The White House Releases New Gun Control Agenda

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

the clockmaker:

Assassin Xaero:
On msn they, one of the items was:

•banning "military-style" assault weapons

At least they are coming right out and saying they are trying to banning gun just because they look "scary" now.

Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with ergonomics and ease of use in a stress situation. It is far easier to maintain a consistent field of fire in a stress situation using a 'military' style weapon than it is with a 'hunting style weapon'.

And before you go on with that standard line of how ultra-leet your weapon cycling skills are, try doing it in the middle of a mental breakdown after a long period of either depression or a psychotic break, with people screaming in pain all around you, the firm knowledge that you will likely not live out the next six hours and the stress inherent in breaking a strong societal taboo. In this sort of situation, the ergonomics and ease of use would be a great aid to a spree shooter.

In addition, the psychological connotation of a weapon designed to kill a person would do quite a bit to break own the psychological barriers against killing a person. The availability and approval that weapons designed to kill humans lends a tactic approval to the notion that killing a human is acceptable.

What exactly do you mean by "military style" though? Because it looks like the definition of "assault weapon" or whatever that Obama is going for is going to exclude a lot of service rifles used by militaries until relatively recently.

The M1 Garand, for example, has no detachable magazine or pistol grip, and was in limited use by US forces up until the 70s (though mostly phased out before then). I'd personally still count this as a military weapon, albeit old fashioned.

Similarly, the M14 rifle was used by US forces in Korea, to an extent in Vietnam and is still in limited service today. It has a detachable magazine, but no pistol grip or collapsible stock, and needn't feature the other things that'd turn it into an assault weapon. Now, the original was capable of automatic fire, but there's semi-automatic versions floating around.

In your opinion, are these older weapons significantly less dangerous than AR15s? I'm not criticising, here, I want to know what you think.

the clockmaker:

Gorfias:

"The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.[1]"

Note that explosives are regulated in the united states for exactly that reason, something which I think goes a long way to preventing ease of access to explosives for people in danger of becoming a danger. These new sets of laws do not need to regulate explosives as explosives are already strictly regulated, a fact which, funnily enough no one seems to complain of.

Also note that attempting to obtain explosives without a reasonable cause is a good way to get yourself on all sorts of watch lists.

I don't think single women, frightened of angry ex-boyfriends, need the kind of quick access to explosives that they need to guns, no matter how scary looking.

Gorfias:
I don't think single women, frightened of angry ex-boyfriends, need the kind of quick access to explosives that they need to guns, no matter how scary looking.

They already have. Yet assaults and homicides in a relational background still occur in the US. Why?

Because guns don't deter crime, they cause more crime. The only difference guns make is that a vengefull ex arms up as well, and either side can turn an emotional argument in a murder in a split second.

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
I don't think single women, frightened of angry ex-boyfriends, need the kind of quick access to explosives that they need to guns, no matter how scary looking.

They already have. Yet assaults and homicides in a relational background still occur in the US. Why?

Because guns don't deter crime, they cause more crime. The only difference guns make is that a vengefull ex arms up as well, and either side can turn an emotional argument in a murder in a split second.

Conservative John Lott disproves that regularly. More guns = less crime, particularly as they loosen concealed carry regulations.

That lady pushing people into moving trains is nuts. No gun laws required. The hijackers that murdered 3,000 with box cutters? Nuts. No gun laws required.

Insanity and evil is. We don't surrender our rights thinking that will make us safer. It wont.

Gorfias:
Conservative John Lott disproves that regularly. More guns = less crime, particularly as they loosen concealed carry regulations.

However, that's just an outlandish claim by the gun lobby, for which there is no evidence.

Please don't start quoting silly anecdotes of gun fiends pulling weapons on pickpockets now... It's getting tiresome.

Gorfias:
Insanity and evil is. We don't surrender our rights thinking that will make us safer. It wont.

What about the evidence that it saves thousands of lives? The experiences in other countries, the ending of spree killings there, the higher safety levels they enjoy?

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Conservative John Lott disproves that regularly. More guns = less crime, particularly as they loosen concealed carry regulations.

However, that's just an outlandish claim by the gun lobby, for which there is no evidence.

