Gun Issues page 24

2293 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Your teenagers are spoiled brats, for them, not getting an Iphone is the biggest tragedy of life.

Some of them are, that’s true. I think kids are getting iPhones, Facebook pages, etc. etc. way too early.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Your teenagers are spoiled brats, for them, not getting an Iphone is the biggest tragedy of life.
Throw them to mexico for a while and they will come back with a cool mind and a flaming bum.

I can’t argue against such a truism.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Your teenagers are spoiled brats, for them, not getting an Iphone is the biggest tragedy of life.

Some of them are, that’s true. I think kids are getting iPhones, Facebook pages, etc. etc. way too early.

Yes, one of my nieces is the sweetest little girl, but she has been using words on facebook that would have got her punished if she was mine.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Can you explain to me why we should ignore the core problems and just pass gun laws when you know it really won’t solve these mass shootings?

What core problem does owning guns solve?

 
Flag Post

No more snipers,pistols,Machine gun or any guns except Smg(only used by milatary or police)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Can you explain to me why we should ignore the core problems and just pass gun laws when you know it really won’t solve these mass shootings?

What core problem does owning guns solve?

I think you misunderstood him here.
I think that he meant stuff like psychological problems or problems in society with core problems that cause events like rampages.

I actually agree with him here, but I think that stricter gun laws would help to prevent people who are susceptible for those core problems to easily get their hands on a gun.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPeeR:

I think you misunderstood him here.

I understood what he meant perfectly, thanks.

 
Flag Post

Another shooting in Aurora today

 
Flag Post

First off, since softest_voice’s post was deleted, I was afraid I wasn’t going to be able to read it (back on last page).
BUT, Yeaaaaaaa….here it is.

Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by softest_voice:

Hey, everybody!
It’s the Magical Mystery Goalpost Show, with everybody’s favorite crank, JHCO!!!!!


Watch as he diverts conversation again and again, avoiding any mention of tighter gun controls!
Be amazed when he suddenly shows interest in public mental health, completely counter to his usual “FUK SOSHULIZM!” stance!
Thrill to his empty rhetoric!
Feel the chill of his complete lack of facts!


Do you realize how ignorant you sound with this post?


Why or how is it “ignorant”?
I see it as a very mirthful way of very accurately describing your “skill set” for discussion.
AND, I also see (as in: MY OPINION….& NOT “speaking for” anyone else) that many other poster tend to concur…and do so nearly hand-N-glove.

I’m gathering you would rather just pass feel good laws and ignore any real problems?

Then ya best go back to school & bone up on yer “gathering” abilities because I have SEEN NOWHERE any of the pro-control of gun ownership/usage has IN ANY WAY promoted “feel good laws”. How ignorant of YOU to even try to run that flag up the pole here in front of this crowd when YOU damn well know that NO NONE will salute it.

That is a fine example of what softest means by “diverts conversation”. If YOU want to cite EXAMPLES of “feel good laws” that haven’t had any real effect….then do so and we can then have something meritorious to DISCUSS. As it now stands, there is a real, active discussion on some techno-applied efforts to help keep ownership/usage at a high level of responsibility and greatly reduce IRRESPONIBLE usage.

Your flacid attempt to diffuse this area of discussion w/ the childishly equivalent of sticking yer fingers in yer ears and babbling on&on&on—I CAN’T HEEEAAARRRR YOU—just doesn’t promote ANYTHING positive to the discussion. All it does is add weight to the pro-controls side that obviously a lot of the “problem” rests squarely on the shoulders of those who so rabidly, blindly defend the 2nd.

jake-o, all ya do, over&over&over&over, is demonstrate the arrogance of the pro-gun attitude that there is NOTHING AT ALL in the way of sensible regulations that they would be comfortable endorsing. All we tend to see is the typical rhetoric of that “slipper-slope” BAN bullshit. Well, as I discuss just below, “gunners” are now dropping the decibels on that in favor of: It’s the crazies…let’s focus on mental health in America.

Can you explain to me why we should ignore the core problems and just pass gun laws when you know it really won’t solve these mass shootings?

Maybe it is YOU who might be a responsible gun owner/advocate who is willing to take a COMPREHENSIVE look at the “core problems” of gun misuse/abuse…and, NOT be soooooo fucking ANAL about excluding discussions about gun controls/regulations.

AND, what the fuck is it w/ YOU and your presumptuousness of typically deigning to “know” what it is that others “know it really won’t work”? Why do YOU sooooo luv to tacitly INSULT posters’ positions on this issue by allusion that they are so foolish as to waste time/effort promoting something they know won’t be effective?

