Ok. Show us your research data...
CT: 27 dead including 18 kids in CT school shooting. There are no words - WTF?!
- Thread starter stoney
- Start date
Violent crime is at its lowest level in half a century:
http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/
Gun ownership is declining:
http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/07/21/the-declining-culture-of-guns-and-violence-in-the-united-states/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+themonkeycagefeed+(The+Monkey+Cage)
And the numbers show states with stricter gun control DO have less gun violence.
The laws of supply and demand will apply just like any other controlled or banned product.
Conversely, why don't you ask illegal pot dealers how they are doing in CA now that you can buy it almost anywhere legally? I am sure there are a lot less and they aren't doing nearly as well as they use to be and yet there is a lot more use and suppliers.
Last edited:
You've made my argument for me with the pot thing.
Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with guns. Didn't work with booze. Isn't working with drugs.
So instead of continuing a ban on weed, they've legalized it and shut down a segment of the illegal drug trade.
Your argument's logic leads to people doing illegal firearms sales like the mob did with booze or the cartels do with drugs. Let me know how it works out.
Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work with guns. Didn't work with booze. Isn't working with drugs.
So instead of continuing a ban on weed, they've legalized it and shut down a segment of the illegal drug trade.
Your argument's logic leads to people doing illegal firearms sales like the mob did with booze or the cartels do with drugs. Let me know how it works out.
Cant argue with stupid..
I feel sorry for US citizens who have to put up with this dumb**** redneck reasoning.
I wish you all the best, youll need it.
I feel sorry for US citizens who have to put up with this dumb**** redneck reasoning.
I wish you all the best, youll need it.
There is significantly more use and more pot now that its legal. The illegal pot dealers have a larger market but they are failing. Legalizing pot significantly increased the market and use just it does for the supply of any prior banned or very tightly controlled product. As I said, conversely.
Last edited:
Ok, show me some data on that.
I know everyone is high in Oregon, helps with the SAD, but that's nothing new.
I know everyone is high in Oregon, helps with the SAD, but that's nothing new.
Not just one but two RM Lounge threads:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/westboro-baptist-church-picket-connecticut-school-shooting_n_2312186.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/westboro-baptist-church-picket-connecticut-school-shooting_n_2312186.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Last edited:
Did you post the wrong picture or did you honestly just compare a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old to the mass killing of innocent women and children with an automatic weapon?
fify.
It follows basic economic theory. Illicit products cost more so the demand isn't as high at the greater prices. Kidwoo mentioned that - greater cost and/or lower supply are barriers to sales/ownership.
I saw some interview with a CA pot dealer the other day but don't remember where.
Last edited:
So wait, if I get some grow lights and a still, can I make me some guns?
Last edited:
let´s assume for a moment, you are right.
lets say the "root cause" is all the crazy people in the US.
if that is the case... why are events like these so disproportionately common in the US vs other countries???
are there really that many more crazy people in the US? or could this be compounded by another reason?
Yes. That's how they make guns in Tennessee.
Did you miss the guy in China stabbing a bunch of kids?
Ban knives?
All 22 children lived and he had half an hour to attack them. They have strict gun control in China too. How hard is it to see the difference?
You conveniently skip any analysis of the risk/benefit of the item in question as well as the total number of people impacted. Aside from the constitutional rights issue (which remains hotly debated, regardless of precedent), why does the public need these weapons so badly that it justifies taking the risk? What are you really protecting? And how many people whose rights would be restricted from owning an assault weapon would actually be negatively impacted, as compared to the number of people who would benefit from having less of them around?
Edit: You didn't really just compare a knife to an assault weapon did you? If so, it's clear you are not interested in a real debate.
Last edited:
Try this for size.
The anti-gun, anti-second Amendment, liberal, left wing establishment doesn't have the money, the votes or the clout to get it changed. Obama is no Clinton. He recognizes that it'd be a really bad idea in a country so divided for someone that the entire right wing hates to come in and do a gun grab. If he did, I can assure you that someone even dumber than Bush will be coming into office.
It was widely publicized that a large part of the reason that a waterhead like Bush beat Gore back in 2000 was because of Gore and Liberman's agreement with the AWB. Hell, I can admit that I voted for Bush for no other reason than I knew he'd let that ban sunset. And he did.
There's going to be a lot of talk. A lot of posturing. A lot of trotting the photos of dead kids and dead Batman fans out and crying and carrying on. And in the end, it won't mean ****. Americans, even in the face of such horrors, aren't going to get behind en mass the idea of another Assault Weapons Ban. Mark my words, you won't see substantive change occur. The horse is out of the barn with black guns.