There's a ton of evidence and it is common sense. Screaming, "I'm a law abiding citizen and totally unarmed" is not going to protect you from a murderous criminal.

Gorfias:
Insanity and evil is. We don't surrender our rights thinking that will make us safer. It wont.

What about the evidence that it saves thousands of lives? The experiences in other countries, the ending of spree killings there, the higher safety levels they enjoy?[/quote]

I've read recently of mass killings in recently gun controlled countries I'm sure you can find in this forum. One recently about a guy killing like 16 people in gun control UK.

ITMT: The President has treated us like sucker, acting imperial, stripping us of our rights, surrounded by children to stave off criticism because his thinking is flatulent. What next? Surround himself with puppies while the government takes over the News Paper industry?

Gorfias:

Blablahb:

Gorfias:
Conservative John Lott disproves that regularly. More guns = less crime, particularly as they loosen concealed carry regulations.

However, that's just an outlandish claim by the gun lobby, for which there is no evidence.

There's a ton of evidence and it is common sense.

Whatever you are trying to argue, never, ever say "it's just common sense", unless you've buried it in a heap of evidence. "It's just common sense" means nothing more than "This is my view which I hold to the exclusion of all others".

thaluikhain:

Whatever you are trying to argue, never, ever say "it's just common sense", unless you've buried it in a heap of evidence. "It's just common sense" means nothing more than "This is my view which I hold to the exclusion of all others".

Really? Always? OK. People that don't share my views on some things must have very interesting minds. I think, "I have a gun and will shoot" a better way to ward off a deranged killer than, "I'm a law abiding citizen and am completely unarmed". Those that disagree must be really interesting.

Gorfias:

thaluikhain:

Whatever you are trying to argue, never, ever say "it's just common sense", unless you've buried it in a heap of evidence. "It's just common sense" means nothing more than "This is my view which I hold to the exclusion of all others".

Really? Always? OK. People that don't share my views on some things must have very interesting minds.

From your PoV I'm sure they do (sort of by definition), but that wasn't my point.

Regardless of whether or not you are right, "it's just common sense" is a denial to consider alternative viewpoints.

TechNoFear:

I have a WW2 Lee-Enfield (my father's army issue),

So despite you objecting so much to me keeping a firearm, to the point where you told me flat out that it's good and proper for me to be helpless before anyone who wants to attack me, that I should just "hang on and hope for the best" (an attitude I'll remind you which nearly got me killed) without defense from either a firearm or police, you actually keep a higher caliber firearm than anything I own?

Just...just wow....

dmase:

Gorfias:
More guns = less crime, particularly as they loosen concealed carry regulations.

Bullshit. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

From your link: " Kellermann's work has been branded "'junk science,'" Yup. Loved the lack of suicide information. This thing was a disgraceful worthless mess and I am a little dumber for having read this crap. You are better than that. I'm betting you can find much, much better links even if they are biased and full of crap. Bottom line: someone wants to murder me, I hope I can defend myself rather than be a good Jew and be murdered lawfully.

thaluikhain:

Regardless of whether or not you are right, "it's just common sense" is a denial to consider alternative viewpoints.

I'm agreeing with you as fast as I can. I'll try to never use the term again. In the past, I might write that it is common sense that Elvis is dead, I need to remember about 10% of USA citizens do not believe that.

I do think some 51% of Americans were so charmed by this guy surrounding himself with Children as he acted all imperial, pretending the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist. But Amendments exist to confound simple majorities.

I have to wonder if his actions are impeachable? I kind of hope not. The right has to come up with reasons to vote FOR them rather than say loony things like, "this Kenyan isn't even American!!!" They need to promise, "we can do better. We will fight for rights central to American liberty, like free speech, and the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms..