I don’t know if YOU are just that clever of a debater,,,,
o rare just so immature in your thinking skill set ON THIS ISSUE.
Either way, it just stinks like the shit it truly is.

Now, after giving jake-o’s chain a good yanking….in the foolish hope that he might actually respond in a manner that would generate a respectful interest in a NEW POINT of his,, I want to show ya’ll something I found while trying to get a good understanding of the differences between RIGHTS & privileges.

Link

The Long Consensus

From the beginning of our republic, Our Divided Political Heart argues, Americans have been torn by a deep but productive tension between our love of individualism and our ongoing quest for community. This balance is at the heart of the American story, and it is closely connected to the other balances we have sought to strike: between the local and the national, the state and the market, the public and the private.

In the hundred years after Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1901, government grew—but so did individual liberty. The state assumed new roles, but individual opportunities expanded. New regulations protected our air and water, the integrity of food and drugs, the safety of workplaces and consumer products—and American capitalism flourished. Workers organized into unions that advanced the interests of those who depended on their own labor, not capital, for their livelihoods. In doing so, labor organizations strengthened a more social form of capitalism based on widespread property ownership and upward mobility. Previously excluded groups were steadily brought into the larger American community to share in the bounty of prosperity and the responsibilities of self-government. The United States continued to welcome newcomers and created the most diverse democracy in the world. G. K. Chesterton observed that the United States sought to make a nation “literally out of any old nation that comes along”—and it succeeded.

In the century of the Long Consensus, the United States became the most powerful nation on earth, its influence enhanced not only (or even primarily) by its advanced weaponry and the martial courage of our men and women in uniform, but also by our economic might, our democratic norms, our cultural creativity, and a moral and intellectual vibrancy that is the product of our constant struggle to preserve liberty while building and rebuilding community. A nation whose intellectual inheritance includes Biblical religion and the Enlightenment, the individualism of Ben Franklin and Walt Whitman, the state building of Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay, the traditionalism of John Adams, the skepticism toward central authority of Jefferson, and the radicalism of Tom Paine is bound to produce a lively life of the mind. Out of this creative conflict arose the balance of the American system and the achievements of the Long Consensus.

American politics is now roiled because the Long Consensus is under the fiercest attack it has faced in its century-long history. The assault comes from an individualistic right that has long been part of American politics but began gathering new influence in response to the failures of the Bush Administration and the rise of Obama. After the latter’s inauguration, it became the most energetic force in the conservative movement and the Republican Party.

The Long Consensus, of course, confronted challenges from the beginning. William Howard Taft’s resistance in the 1912 election proved ineffectual. The conservative opposition in the 1920s was stronger, and then collapsed in the face of the popular demands for national action that the Great Depression called forth. Many of the ideas the Tea Party and its allies are putting forward now arose first in opposition to the New Deal. These ideas began to gain broader support because of National Review’s journalistic and intellectual efforts in the 1950s, the Goldwater campaign’s political organizing in the 1960s, and the tax revolt in the late 1970s, which strengthened the forces that led to Ronald Reagan’s election. Over that period, conservatives gained a powerful foothold in the Supreme Court, which steadily moved the country toward a pre-New Deal jurisprudence.

But only after the turmoil of George W. Bush’s presidency, the economic calamity of the Great Recession, and the election of Barack Obama did the challenge to the Long Consensus reach full force. With near-complete control of the Republican Party and hegemony within the conservative movement, radical individualism is as close to triumph as it has been at any point since the Gilded Age. It’s worth noting that while Mitt Romney’s history was as a more moderate Republican who was willing to support such policies as a health-care mandate, he moved decisively rightward when he first sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, and moved further right still to win it in 2012.

Whether this effort to turn the nation toward a radical brand of individualism succeeds or fails is now the central question in American politics. And that is why the 2012 election is as exactly important as both sides claim. This really is, to sanitize a famous statement made by Vice President Joe Biden, a big deal.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I highly advise ya read the enire essay.
It’s pretty “spot on”.
BTW..That “individualism” discussed above is often seen as a 3rd cousin to anarchy Benjamin R. Tucker, a famous 19th century individualist anarchist, held that “if the individual has the right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny.”

 
Flag Post

John Rulz,

The data is not quite as clean, but the correlation is still clear. More guns means more politicians arrested per million residents per year. It appears that guns do not prevent corruption. The data seems to show the opposite.

