomb thoughts. Making a bomb is seriously easy. It happens over in lots of countries - outside the US - on a way too common theme. These people don't have access to making the bullets, and bombs work so much easier -- so they use them.
You make a law against it, but everyone knows that the bad guys will have these, and that if we don't have a deterrent against it -- they will use them. See Israel.
Guns are the equalizer. A 120 lb woman who can wield a gun can eliminate a threat from a bomb carrying 320 lb beast of a man. As bad a$$ as the man may be, he can't walk through bullets -- hence the reason that the gun is still around -- it is a tool - not the problem.
I do understand the logic of limiting assault weapons. I just think it is flawed logic. Yes you will save some who would have died. No you won't save most as the person would just find a different way to do it. The flaw is that you also open up the ability of crooks to be even more brazen and kill others because you don't have the "equalizer" there to deter it.
Would you rather go into a house that you know doesn't have an assault weapon in it -- when you have one (you being the outlaw) or would you rather worry about going into that house because they probably have that weapon? I know that in the end, if someone in my household was killed by an outlaw that had an assault weapon, and I couldn't defend my self because they were outlawed -- then I would probably become an outlaw myself. I would find a way to defend myself and my family regardless.
The law written didn't stop the outlaw -- it only stopped the lawful person from being able to defend themselves.
With that said, where do you draw the line? Should I be a lawful citizen or an outlaw? You will never eliminate the guns because like drugs their is a market for them. You can just make them more expensive by creating a black market for them. They will always be available due to human engineering or theft -- if you know the right people or have enough money.
So why are you really trying to eliminate them from the law abiding people?
As far as bombs go -- a trained person can build that in about 10 minutes at Home Depot. Yet we aren't going to shut down Home Depot are we?
As far at the automobile argument -- funny how guns work everyone up, yet they justify the automobile.... according to the FBI statistics -- In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported. (NOTE this does not include suicide). So at most ~2300 deaths involving assault weapons (and this is including all except handguns).
Yet in the same year 32,885 died on US highways. Over 14 Times more people killed on the highways.
Why is it the guns that we want to pursue? I don't understand the logic.
Yes I know that a few people might be saved by the assault weapon ban -- I also know that a few more might be killed by the assault weapon ban. So we are worried about the scraps instead of the meal. Typical logic in today's America -- waste a dollar to save a penny. Just make sure that it doesn't effect me.
Now to give my opinion about the vehicle situation. Why aren't all vehicles equipped with a blow device that won't allow them to start with alcohol on your breath. We have the technology already -- why not just pass a law effecting everyone. Why not have a speed limiting device that would not allow a vehicle to go over this speed. We have the technology -- why not pass the law -- it would save lives. Why not equip a car with a chip that reads speed limits and put a transponder in the speed limit sign poles so that you can't speed -- we have the technology and it would save lives. Why not pass a law that all cars require all of this?
Now - who is going to pay for it?
At least with these things - you could effect a larger number of people.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford
"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 12:19 PM
|
#32
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bee Cave, Texas
Posts: 3,244
|
It's Cultural Deviancy, Not Guns
by: Walter E. Williams
http://cnsnews.com/blog/walter-e-wil...iancy-not-guns
There's a story told about a Paris chief of police who was called to a department store to stop a burglary in progress. Upon his arrival, he reconnoitered the situation and ordered his men to surround the entrances of the building next door. When questioned about his actions, he replied that he didn't have enough men to cover the department store's many entrances but he did have enough for the building next door. Let's see whether there are similarities between his strategy and today's gun control strategy.
Last year, Chicago had 512 homicides; Detroit had 411; Philadelphia had 331; and Baltimore had 215. Those cities are joined by other dangerous cities — such as St. Louis, Memphis, Tenn., Flint, Mich., and Camden, N.J. — and they also lead the nation in shootings, assaults, rapes and robberies. Both the populations of those cities and their crime victims are predominantly black. Each year, more than 7,000 blacks are murdered. Close to 100 percent of the time, the murderer is another black person.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation's population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it's 22 times that of whites. Coupled with being most of the nation's homicide victims, blacks are also most of the victims of violent personal crimes, such as assault and robbery. The magnitude of this tragedy can be seen in another light. According to a Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute study, between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched at the hands of whites.
What percentage of murders, irrespective of race, are committed with what are being called assault weapons? You'd be hard put to come up with an amount greater than 1 or 2 percent. In fact, according to FBI data from 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle of any kind but 496 murders committed with a hammer or a club. But people who want to weaken our Second Amendment guarantees employ a strategy like that of the Paris chief of police.
They can't do much about hammers, clubs, fists or pistols, but by exploiting public ignorance, they might have a bit of success getting an "assault weapon" ban that will have little impact on violent crime.