GunsmithKitten:
So despite you objecting so much to me keeping a firearm, to the point where you told me flat out that it's good and proper for me to be helpless before anyone who wants to attack me

You're twisting his word and guilttripping. Let's get a few things straight:

-You're not helpless without firearms
-Actually you're quite helpless with firearms. The other guy isn't waving a screw driver this time, and he pulls the trigger first and then where are you? In the cemetry, another victim of gun owners
-A WW II rifle without ammunition is not the same as a handgun carried with the intent of killing fellow human beings, which you yourself stated as motivation for your gun ownership
-Taking home a keepsake from the army after you were drafted, is not the same as buying a firearm with the express intent of murdering other people, which you, according to your own words, did
-People aren't out to get you. That is a delusion from the paranoid spectrum, to which therapy, and not gun violence, is the valid answer
-The only hypocritical stance regarding safety is the pro-gun one, because those people want the deaths of others, but do not want to be killed themselves. That is hypocritical
-Wanting yourself ánd others to be safe by banning guns, is a logically consistent viewpoint

Gorfias:
There's a ton of evidence and it is common sense.

Something must've gone wrong when you posted it. After this sentence the claim just continued and no links or citations of decent (non-gun lobby) studies appeared in your post.

I'll read it again when you fix it ok?

Gorfias:
I've read recently of mass killings in recently gun controlled countries I'm sure you can find in this forum. One recently about a guy killing like 16 people in gun control UK.

Don't forget to also read how easily it was refuted by pointing out that shooting was the reason they got tight gun control in the first place, and it took over a decade to get another one.

While in a gun culture like the US, you have shooting about weekly, due to gun ownership being so widespread.

Background checks on all gun sales

No problem with that.

Reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban

Negative Ghostrider. Won't have an effect on crime just like the last one.

A 10-round limit on ammunition magazines

See above.

Reinstatement of CDC research into the causes and prevention of gun violence

Sounds good.

Protecting police officers by banning armor-piercing bullets through a manufacture and import ban

I'd like to see some information on number of of officers killed by armor piercing rounds. Otherwise it seems like something that just sounds good and means nothing.

Providing resources to allow schools to hire 1,000 "school resource officers"

Doesn't seem like it'd cover even a significant fraction of schools but its a start.

Providing mental health coverage in health insurance plans

Is this government funded or a mandate on companies? Either way I can't fault it.

Blablahb:

-You're not helpless without firearms

I don't have bodyguards. Small frame and body. One limb already fubar'd. Not many equalizers at disposal.

-People aren't out to get you.

So the guy who left a dead rattlesnake on my car seat, left phone messages and emails explaining how he and his friends would find me and cut me up and throw me in the local resevoir, they were just having some good clean fun?

-Wanting yourself ánd others to be safe by banning guns, is a logically consistent viewpoint

So what then keeps me safe from blade, bludgeon, and strangling violence, pray tell?

an dyes, TechNoFear did say he wanted me to be helpless, and said I should just "hang on and pray for the best".

GunsmithKitten:

Blablahb:

-You're not helpless without firearms

I don't have bodyguards. Small frame and body. One limb already fubar'd. Not many equalizers at disposal.

So? You're still not helpless. If someone were to assault you with the intent to rape you, for example, you should follow the Brady campaign's advice and either defecate, vomit, or tell your assailant you have aids. Even if that doesn't work, is something that lasts as short as 30 seconds worth someone's life?

-People aren't out to get you.

So the guy who left a dead rattlesnake on my car seat, left phone messages and emails explaining how he and his friends would find me and cut me up and throw me in the local resevoir, they were just having some good clean fun?

Obviously a practical joker. You wouldn't respond to a joke with violence, would you? Only an absolute creep would do that.

Mr.BadExample:
So? You're still not helpless. If someone were to assault you with the intent to rape you, for example, you should follow the Brady campaigns advice and either defecate, vomit, or tell your assailant you have aids. Even if that doesn't work, is something that lasts as short as 30 seconds worth someone's life?

Violating me? You damn right it is.

I also can't vomit or defecate on cue.

-People aren't out to get you.

[quote]Obviously a practical joker. You wouldn't respond to a joke with violence, would you? Only an absolute creep would do that.

You better be kidding. If you're not and you really think someone doing that is just kidding, then you're not worth conversing with.

Gorfias:

dmase:

Gorfias:
More guns = less crime, particularly as they loosen concealed carry regulations.