Not to quibble, because I don’t necessarily think you are wrong. Correlation is not causation. If we invert your suggestion, it is still quite reasonable. You suggest that an armed populace is powerless to prevent (and instead causes) political corruption. Maybe political corruption causes the populace to arm themselves? Seems a fair assertion also. Without a timeline and a system of reactions we cannot really put that data into anything beyond correlation.

JHCO,

Blaming the gun is not the answer.

I agree with your suggestion that there are other factors that need to be investigated. That what the US is in need of is a comprehensive policy. But let us acknowledge that guns are a powerful killing tool. A maniac waving about a fistful of daffodils is a slightly different problem then one with a backpack full of military assault rifles.

Regardless of what the solution is, the ability for violent people to access tools of violence. To enable a mental break down into a full blown rampage. Is a problem, and any sort of policy has to look into that. Especially, especially because this is only going to get worse. The amount of damage our killing tools can commit are never going to get any smaller.

Twilight Ninja,

My husband just started taking Ritalin, after almost 40 years of struggling with attention deficit and learning disabilities. Does it make him more susceptible to homicide? No. Does it make him happier and more focused? Yes.

I think it’s lovely that you vouch for your husband, and I can’t seriously suggest he’s going to go out a murderin any time soon. But let us not muddle the facts. Ritalin does make you more likely to commit homicide. It’s a CNS stimulant and has general psychosis as a side effect. It, along with it’s entire family of drugs has a history with spontaneous outbursts of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate_psychosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181133/#i1523-5998-002-05-0159-b55
http://www.hkllp.com/study-links-ssris-to-violence/

That last study shows violent incidents doubling in a clinical trial. But really this is nothing beyond expectations of other stimulants. This is stuff you should already know. I am not saying no one should take the stuff ever. I have a close friend who is on it. But, let’s not pretend they are harmless.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Don, the county is a level of government. One thing you seem to miss was that Sheriff Cantrell become Senator Cantrell and had an in with some of his cronies. Governments at all levels are subject to corruption, and not just in America. All countries experience some corruption. Some governments are totally corrupt. I’m not going to try and tell you we have an absence of corruption in Washington because we do have a lot of corruption. Sometimes it comes out and sometimes we never know what they are doing. That open government idea hasn’t been for a long time. Sometimes courts are part of the corruption problem. This kind of corruption goes beyond party lines.

If we didn’t have the 2nd Amendment, we would have been neutered decades ago. We would be another UK. What you don’t understand is they didn’t take the law into their own hands, they used a right guaranteed to them to correct the problem of corruption. The 2nd worked exactly like it was supposed to.

Sorry for the delay, had to sleep(!) and then have been out all day.

No I didn’t miss that Sheriff Cantrell became Senator Cantrell (and appointed his crony as sheriff), nor do I dispute that this was corrupt (nor that at least some corruption exists within all forms of government).

I don’t see how you can claim that the veterans didn’t take the law into their own hands as it’s exactly what they did… (I can understand why, don’t get me wrong, I even sympathise with their reasons)… but, unless you’re arguing the purpose of the 2nd is to allow ‘mob rule’ the story does nothing to illustrate its purpose.

The ‘proper’ course of action would of been to take the matter to a ‘higher authority’… to the ‘electoral authority’ (whatever it’s called there), to the state police or the FBI (if the state police were also corrupt)… through the courts. Corrupt as the one man/family/group might have been there were limits to how far his influence reached.

The ‘sleazy’ course of action would of been to take the matter to the press and/or the senator’s political rivals (who would of probably have done all/some of the above (if for no other reason than for his own political gain).

Taking the law into our own hands is exactly what they did. They acted outside of the law/lawful process to enact an unarguably correct outcome however, two wrongs don’t make a right.

ALL the 2nd allowed was for the firearms that they used for this activity to be legally held. It does not permit those holders to act outside, or as, the law… i.e. They could of done exactly the same without the 2nd Amendment.

As for being ‘neutred’ – Hogwash! You’re forever telling us how a ban on guns wouldn’t abolish guns or, for that matter, any other type of weaponry (for example)… and the truth is, in the absence of the 2nd, there would likely be laws allowing the ownership of certain types of firearms, etc – as there round the most of the rest of the world… so these veterans would still have been readily and easily armed.