The anti-gun, anti-second Amendment, liberal, left wing establishment doesn't have the money, the votes or the clout to get it changed. Obama is no Clinton. He recognizes that it'd be a really bad idea in a country so divided for someone that the entire right wing hates to come in and do a gun grab. If he did, I can assure you that someone even dumber than Bush will be coming into office.
It was widely publicized that a large part of the reason that a waterhead like Bush beat Gore back in 2000 was because of Gore and Liberman's agreement with the AWB. Hell, I can admit that I voted for Bush for no other reason than I knew he'd let that ban sunset. And he did.
There's going to be a lot of talk. A lot of posturing. A lot of trotting the photos of dead kids and dead Batman fans out and crying and carrying on. And in the end, it won't mean ****. Americans, even in the face of such horrors, aren't going to get behind en mass the idea of another Assault Weapons Ban. Mark my words, you won't see substantive change occur. The horse is out of the barn with black guns.
That's not how the debate of Constitutional Rights works in the courts or in this country.
One of the things Heller established is that there is an inherent social interest in the individual being able to own weapons. It is an individual right, and with the court you have in place now, you're not going to unseat that.
You don't get to by fiat or proxy legislate rights. Yes, you can put controls in place to a certain extent, but the overriding social interest has been established in favor of gun ownership. You don't get to "aside from the constitutional rights issue" your way out of this, that is the paramount virtue here. There is no legal precedent, which is what matters here, that requires the cost benefit analysis in this matter. You could use the same argument when it comes to abortion. Your viewpoint dictates that the risk/reward equation is flawed against the free proliferation of weapons. So then from that same view should we reverse Roe v. Wade because the Jesus freaks like Fred Phelps thinks that abortion is a moral sin?
Dirk, in this forum we get to frame the debate however we want. I asked for your justification ASIDE from the constitutional argument. Your inability or unwillingness to answer the question speaks volumes.
Clearly the answer is less guns, more glitter. Or maybe a glitter gun. Damn that's it. Replace all the lead in bullets with glitter.
I should move to DC and get a job at a think tank. I am wasting my time here.....
I should move to DC and get a job at a think tank. I am wasting my time here.....
Drugs equal guns? Neat. Can't shoot somebody with pot.
Well, the right wing may hate Obama, but he won the last election. Again. And the dems won the senate, again. kinda says the American public is tired of the right wing, huh? And by the time another case reaches the supreme court, bambam may have another two justices in there. I want to support gun owners rights, but with an attitude like yours, we may as well ban them all.
Thinking you can lock up anybody with mental illness is the same argument as banning all guns. It will not work, or your dumb ass would be in jail too, mr. I'll fly to afghanistan because my wife dumped me.
Well, the right wing may hate Obama, but he won the last election. Again. And the dems won the senate, again. kinda says the American public is tired of the right wing, huh? And by the time another case reaches the supreme court, bambam may have another two justices in there. I want to support gun owners rights, but with an attitude like yours, we may as well ban them all.
Thinking you can lock up anybody with mental illness is the same argument as banning all guns. It will not work, or your dumb ass would be in jail too, mr. I'll fly to afghanistan because my wife dumped me.
That's all the justification needed my friend. Feelings are special and wonderful, but nothing trumps the constitution.
In the end, it's on my side and that's your issue with the document.
Last time I checked travel isn't a disorder.
Don't constitutional amendments?
Last time I checked the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That one hasn't been changed in over 200 years. There have been no amendments to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And I am not saying we don't need to have a conversation on gun control. Check my quotes, never said that. What I am saying is that banning a certain type of weapon is pointless. It does not change the math.
We need to change a lot of things. But an outright ban on assault weapons is pointless, an unnecessary encumbrance on law abiding citizens who enjoy them and are given the right to do so under the highest legal document in the land.
Our history is marked, legally, by unpopular ideas or virtues being held up as paramount because they were more beneficial to the people of the United States than the opposition would lead you to consider. Free speech, the access to abortions, the access to health care, the access to information: all ideals held up by the courts even though some of the public disliked these virtues because they defied the ideal of America that they held to be true.
Reaction is a bad way to run a country. Knee jerk reactions are an even worse policy.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That one hasn't been changed in over 200 years. There have been no amendments to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And I am not saying we don't need to have a conversation on gun control. Check my quotes, never said that. What I am saying is that banning a certain type of weapon is pointless. It does not change the math.
We need to change a lot of things. But an outright ban on assault weapons is pointless, an unnecessary encumbrance on law abiding citizens who enjoy them and are given the right to do so under the highest legal document in the land.
Our history is marked, legally, by unpopular ideas or virtues being held up as paramount because they were more beneficial to the people of the United States than the opposition would lead you to consider. Free speech, the access to abortions, the access to health care, the access to information: all ideals held up by the courts even though some of the public disliked these virtues because they defied the ideal of America that they held to be true.