Bullshit. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

From your link: " Kellermann's work has been branded "'junk science,'" Yup. Loved the lack of suicide information. This thing was a disgraceful worthless mess and I am a little dumber for having read this crap. You are better than that. I'm betting you can find much, much better links even if they are biased and full of crap. Bottom line: someone wants to murder me, I hope I can defend myself rather than be a good Jew and be murdered lawfully.

Maybe you should read the whole link, and the only people to brand it junk science where the good people of the NRA with an obvious bias yet his research is peer reviewed. However the NRA thinks for some reason they have the expertise to refute someone who is a proffessional in the field purely because they support guns, which is fucking retarded.

First off what is wrong with "this crap" please inform me.

If you want the suicide data here is a link to harvard.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/

So how about I give you direct data for homocide and suicide look at the break down by numbers. 1.9 times(not percent like I originally had it) more likely for homicide in a household with guns. Do you know why that makes since? Because most people know their assialant and guns usually make an argument worse, most violent homoicides 1/3 where in a family domestic dispute before the gun got pulled out. Those are situations where that gun works against you.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Or if you'd rather use this study

http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/science/article/pii/S0277953606004898

If your only able to see the abstract I'll go ahead and copy and paste the whole document. Pick the reports apart at your leisure, but there is something that I want you to think about. These guys credentials are on the line every time they wright a paper not up to snuff. They submit these papers to multiple publications with editors looking over an criticize every detail and these editors are groups of staffs that are professionals on the subject and methods involved with studies like this. Also there are multiple people working on one study at a time and at some point you think someone would have voiced their concern with their reputation at stake regarding a study. Next other universities will go through other statistics and try to reproduce the results if they can't they will wright something that seems to disprove the original science. Believe me there is far more benefit in showing corruption in major universities like Harvard then trying to push some pro gun agenda for scientists. So you can pour over these reports if you want but you won't find some glaring mistake and any stretches in logic will be purposely placed in the paper, like any good scientist would do. But at the end of the day where is the data that proves gun's prevent gun crimes, I have the whole internet at my finger tips and I find no scientific evidence for that at all.

Ryotknife:

2. ATF getting a director position

What the ATF needs is a giant set of balls. They've been slowly dismantled over the last 20 years to the point that they have no ability to prosecute, inspect, or even look at gun sellers funny. Just go to their website - the only thing they can do is tell gun sellers how to do the job they themselves should be doing, like not selling a gun to someone who is drunk or disorderly (as if they'll listen) and to perform annual inspections of inventory (again the ATF should be doing this but can't by law now). Plus they're severely understaffed and always have been.

Gorfias:

the clockmaker:

Gorfias:

"The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.[1]"

Note that explosives are regulated in the united states for exactly that reason, something which I think goes a long way to preventing ease of access to explosives for people in danger of becoming a danger. These new sets of laws do not need to regulate explosives as explosives are already strictly regulated, a fact which, funnily enough no one seems to complain of.

Also note that attempting to obtain explosives without a reasonable cause is a good way to get yourself on all sorts of watch lists.

I don't think single women, frightened of angry ex-boyfriends, need the kind of quick access to explosives that they need to guns, no matter how scary looking.

Okay, pet hate, I already pointed out that the guns aren't being banned because they are 'scary looking' in this same thread, so people parroting points that I have responded to without responding to my rebuttal in quoting me does annoy me.

And hooray for the appeal to emotion, but I really think that if you want the full image

effect you need to really ratchet up the effect, I mean, lets have the ex-boyfriend be drunk and ill educated, and the single woman can teach orphans to fingerpaint in her spare time. When we are just creating a victim whose suffering we want to blame the other sides policy on without actually making a coherent point, the sky is the limit.

What you don't address and what no one ever does is the effect of fear on an otherwise rational hard working (I feel that she should be good looking, but not look like a model, the audience is going to connect better with a 'plain jane' type figure) person. She is afraid, therefore less likely to be rational (a comment on fear, not a comment on women, men are less rational in fear situations as well), what happens when, for example, the neighbor bangs on the door a bit too loud to ask for a cup of sugar (again for this to really hit the audience, it needs to feel like a slice of old americana, which ties in nicely to both the 'guns made america great' ideology and a subconscious feeling of sympathetic violation when the killer invades the scene). What happens when, in her panicking mind, she doesn't believe the cop is who he said he is? What happens when a sparky comes to inspect her meter? What happens when the ex-boyfriend sobers up and comes over with the sincere intent of apologising before leaving forever? What happens to the dozens of potential ways that lives are traumatically and permanently changed when you add the element of untrained lethal force.