As for being ‘another UK’ – In what way, exactly, are we ‘neutred’… unlike you, it seems, we generally trust the police and courts (and to an extent politicians – some corruption not withstanding) to act lawfully… when/if they don’t we’re perfectly willing to let the proper authorities deal with them, to take to the streets in protest against things we dislike (hell, there were even riots last year), to take up arms and defend ourselves when the need arises, etc. Don’t get me wrong, it’s far from perfect here (the grass is always greener elsewhere, no?) but it definitely has its benefits :P

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:


I think it’s lovely that you vouch for your husband, and I can’t seriously suggest he’s going to go out a murderin any time soon. But let us not muddle the facts. Ritalin does make you more likely to commit homicide. It’s a CNS stimulant and has general psychosis as a side effect. It, along with it’s entire family of drugs has a history with spontaneous outbursts of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate_psychosis
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181133/#i1523-5998-002-05-0159-b55
http://www.hkllp.com/study-links-ssris-to-violence/

That last study shows violent incidents doubling in a clinical trial. But really this is nothing beyond expectations of other stimulants. This is stuff you should already know. I am not saying no one should take the stuff ever. I have a close friend who is on it. But, let’s not pretend they are harmless.

It wasn’t really my intention to vouch for the person, who much as the process of taking an Rx that (when prescribed properly), can have a positive impact. That’s just one person I was mentioning; if I had to guess I think he would have been more likely to commit homicide off of the drug, just because he was less focused and less happy.

You mentioned something about an increased number of violent incidents on stimulants and I thought it begged the question—what about coffee, Red Bull, etc? Should we ban those too? It’s really similar to the age-old gun question, actually.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by thepunisher52:

Your teenagers are spoiled brats, for them, not getting an Iphone is the biggest tragedy of life.

Some of them are, that’s true. I think kids are getting iPhones, Facebook pages, etc. etc. way too early.

Yes, one of my nieces is the sweetest little girl, but she has been using words on facebook that would have got her punished if she was mine.

One of my daughter’s friends has had her own Facebook page and iPhone for some time now. She’s only about 12, but I think she’s all but lost touch with what it is to be a kid. She’s basically acting like an adult, posting sexy pictures of herself up on facebook, sitting on her iPhone all the time, and so forth…I don’t know, I think some parents either let their kids grow up way too fast with these things or just lose control.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Can you explain to me why we should ignore the core problems and just pass gun laws when you know it really won’t solve these mass shootings?

What core problem does owning guns solve?

One’s ability to protect himself, his family, and his property.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Can you explain to me why we should ignore the core problems and just pass gun laws when you know it really won’t solve these mass shootings?

What core problem does owning guns solve?

One’s ability to protect himself, his family, and his property.

I don’t see a “core problem” necessarily getting solved, just abilities being gained.

Also, I don’t think you fully understood what he was trying to ask.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by issendorf:
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Can you explain to me why we should ignore the core problems {of abuse/misuse} and just pass gun laws when you know it really won’t solve these mass shootings?

What core problem does owning guns solve?

One’s ability to protect himself, his family, and his property.

I don’t see a “core problem” necessarily getting solved, just abilities being gained.

Also, I don’t think you fully understood what he was trying to ask.

Yeah, perhaps a fuller understanding (I hope….w/ jake-o, ya never know) via my bold addition to his orginal post.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NaturalReject:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Can you explain to me why we should ignore the core problems and just pass gun laws when you know it really won’t solve these mass shootings?

What core problem does owning guns solve?

Guns don’t really solve any core problems and really have nothing to do with the core problems. The fact that we refuse to look for is the real problem. There is some reason these shootings are happening and it isn’t because we are allowed to own firearms.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

Another shooting in Aurora today

I hadn’t even heard about that one. I don’t know what is going on but we have never had this much carnage before.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Guns don’t really solve any core problems and really have nothing to do with the core problems.

You still haven’t said what those “core problems” are, you know.

Actually, have you said anything other than “core” or “real problems?”

The fact that we refuse to look for is the real problem. There is some reason these shootings are happening and it isn’t because we are allowed to own firearms.

And do you have any idea what they could be, or are you just as “in the dark” as everyone else?

Originally posted by jhco50:

I hadn’t even heard about that one. I don’t know what is going on but we have never had this much carnage before.

So, does this count as a mass shooting to you, and if so, was the townhouse totally “gun free,” because I think this might contradict one thing you said if both are true.

 
Flag Post

What the hell are you talking about, jhco50? We are looking for the real problems. We have been for a long time now. The problem is that there is not one single source for stuff like school shootings and rampages. And even if we did find out the reason, making pinpoint predictions would still be near impossible. The only thing we can do is trying to reduce the risk for everyone by using stuff like psychological tests based on the analysis of previous cases.