There are other measures these people employ in an attempt to end violence that border on lunacy. Massachusetts' Hyannis West Elementary recently warned a 5-year-old's parents that if their son made another gun from a Legos set, he'd be suspended. Elementary-school children have been suspended or otherwise disciplined for drawing a picture of a gun or pointing a finger and saying, "Bang, bang."
I shudder to think about what would happen to kids in a schoolyard if they played, as I played nearly 70 years ago, "cops 'n' robbers" or "cowboys 'n' Indians." Maybe today's politically correct educators would cut the kids a bit of slack if they said they were playing "cowboys 'n' Native Americans."
What explains a lot of what we see today, which politicians and their liberal allies would never condemn, is growing cultural deviancy. Twenty-nine percent of white children, 53 percent of Hispanics and 73 percent of black children are born to unmarried women. The absence of a husband and father from the home is a strong contributing factor to poverty, school failure, crime, drug abuse, emotional disturbance and a host of other social problems.
By the way, the low marriage rate among blacks is relatively new. Census data show that a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults from 1890 to 1940. In 2009, the poverty rate among married whites was 3.2 percent; for blacks, it was 7 percent, and for Hispanics, it was 13.2 percent. The higher poverty rates — 22 percent for whites, 35.6 percent for blacks and 37.9 percent for Hispanics — are among unmarried families.
Other forms of cultural deviancy are found in the kind of music accepted today that advocates killing and rape and other vile acts. Punishment for criminal behavior is lax. Today's Americans accept behavior that our parents and grandparents never would have accepted.
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 01:59 PM
|
#33
|
Moderator
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 17,873
|
I really don't have--and don't care to offer--any opinion on the ultimate issue in this thread, but reading through this thread I am absolutely struck by the gap in logical and inferential reasoning between the two sides. It's massive. Grand Canyon esque. And that, of course, has nothing to do with guns. You could be discussing any subject matter.
I'll leave it to you all to decide which side is which, but...yikes.
__________________
John Madden on Former NFL Running Back Leroy Hoard: "You want one yard, he'll get you three. You want five yards, he'll get you three."
"Your'e a low-mentality drama gay queen!!" -- She_Growls
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 03:03 PM
|
#34
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202
As far at the automobile argument -- funny how guns work everyone up, yet they justify the automobile.... according to the FBI statistics -- In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported. (NOTE this does not include suicide). So at most ~2300 deaths involving assault weapons (and this is including all except handguns).
Yet in the same year 32,885 died on US highways. Over 14 Times more people killed on the highways.
Why is it the guns that we want to pursue? I don't understand the logic.
|
How many people drive cars, and how many people use guns?
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 04:25 PM
|
#35
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
How many people drive cars, and how many people use guns?
|
with a quick search
There are 90 guns for every 100 people in the US.
39% of households in America have guns.
From what I can tell about 95% of American households have at least one automobile.
So just short of 3 times more people own cars and they cause over 14 times more destruction.
Your point??? innocent people can be killed with either of them -- whether driver (shooter), passenger (target), or by-stander (collateral damage)
By averages you are more likely to die on the highways than by guns.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford
"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 04:28 PM
|
#36
|
Guru
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Cowboys Country
Posts: 23,336
|
My guess would be that if you could calculate something like "deaths per hour of use," you would find that guns are far, far, far more deadly than automobiles.
|
|
|
02-12-2013, 06:57 PM
|
#37
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by chumdawg
My guess would be that if you could calculate something like "deaths per hour of use," you would find that guns are far, far, far more deadly than automobiles.
|
Not exactly sure how you would determine hour of use for guns, but in general I am guessing you are correct in how you worded it.
If you calculated every hour by carry, either in vehicle or on person, etc...I think it would be quite a bit closer than say if you just counted it as time spent at the range or time of flight for a bullet.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford
"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
|
|
|
02-13-2013, 01:13 AM
|
#38
|
Golden Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Greater Nowheres
Posts: 1,189
|
|
|
|
02-13-2013, 09:36 AM
|
#39
|
Lazy Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lazytown
Posts: 18,721
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalmations202
I like your logic, but in my opinion it is terribly flawed.
Lets take your bomb thoughts. Making a bomb is seriously easy. It happens over in lots of countries - outside the US - on a way too common theme. These people don't have access to making the bullets, and bombs work so much easier -- so they use them.
You make a law against it, but everyone knows that the bad guys will have these, and that if we don't have a deterrent against it -- they will use them. See Israel.
Guns are the equalizer. A 120 lb woman who can wield a gun can eliminate a threat from a bomb carrying 320 lb beast of a man. As bad a$$ as the man may be, he can't walk through bullets -- hence the reason that the gun is still around -- it is a tool - not the problem.
I do understand the logic of limiting assault weapons. I just think it is flawed logic. Yes you will save some who would have died. No you won't save most as the person would just find a different way to do it. The flaw is that you also open up the ability of crooks to be even more brazen and kill others because you don't have the "equalizer" there to deter it.