Also, to save space, I am going to respond to a few of your more ridiculous points without quoting the specific post.
-'recent 16 victim massacre in UK' Only shooting fitting that description occurred in 1987, 9 years before the current regulations came into effect. Of course I shouldn't be surprised, one 'source' that the anti-legislation side was throwing about recently referred to the massacre of 135 people in Australia recently.
-'Be murdered like a good little jew' I actually hope that you are jewish and this is a 'I feel culturally persecuted thing' because as bad as that bloody is, assigning passivity in the face of death to another group as casually as this seems to be is not cool mate.
-'obligatory 9/11 reference' Note what you have to do to get on a plane now, not the security and increased regulations required to get past security. Note the fact that to own your own plane you have to be licensed, it has to be registered how and when you fly it is controlled. There are places you cannot take it, you cannot just hand it over to your child and let them fly it when you die. Note that a lot of these laws came about due to the risk that you are putting forward.

thaluikhain:

What exactly do you mean by "military style" though? Because it looks like the definition of "assault weapon" or whatever that Obama is going for is going to exclude a lot of service rifles used by militaries until relatively recently.

The M1 Garand, for example, has no detachable magazine or pistol grip, and was in limited use by US forces up until the 70s (though mostly phased out before then). I'd personally still count this as a military weapon, albeit old fashioned.

Similarly, the M14 rifle was used by US forces in Korea, to an extent in Vietnam and is still in limited service today. It has a detachable magazine, but no pistol grip or collapsible stock, and needn't feature the other things that'd turn it into an assault weapon. Now, the original was capable of automatic fire, but there's semi-automatic versions floating around.

In your opinion, are these older weapons significantly less dangerous than AR15s? I'm not criticising, here, I want to know what you think.

Personally, I see their importance as historical pieces, but not as personal weapons, here in Aus, the ban extends to all semi-automatic weapons and I think that that is a good basis.

The older weapons, due to a difference in the line of the stock necessitated by the lack of a pistol grip, are less effective at maintaining an consistent field of fire than the more modern pieces. However, many of the same issues remain in that they are fairly easy to use in a stress situation, are mostly ergonomically suited for consistent fire in a target rich, low resistance environment and do not require manual cycling. So in less waffly terms, I would be in favor of banning them for personal use, but not for secured display by accredited historical collectors.

GunsmithKitten:

Mr.BadExample:
So? You're still not helpless. If someone were to assault you with the intent to rape you, for example, you should follow the Brady campaigns advice and either defecate, vomit, or tell your assailant you have aids. Even if that doesn't work, is something that lasts as short as 30 seconds worth someone's life?

Violating me? You damn right it is.

I also can't vomit or defecate on cue.

-People aren't out to get you.

[quote]Obviously a practical joker. You wouldn't respond to a joke with violence, would you? Only an absolute creep would do that.

You better be kidding. If you're not and you really think someone doing that is just kidding, then you're not worth conversing with.

He's making a joke at the Brady Campaign's expense.

They recently posted a photo to their facebook saying it was better to be raped, than shoot your rapist.

At least, I hope he's joking.

Mr.BadExample:

GunsmithKitten:

I don't have bodyguards. Small frame and body. One limb already fubar'd. Not many equalizers at disposal.

So? You're still not helpless. If someone were to assault you with the intent to rape you, for example, you should follow the Brady campaigns advice and either defecate, vomit, or tell your assailant you have aids. Even if that doesn't work, is something that lasts as short as 30 seconds worth someone's life?

Are you joking?

You're actually saying "So? you're not helpless while you're being raped! Vomit shit or say you have aids!" Because that kind of chance they will stop isn't one that comforts people about their safety if they have a gun to prevent someone beating and raping them. I have to assume this is a joke or parody of something.

OT: You can't do anything about Americas gun culture overnight and nobody there will agree to a total ban. I think if they were serious about gun control, which they aren't, they'd make the rules like this to get a gun.