Something like a psychological test or one aimed at gun handling to determine whether you can actually be considered a “safe” gun owner is the only way to tackle the real problems right now.

You can’t consciously change society in a way that would remove something like violence or stuff like that. It just doesn’t work that way. Societies evolve organically. Without enforcing a truly dystopian system there is no way to achieve this. So the only thing left is trying to reduce the risk.
We already do the same with cars. Before you can legally drive you need a driver’s license that you can only obtain by proving that you can drive responsibly. Why is something similar such a taboo for guns, devices that were developed with only one single thing in mind – causing harm to the target?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnRulz:

Another shooting in Aurora today

Geez. OK. Maybe Aurora’s not the best place to live. Although, the shootings seem to be hitting everywhere all of a sudden. Maybe it is stress from the economy. I don’t know of any other factor that has suddenly changed in the last couple years (that wasn’t present before) to correlate it to.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Geez. OK. Maybe Aurora’s not the best place to live. Although, the shootings seem to be hitting everywhere all of a sudden. Maybe it is stress from the economy. I don’t know of any other factor that has suddenly changed in the last couple years (that wasn’t present before) to correlate it to.

I’m going to assume it’s Oburmy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:

No I didn’t miss that Sheriff Cantrell became Senator Cantrell (and appointed his crony as sheriff), nor do I dispute that this was corrupt (nor that at least some corruption exists within all forms of government).

I don’t see how you can claim that the veterans didn’t take the law into their own hands as it’s exactly what they did… (I can understand why, don’t get me wrong, I even sympathise with their reasons)… but, unless you’re arguing the purpose of the 2nd is to allow ‘mob rule’ the story does nothing to illustrate its purpose.

The ‘proper’ course of action would of been to take the matter to a ‘higher authority’… to the ‘electoral authority’ (whatever it’s called there), to the state police or the FBI (if the state police were also corrupt)… through the courts. Corrupt as the one man/family/group might have been there were limits to how far his influence reached.

The ‘sleazy’ course of action would of been to take the matter to the press and/or the senator’s political rivals (who would of probably have done all/some of the above (if for no other reason than for his own political gain).

Taking the law into our own hands is exactly what they did. They acted outside of the law/lawful process to enact an unarguably correct outcome however, two wrongs don’t make a right.

ALL the 2nd allowed was for the firearms that they used for this activity to be legally held. It does not permit those holders to act outside, or as, the law… i.e. They could of done exactly the same without the 2nd Amendment.

As for being ‘neutred’ – Hogwash! You’re forever telling us how a ban on guns wouldn’t abolish guns or, for that matter, any other type of weaponry (for example)… and the truth is, in the absence of the 2nd, there would likely be laws allowing the ownership of certain types of firearms, etc – as there round the most of the rest of the world… so these veterans would still have been readily and easily armed.

As for being ‘another UK’ – In what way, exactly, are we ‘neutred’… unlike you, it seems, we generally trust the police and courts (and to an extent politicians – some corruption not withstanding) to act lawfully… when/if they don’t we’re perfectly willing to let the proper authorities deal with them, to take to the streets in protest against things we dislike (hell, there were even riots last year), to take up arms and defend ourselves when the need arises, etc. Don’t get me wrong, it’s far from perfect here (the grass is always greener elsewhere, no?) but it definitely has its benefits :P

I will let our disagreement stand here as we come from two different worlds and see this from opposite perspectives.

I will mention that your Olympic shooting team had to practice in another country because of the laws there. The guy who won the Top Gun a couple of years ago was ex-military and migrated to America in order to own his firearms. I’m not trying to diffuse this issue with way out suggestions. These are legitimate concerns that need to be investigated. People love to blame something for any disaster that happens. In this case they are blaming firearms. Why? Because it is a feel good scapegoat, but it is not the real problem.

 
Flag Post

I hadn’t even heard about that one. I don’t know what is going on but we have never had this much carnage before.

Somebody has been keeping a tally 489 firearm deaths since Newtown, well over 20 a day. You can click each one to see the story behind it. When I was clicking through, I didn’t notice any deaths due to civilians saving the day through their 2nd amendment right.

There is some reason these shootings are happening and it isn’t because we are allowed to own firearms.

Australia had a string of mass shootings throughout 80s and 90s. They haven’t had a single one since they began their buyback program. Mere coincidence?