Would you rather go into a house that you know doesn't have an assault weapon in it -- when you have one (you being the outlaw) or would you rather worry about going into that house because they probably have that weapon? I know that in the end, if someone in my household was killed by an outlaw that had an assault weapon, and I couldn't defend my self because they were outlawed -- then I would probably become an outlaw myself. I would find a way to defend myself and my family regardless.
The law written didn't stop the outlaw -- it only stopped the lawful person from being able to defend themselves.
With that said, where do you draw the line? Should I be a lawful citizen or an outlaw? You will never eliminate the guns because like drugs their is a market for them. You can just make them more expensive by creating a black market for them. They will always be available due to human engineering or theft -- if you know the right people or have enough money.
So why are you really trying to eliminate them from the law abiding people?
As far as bombs go -- a trained person can build that in about 10 minutes at Home Depot. Yet we aren't going to shut down Home Depot are we?
As far at the automobile argument -- funny how guns work everyone up, yet they justify the automobile.... according to the FBI statistics -- In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported. (NOTE this does not include suicide). So at most ~2300 deaths involving assault weapons (and this is including all except handguns).
Yet in the same year 32,885 died on US highways. Over 14 Times more people killed on the highways.
Why is it the guns that we want to pursue? I don't understand the logic.
Yes I know that a few people might be saved by the assault weapon ban -- I also know that a few more might be killed by the assault weapon ban. So we are worried about the scraps instead of the meal. Typical logic in today's America -- waste a dollar to save a penny. Just make sure that it doesn't effect me.
Now to give my opinion about the vehicle situation. Why aren't all vehicles equipped with a blow device that won't allow them to start with alcohol on your breath. We have the technology already -- why not just pass a law effecting everyone. Why not have a speed limiting device that would not allow a vehicle to go over this speed. We have the technology -- why not pass the law -- it would save lives. Why not equip a car with a chip that reads speed limits and put a transponder in the speed limit sign poles so that you can't speed -- we have the technology and it would save lives. Why not pass a law that all cars require all of this?
Now - who is going to pay for it?
At least with these things - you could effect a larger number of people.
|
So if I were to boil down your arguments to two statements, I think they would be:
1. Laws are pointless.
2. The safest option is for every non-felon to have a gun.
Sounds like the old West to me. That place was totally safe, right?
Also, do you see the conflicting agendas when you, in one breath, claim that limiting gun ownership imposes on a populaces' freedom and ability to defend itself, and then in the next breath ask for government restriction and technological devices affecting when and how we can operate our personal modes of transportation?
|
|
|
02-27-2013, 05:32 PM
|
#40
|
Diamond Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Just outside the Metroplex
Posts: 5,539
|
Someone else's thoughts on this matter.
----------------
Here's Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle
Posted 12/28/2012 06:57 PM ET
Email Print License Comment
inShare
Guns: The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault" rifle. Here's one reason — in 2010, a Texas teen used a rifle similar to the one used in Newtown to defend his younger sister and himself from home invaders.
The left quite often exposes its raging elitism through its odious habit of asking why anyone would need the things that it doesn't like, from guns to big homes to monster trucks.
The implication is that if the elitists don't want whatever it is, then no one should be allowed to have it — except, of course, it's fine for the elitists themselves to live in energy-sucking mansions, hire armed bodyguards and drive around in gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs.
When the left asks these questions it also reveals its blinding ignorance. Is there a single Democrat, dense celebrity or condescending journalist who is aware that "assault" rifles don't just define their owners as red necks but also serve as practical protection?
Actually the total amount of what they don't know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.
Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453 homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that's too many. But compare that number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.
In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with "knives or cutting instruments"; "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" killed 674; while "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were the choices in 869 homicides.
The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323 last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still remains a more common choice than the rifle.
In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as rifles in 2011.
Yet no one is asking why anyone would want to own a set of steak knives, place a heavy candelabra on their mantle or have a hammer in their garage.
The weapon used effectively as protection by the Texas teen was neither a club nor a fist but reportedly an AR-15, a rifle on which the .223-caliber Bushmaster used in the tragic Sandy Hook shootings was modeled.
Though tagged "assault" weapons, both are merely semi-automatics, just as are many hunting rifles, and all but a handful are used legally and peacefully.
But elitists on the left don't hunt — they let someone else do their killing — so how could they know?
None of this is intended to minimize the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary or any other mass shooting.
It's simply an attempt to point out that a screaming obsession over one particular weapon used less frequently to kill than knives is driven by ignorance, arrogance and a nonexistent sense of proportion.
Read More At IBD: Here's One Reason Why Someone Would Need To Own An 'Assault' Rifle - Investors.com http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz2M8nk2iy3
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have". Gerald Ford
"Life's tough, it's even tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
-Capt. Bob "Wolf" Johnson
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 PM.
|