-MANDATORY Background check.
-2 Week safety, maintenance and training course with said gun.
-Assault rifle ban for all people who don't need them to fend off Bambi's apparent daily raids.

So they're not going to ban all guns, that's good.

A 10 round magazine limit. How likely is it that they are going to be stopped in the short amount of time it'll take to reload? I mean they could be tackled I guess but how likely is it they'll be anyone close by when that happens? Once they start firing I bet everyone has started running away.

Armor piercing rounds are banned? I don't believe armor piercing rounds have fuck all to do with mass shootings (seriously who's expecting random civilians to be wearing body armor). I think they're just using this to put up some unrelated gun control they want.

Does that mean that the 20 round double column detachable magazines for my recently inherited/transfer of ownership M1A (civilian version of the M14) would be illegal to use even though my dad originally got them in the 80's? If so, at least we have the 10 round magazines for use then.

Kopikatsu:
Your right I'm still waiting for gun owners to admit they buy the military style weapons because they look cool.

They don't just look cool, they help you kill people who do have military hardware that are trying to kill you. I also own body armor for this reason as well. You just never know. Better to have it and not need it...

The point of the 2nd amendment is not just to protect yourself from the common street thug, but from government tyranny. You do not want to bring a pistol to an assault rifle fight. You will have a very bad day.

As for large groups of unarmed people cornered in buildings, it doesn't really make much difference what the shooter uses. He has a gun, they don't... a lot of those people are going to die. I'm pretty sure that if Adam Lanza only had a pump action shotgun, even a revolver with speed loaders, the children he cornered in that first classroom he walked into would all still be dead. He did corner them you know, so many were said to have been shot multiple times- they were probably huddled together. How much difference does the kind of gun make then?

Blablahb:
Within the limits of existing US law, it's a pretty good package. I just question the useage of armed policemen at school. Chances are the rate of them going postal and starting their own school shooting, end up being higher than the amount of shootings they can prevent from happening.

Why do you think that owning a firearm means you will go ballistic? A gun doesn't make a person want to shoot up a school. These are POLICE OFFICERS.

Father Time:

Armor piercing rounds are banned? I don't believe armor piercing rounds have fuck all to do with mass shootings (seriously who's expecting random civilians to be wearing body armor).

They don't give a shit about public safety, they just want an insurance policy for when they finally lose fucking control of the country in a massive shit spiral that they'll be able to have their own private army push over any resistance and save their own ass.

They don't care that society is sick or that people are fucked up and families are breaking down. They just want to increase their own power. It's so human.

Mr.BadExample:

GunsmithKitten:

Blablahb:

-You're not helpless without firearms

I don't have bodyguards. Small frame and body. One limb already fubar'd. Not many equalizers at disposal.

So? You're still not helpless. If someone were to assault you with the intent to rape you, for example, you should follow the Brady campaign's advice and either defecate, vomit, or tell your assailant you have aids. Even if that doesn't work, is something that lasts as short as 30 seconds worth someone's life?

Are you kidding me? You're joking right? So instead of defending my self I should just "take it"? So if your daughter was going to get raped you would just let her get raped because its "not worth taking a life" even though her life will be ruined forever? I think you're joking. You have to be.

xDarc:

Father Time:

Armor piercing rounds are banned? I don't believe armor piercing rounds have fuck all to do with mass shootings (seriously who's expecting random civilians to be wearing body armor).

They don't give a shit about public safety, they just want an insurance policy for when they finally lose fucking control of the country in a massive shit spiral that they'll be able to have their own private army push over any resistance and save their own ass.

They don't care that society is sick or that people are fucked up and families are breaking down. They just want to increase their own power. It's so human.

I can honestly agree to this. This country is still divided in half.

FizzyIzze:
It's interesting how the White House wants background checks done on even private sales. Am I reading this right?

REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL GUN SALES:
Felons, fugitives,and others who are legally prohibited from having a gun should not be able to use loopholes to get one. Right now, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on those buying guns, but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement. As the President said following the Newtown tragedy,keeping guns out of the wrong hands starts with legislation to require background checks for all gun sales, with limited, common-sense exceptions forcases like certain transfers among family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes. In addition, the Administration will provide licensed dealers with guidance on how they can run background checks on private sales today.