Reaction is a bad way to run a country. Knee jerk reactions are an even worse policy.
So I haven't weighed in, but have read this thread and lots of other reports about this whole dreadful situation. I'm a mother of 2 (6 going on 7 year old and nearly 7month old) girls. I also teach PreK-2nd grade and HS. I went to school today, not dreading or worrying about "what if" but to see my students, to smile at them and to make sure they knew that I would be there for them. I think of them as extensions of my own family so today, in my K, 1, 2 classes we sat together, criss-cross applesauce on the rug and shared a Christmas sing-along and began moving on. Many of the students had questions but ultimately, they wanted to feel safe and loved and I can safely say that I am more sore from sitting, draped in children for 2 hours today than I am from my last mountain bike ride, but I wouldn't change it for the world.
So, now I hug my kids a little longer and really make sure that I hold their faces, kiss them on both cheeks and tell them I love them as often as I can. My heart aches for the families that no long have their children to hold and they will be in my thoughts and prayers for quite some time to come.
So, now I hug my kids a little longer and really make sure that I hold their faces, kiss them on both cheeks and tell them I love them as often as I can. My heart aches for the families that no long have their children to hold and they will be in my thoughts and prayers for quite some time to come.
Sounds like this is a reaction 200 years in the making.
No, that is not all the justification needed - that's exactly my point. The Supreme Court is not always right, any more than the founders were always right. I'm asking you to think for yourself and put it in your own words. You can't, or you won't. That's your call. But like a lot of people I'm still waiting for a strong argument for why you need an assault rifle.
Anyway, tides change and so do Supreme Court decisions. We'll see how you respond when it's not on your side. Will you still think the Supreme Court is all that matters? Should we listen when you blame it on politics?
I've long had a theory I stole from a friend that we should be given two hand grenades at birth that we can use without reprisal on the part of the law. But only two, and you're not allowed to take extras off the dead.
If the Supreme Court shifts its opinion, then I will appeal it. At the end of the day, I don't always like the law, but I respect it as I work within it. I took an oath as a lawyer, and earlier as a member of the Army, to defend and uphold the Constitution.
I get that you think this should be a larger debate, or maybe that a larger justification is needed. But for me, the justification is the law. I've spent a lifetime, or at least all of my adult lifetime, working to preserve and protect the Constitution of these United States. When I joined the Army I was doing it to defend a way of life, and that way of life does include guns. I find it twisted beyond belief that people support the troops going abroad with M-16's and killing those that would threaten us, but then would have the audacity to ask me to turn over my weapons when I come home because you don't like them. Its bull****, its hollow logic and its an insult.
I don't need one in my day to day life, which is why I don't carry one anymore in my day to day life. However, I feel I've earned my right to have them. I did the time in the **** so to preserve the right to have one. You don't like guns, and you feel justified and vindicated in that belief. I like guns, I did my time to preserve my own rights, and I intend to keep my guns. I really don't care what your opinion is, or the opinion of those like you. I put my time in, and as such this is one of the benefits of a life lived fighting to preserve the rights and way of life of this nation.
Furthermore, I like guns. Shooting is fun. Bolt action rifles and break action shotguns or single shot pistols are interesting and have their place, but sometimes dumping an entire magazine into a hillside is just what does it for me.
Do you remember every mountain biker's best friend Mike Vandeman? He feels about bikes like you would seem to feel about assault weapons. He thinks we're destroying the planet, killing the mountains, and raping every hiker that has ever touched a trail. His level of vitriol is the same in my mind as your level of dislike for guns.
You and I can agree we like bikes, we like riding, we like going downhill hooting and hollering like two girls on ecstasy on Girls Gone Wild. Yet according to Vademan we're just as bad as this guy who shot up all these innocent little kids.
While I understand that this is an apples to oranges comparison, you can see where I am going with this. Shooting sports are something I enjoy, including things like IPSC and three gun shooting. Yet if you want to apply your logic, then I am automatically a bad guy. You can think that I suppose, and it doesn't really bother me either way. I'd ask you, however, to think beyond isolated tragedies and horrible acts of a handful of evil and twisted lone actors before you judge me and those like me.
You're going to appeal a Supreme Court decision? Good luck with that. I hear it is really hard to get the Super Supreme Court to hear a case.
I'd comment on the rest of it but I'm not even sure WTF you are talking about. I'll just say your need to spooge $50 worth of ammo into a hillside in 60 seconds may not be an absolute right and leave it at that.
well, you trust your environment so much, that you need a semi automatic weapons to protect yourself?
Slight trust = healthy skepticism.
healthy scepticism = twenty dead children, six to seven y/o