I suspect that there will be legislation requiring notification of a private sale and some sort of a background check will probably have to be paid for, possibly using something like a gun store to run the background check and register the new owner.

I don't have a problem with this one, in fact I think it's one of the best that he put in motion. I would argue that there are only 2 that have the possibility of being against the second amendment, assault weapon ban and the ammo clip limit.

Fisher321:
These are POLICE OFFICERS.

So? It's not like you have to look far to find crimes committed by the police. Now, not syaing we should automatically assume they are guilty people in waiting, but the assumption that the police can do no wrong is dangerous.

cap:cop an attitude

Mr.BadExample:

GunsmithKitten:

Blablahb:

-You're not helpless without firearms

I don't have bodyguards. Small frame and body. One limb already fubar'd. Not many equalizers at disposal.

So? You're still not helpless. If someone were to assault you with the intent to rape you, for example, you should follow the Brady campaign's advice and either defecate, vomit, or tell your assailant you have aids. Even if that doesn't work, is something that lasts as short as 30 seconds worth someone's life?

I want to make sure I'm reading this properly. Did you just suggest that it's better for potential rape victims to let themselves be violated than to kill in self-defense?

That's staggering.

@Gorfias

I'm agreeing with you as fast as I can. I'll try to never use the term again. In the past, I might write that it is common sense that Elvis is dead, I need to remember about 10% of USA citizens do not believe that.

That's not the point at all. Common sense is not evidence, that's the point. Especially when we're delving deeply into the workings of the world with science, a lot of things are not common sense at all. Boy, how complicated and unintuitive all this gene shift and drift stuff is. And physics! Hell, not to mention quantum physics! Common sense is actually an oft-cited reason why people reject evolution for crying out loud. Common sense is incredibly flawed. It's enough to muddle through day-to-day, but if you want to actually figure things out, look to actual evidence and investigation rather than some vague feeling of how things are, used to be and ought to be.

the clockmaker:
snip

http://www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html

Lots of stories like, "Bonnie Elmasri
On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor, worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her children. When she asked the instructor about getting a handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later."

We don't need more gun laws or regulations. We need better responses to the evil and the murderously insane.

Skeleon:

Common sense is not evidence.

True, but I think there were things we used to not have to explain. It should be common sense (knowledge we all have through enough common experiences)that hitting yourself in the face with a bat hurts. Now I realize I'm going to have to argue with someone that says hitting yourself in the face with a bat feels great! I get that now.

We should all already have enough common experiences to know certain things. A bully wants to see the expression on your face when you're in agony. Person A brandishes a gun and says, "one step closer and I send you to your maker." Person B says, "please don't bash my face in... I'm actually a really nice person and totally harmless." You'd think we'd all have enough common experience to know person A will be fine, person B is going to the hospital. But nowadays, I think you're right. And since liars can do statistics, I don't trust them much either. Now what?

@Gorfias

Clearly not comparable. You stated this...

Conservative John Lott disproves that regularly. More guns = less crime, particularly as they loosen concealed carry regulations.

...and claimed it was common sense when that is the very point of contention that is in question here and the opposing side has plenty of arguments to the contrary. Whether you accept them or not isn't really the question then, the point is this: You can't very well defend the premise and content of your argument by simply presupposing it's a) correct and b) agreed upon. No.
No, it's not common sense that "more guns = less crime", since plenty of places with less guns also have less crime. Clearly, there is more going on. Clearly, you have all your work ahead of yourself if you want to prove that premise. Clearly, this is not an issue where your particular view of what the common sense understanding should be is generally seen as being the case. If it were, there'd be a whole lot less people trying to limit access to guns.
Trying to demean people who disagree with you as lacking common sense is nothing but disingenious waffling. And the particular analogies you chose for making your point about common sense (Elvis is alive, hitting onself in the face) only demonstrate this all the more.

As for the bully? Does he have a gun, too? Does he pull it out? Do one or both of them end up dead? Hm.
But that's really not here nor there since this is about actual evidence rather than what you think would happen due to your particular view of what the common sense result would be.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked