Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

[rdsrds2120]

34 shot dead daily US,35 shot dead annually UK,apart from Juan where is the outrage?Where is the absolute condemnation of Alex Jones and his ilk?The silence is deafening and damning.The citizens of no other first world country would stand for this.Land of the free?Don't make me laugh,land of the frightened maybe.

Land of the frightened in what way?

Frightened to speak out against bully boy yobbos like Jones.Why wasn't this forum jammed with decent Americans rushing to dissociate themselves from this barbarian?Or do many quietly agree with him?Or is it worse,don't they care?

I'm not very expressive, but if we were discussing this irl, you'd certainly know. It's frustrating, I think.

BMO

[kentington]

34 shot dead daily US,35 shot dead annually UK,apart from Juan where is the outrage?Where is the absolute condemnation of Alex Jones and his ilk?The silence is deafening and damning.The citizens of no other first world country would stand for this.Land of the free?Don't make me laugh,land of the frightened maybe.

Land of the frightened in what way?

Frightened to speak out against bully boy yobbos like Jones.Why wasn't this forum jammed with decent Americans rushing to dissociate themselves from this barbarian?Or do many quietly agree with him?Or is it worse,don't they care?

I doubt anyone is frightened to speak out on CC about Jones. I personally didn't watch the video yet. I haven't had time where I can listen. Either at work or with kids.
I think this forum generally leans towards gun control and there are a few people who don't want it. Others who just don't comment.

[chang50]

34 shot dead daily US,35 shot dead annually UK,apart from Juan where is the outrage?Where is the absolute condemnation of Alex Jones and his ilk?The silence is deafening and damning.The citizens of no other first world country would stand for this.Land of the free?Don't make me laugh,land of the frightened maybe.

Land of the frightened in what way?

Frightened to speak out against bully boy yobbos like Jones.Why wasn't this forum jammed with decent Americans rushing to dissociate themselves from this barbarian?Or do many quietly agree with him?Or is it worse,don't they care?

I'm not very expressive, but if we were discussing this irl, you'd certainly know. It's frustrating, I think.

BMO

Fair point,and you have spoken now.There should be a groundswell of anger about this man and his ilk,I've visited his youtube channnel and it's seriously scary..

[Juan_Bottom]

Thanks. That explains why whenever someone is shot we always let the shooter go free.

Where are all the conversations about banning knifes after people are stabbed? Why do we have to ban guns after people commit already-illegal crimes with them?

Because there is always something you can use to stab, beat or strangle someone. It would be impossible to stop. Their point of view is that unlike knives, ropes, and hammers; guns do not have a necessary alternative purpose.

I do understand their point of view, but if someone wants to kill someone, then there are easier ways to mass murder than guns. Insane people will find a way to kill if that is what they want to do.

We could make a game out of hypothetical weapons and how a criminal mastermind could use them, but it wouldn't be a reflection on reality or sensible gun laws. It's like when the DoD hired Hollywood film writers to think up ways that terrorists could attack America.
This is all a question of basic common sense and human decency. Guns have no alternative use other than killing people. And guns are the weapon of choice in homicides, not knives, which do actually have an acceptable alternative function to murder. Now, as I understand it, knives are the 2nd most common weapon used in homicides in America, while guns are obviously #1. And guns are always the weapon of choice in multiple homicides. But the ratio is ten to one against knives. 10 to 1. So to me, this isn't a logical comparison to make, everyone.
So 11,000 people are shot to death every year in this country. And what does the gun enthusiast do to prevent it? Nothing. He claims ropes are just as dangerous of weapons as guns are. 11,000 dead people, that's 34 in a single day, and we've not touched upon suicides or just general gun violence either. Is that the price of your freedom? 34 dead people a day and 2 school shootings a year....?
If you're going to claim, seriously, and stupidly, that knives are as dangerous as guns are, then you have already defeated your argument. There's no reason for you to fight for your right to buy any gun if you can get the same results you're looking for with with a much-cheaper knife. You have no reason to own a gun.


When it comes to mass killings, which haven't been the focus of this thread, "ease to kill" isn't really relevant. These shooters aren't the brainiest bunch, and almost all of them kill themselves after they run out of victims. They're not trying to kill people in an easy way, they're trying to have an experience. But that does bring up another point that's been missed.
After the Oklahoma City bombing, Congress made new laws and restrictions on how much bomb-making material a single person could purchase. And we got a new licensing and distribution system to ensure that it never happened again. After the Columbine School shooting, what did we do? Nothing. The GOP has de-funded mental health services and we all allowed the assault rifle ban to expire. Hence the Aurora shooter went into the theater armed with an assault rifle. Where is the logic in this? Columbine even had an armed guard, and the NRA is proposing that we put armed guards in all of the schools... and in addition to that glaring fact a murderer walked into Fort Hood and killed 13 people, and wounded 29 more. Nobody on the other side of this discussion is even serious about gun restrictions. They don't care about any of these victims.

Re-read my first paragraph and pay attention to the semi- colon. I said something very similar to what you said. I did not say knives are as dangerous as guns, I did say they have a necessary purpose other than killing.

Ya, sorry for the confusion. I quoted you and nightstrike because I was trying to continue your argument to it's natural conclusion.

[kentington]

No problem. I was confused until now. I even rechecked what I wrote multiple times thinking I didn't type it right.

[Juan_Bottom]

Gun-toting soccer mom found shot dead

Just to be clear, I don't post these links to bolster my arguments. Let those stand on their own legs. But interestingly, another American gun celebrity was found shot, which I think is on-point for this thread.

LEBANON, Pa. — A mother of three who became a voice of the gun-rights movement when she openly carried a loaded pistol to her daughter's soccer game was fatally shot along with her husband, a parole officer and former prison guard, in an apparent murder-suicide at their home.

Autopsies were planned Friday for Meleanie Hain, 31, and Scott Hain, 33, who were pronounced dead shortly after 8:30 p.m. Wednesday at their brick home in this small city about 80 miles west of Philadelphia.

The couple's 10-year-old son and daughters ages 2 and 6 were home at the time, police said. The two older children ran outside and told neighbors that their father had shot their mother, neighbors said. The children are being cared for by neighbors and relatives.

Toys lay scattered across the corner lot Thursday in the tree-lined neighborhood where the family lived and where Meleanie ran a day care center. A car parked in the driveway bore a badge-shaped sticker that read "NRA law enforcement."

"I'm shocked at the whole thing," Fortna said. "I'm surprised she didn't defend herself."

Glock at a soccer game
Meleanie Hain made headlines after she attended her then 5-year-old daughter's soccer game in a park on Sept. 11, 2008, with her Glock holstered on her hip in plain view, upsetting other parents.

The county sheriff, Michael DeLeo, revoked her gun-carrying permit nine days later.

Hain successfully appealed the permit revocation, although the judge who restored the permit questioned her judgment and said she had "scared the devil" out of people.

Hain sued DeLeo in federal court , alleging that he violated her constitutional rights and prosecuted her maliciously when he took the permit away. She said that because of his actions her baby-sitting service had suffered, her children had been harassed and she had been ostracized by her neighbors in Lebanon, which has about 25,000 residents.

DeLeo said at Hain's appeal that he revoked her permit after fielding the parents' complaints. He said he based his decision on a state law that prohibits certain gun permits from being given to people whose character and reputation make them a danger to public safety.

After Hain sued DeLeo, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which says it tries to reform the gun industry through sensible regulations, offered to defend him for free.

"It is a case that calls out for common sense," Brady Center attorney Daniel Vice said then. "It's ridiculous to bring a gun to a child's soccer game."

[stahrgazer]

I think this forum generally leans towards gun control and there are a few people who don't want it. Others who just don't comment.

It's more like about 50-50.

I wouldn't mind maniac-control, but taking away legal guns won't stop maniacs.

[Night Strike]

The Obama Administration encourages the selling of semi-automatic assault rifles to Mexican cartels while pushing for US citizens to be banned from buying them.

[thegreekdog]

Juan - do you support the current plan provided by gun control advocates? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Symmetry]

The Obama Administration encourages the selling of semi-automatic assault rifles to Mexican cartels while pushing for US citizens to be banned from buying them.

Or more correctly, the Bush administration set up a program to do that, which was continued and then shut down by the Obama administration once it became apparent that it was selling assault rifles that were being used to kill people. (Careful though, NS, TGD doesn't like people calling them assault rifles).

[thegreekdog]

The Obama Administration encourages the selling of semi-automatic assault rifles to Mexican cartels while pushing for US citizens to be banned from buying them.

Or more correctly, the Bush administration set up a program to do that, which was continued and then shut down by the Obama administration once it became apparent that it was selling assault rifles that were being used to kill people. (Careful though, NS, TGD doesn't like people calling them assault rifles).

I'm just looking out for gun control supporters. Would they not be embarrassed if they came out in favor of a law that banned an already banned weapon?

[Symmetry]

The Obama Administration encourages the selling of semi-automatic assault rifles to Mexican cartels while pushing for US citizens to be banned from buying them.

Or more correctly, the Bush administration set up a program to do that, which was continued and then shut down by the Obama administration once it became apparent that it was selling assault rifles that were being used to kill people. (Careful though, NS, TGD doesn't like people calling them assault rifles).

I'm just looking out for gun control supporters. Would they not be embarrassed if they came out in favor of a law that banned an already banned weapon?

Meh, you seem like a pedant on this, which is fairly ok with me- see topics on abortion for me getting annoyed with lazy definitions of "fetus", "murder", etc.

To be pedantic, are you saying you're against gun control? Or for it? "Gun Control" being one of those lazy political terms that I'm also pedantic about.

[thegreekdog]

The Obama Administration encourages the selling of semi-automatic assault rifles to Mexican cartels while pushing for US citizens to be banned from buying them.

Or more correctly, the Bush administration set up a program to do that, which was continued and then shut down by the Obama administration once it became apparent that it was selling assault rifles that were being used to kill people. (Careful though, NS, TGD doesn't like people calling them assault rifles).

I'm just looking out for gun control supporters. Would they not be embarrassed if they came out in favor of a law that banned an already banned weapon?

Meh, you seem like a pedant on this, which is fairly ok with me- see topics on abortion for me getting annoyed with lazy definitions of "fetus", "murder", etc.

To be pedantic, are you saying you're against gun control? Or for it? "Gun Control" being one of those lazy political terms that I'm also pedantic about.

Why do you suddenly care to get an accurate gauge of my point of view on gun control? Your lack of knowledge of my position didn't stop you from fighting with me on this issue earlier in this thread.

In any event, I don't have a strong opinion either way. If we ignore the Constitution, I would be virtually indifferent to a banning of all guns in the United States. That being said, I don't think the ultimate problem is the guns themselves, or, more accurately, the legal ownership of guns. I think the problem is the criminal use of guns and the illegal purchase of guns, none of which would be solved by banning guns. The Sandy Hook massacre would have been stopped, although I might argue that the killer obtained the guns that were used illegally in any event.

If we do not ignore the Constitution, most gun bans would be unconstitutional (although regulation would not be illegal). In that case, I would be in favor of something similar to what Lootifer noted way earlier in this thread, namely the strict regulation of certain ammunitions and fixing the gun show "loophole."

And that being said, the plans being offered by members of Congress and the president will be ineffective in curbing anything other than, perhaps, things like the Sandy Hook massacre. As you may have seen in this and in other threads, the number of gun deaths from "assault weapons" are nothing compared to the number of gun deaths from hand guns (and on par with knife deaths and "other" homicides). These plans are merely plans that are going to help make people feel better that the federal government is doing something constructive, when it's really not.

[Symmetry]

The Obama Administration encourages the selling of semi-automatic assault rifles to Mexican cartels while pushing for US citizens to be banned from buying them.

Or more correctly, the Bush administration set up a program to do that, which was continued and then shut down by the Obama administration once it became apparent that it was selling assault rifles that were being used to kill people. (Careful though, NS, TGD doesn't like people calling them assault rifles).

I'm just looking out for gun control supporters. Would they not be embarrassed if they came out in favor of a law that banned an already banned weapon?

Meh, you seem like a pedant on this, which is fairly ok with me- see topics on abortion for me getting annoyed with lazy definitions of "fetus", "murder", etc.

To be pedantic, are you saying you're against gun control? Or for it? "Gun Control" being one of those lazy political terms that I'm also pedantic about.

Why do you suddenly care to get an accurate gauge of my point of view on gun control? Your lack of knowledge of my position didn't stop you from fighting with me on this issue earlier in this thread.

Thanks for the ad-hom "IGNORANT" cry so early on, as is your current want. I acknowledge that this is your current style, and is part of how you reply to me now. It's not a fight, TGD, so let's move on.

In any event, I don't have a strong opinion either way. If we ignore the Constitution, I would be virtually indifferent to a banning of all guns in the United States. That being said, I don't think the ultimate problem is the guns themselves, or, more accurately, the legal ownership of guns. I think the problem is the criminal use of guns and the illegal purchase of guns, none of which would be solved by banning guns. The Sandy Hook massacre would have been stopped, although I might argue that the killer obtained the guns that were used illegally in any event.

If we do not ignore the Constitution, most gun bans would be unconstitutional (although regulation would not be illegal). In that case, I would be in favor of something similar to what Lootifer noted way earlier in this thread, namely the strict regulation of certain ammunitions and fixing the gun show "loophole."

And that being said, the plans being offered by members of Congress and the president will be ineffective in curbing anything other than, perhaps, things like the Sandy Hook massacre. As you may have seen in this and in other threads, the number of gun deaths from "assault weapons" are nothing compared to the number of gun deaths from hand guns (and on par with knife deaths and "other" homicides). These plans are merely plans that are going to help make people feel better that the federal government is doing something constructive, when it's really not.

I'm unsure as to what you mean by "ignore the constitution", as we're talking about both guns in general, and guns in the US- involving interpretations of the constitution- it's not like the thing is a clear statement about gun ownership, manufacturing, or sales.

Having said that, and putting aside your particular issues with me, wouldn't closing the gun loophole on gun shows be gun control? If you're in favour of that, then you're in favour of gun control.

[thegreekdog]

Thanks for the ad-hom "IGNORANT" cry so early on, as is your current want. I acknowledge that this is your current style, and is part of how you reply to me now. It's not a fight, TGD, so let's move on.

It wasn't a "cry" so much as a question. What has changed between now and two months ago?

I'm unsure as to what you mean by "ignore the constitution", as we're talking about both guns in general, and guns in the US- involving interpretations of the constitution- it's not like the thing is a clear statement about gun ownership, manufacturing, or sales.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear.

Having said that, and putting aside your particular issues with me, wouldn't closing the gun loophole on gun shows be gun control? If you're in favour of that, then you're in favour of gun control.

Yes and yes. I'm differentiating between "gun bans" and "gun regulation" which both fall under the umbrella of "gun control."

[Symmetry]

Thanks for the ad-hom "IGNORANT" cry so early on, as is your current want. I acknowledge that this is your current style, and is part of how you reply to me now. It's not a fight, TGD, so let's move on.

It wasn't a "cry" so much as a question. What has changed between now and two months ago?

Is that a serious question?

[Symmetry]

I'm unsure as to what you mean by "ignore the constitution", as we're talking about both guns in general, and guns in the US- involving interpretations of the constitution- it's not like the thing is a clear statement about gun ownership, manufacturing, or sales.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear.

Having said that, and putting aside your particular issues with me, wouldn't closing the gun loophole on gun shows be gun control? If you're in favour of that, then you're in favour of gun control.

Yes and yes. I'm differentiating between "gun bans" and "gun regulation" which both fall under the umbrella of "gun control."

Oh please- if it was pretty clear, why would be relying on various interpretations of it by split Supreme Court decisions?

Cut the crap- it's vague.

[kentington]

Oh please- if it was pretty clear, why would be relying on various interpretations of it by split Supreme Court decisions?

Cut the crap- it's vague.

I don't view it as vague. It seems very clear cut. I think the vagueness and split decisions stem from some wanting to interpret the amendment in a way that favors their views. This is nothing new. Congress, courts, Presidents, they all do this with various laws, amendments and rights.

[Symmetry]

Oh please- if it was pretty clear, why would be relying on various interpretations of it by split Supreme Court decisions?

Cut the crap- it's vague.

I don't view it as vague. It seems very clear cut. I think the vagueness and split decisions stem from some wanting to interpret the amendment in a way that favors their views. This is nothing new. Congress, courts, Presidents, they all do this with various laws, amendments and rights.

For any kind of law, it's vague. I'm sorry, but it is. I agree that the vagueness is amplified and expanded by the interpretations of it, or even the mind-reading psychic powers of originalists, but it ain't a clear statement, even as it amended a statement that it didn't feel was clear.

[thegreekdog]

Thanks for the ad-hom "IGNORANT" cry so early on, as is your current want. I acknowledge that this is your current style, and is part of how you reply to me now. It's not a fight, TGD, so let's move on.

It wasn't a "cry" so much as a question. What has changed between now and two months ago?

Is that a serious question?

Yes. I'm wondering whether it will be worthwhile for me to engage in any sort of discussion with you on any subject. So far today, given this thread and your interpretation of my view on gay marriage, the answer is no.

Oh please- if it was pretty clear, why would be relying on various interpretations of it by split Supreme Court decisions?

Cut the crap- it's vague.

Because the Supreme Court decisions have made the amendment unclear. The Second Amendment is not unclear or vague on its face.

[Symmetry]

Thanks for the ad-hom "IGNORANT" cry so early on, as is your current want. I acknowledge that this is your current style, and is part of how you reply to me now. It's not a fight, TGD, so let's move on.

It wasn't a "cry" so much as a question. What has changed between now and two months ago?

Is that a serious question?

Yes. I'm wondering whether it will be worthwhile for me to engage in any sort of discussion with you on any subject. So far today, given this thread and your interpretation of my view on gay marriage, the answer is no.

Oh please- if it was pretty clear, why would be relying on various interpretations of it by split Supreme Court decisions?

Cut the crap- it's vague.

Because the Supreme Court decisions have made the amendment unclear. The Second Amendment is not unclear or vague on its face.

Meh- another insult, and a statement that it ain't vague or unclear. What, in your mind, was clear?

[thegreekdog]

Thanks for the ad-hom "IGNORANT" cry so early on, as is your current want. I acknowledge that this is your current style, and is part of how you reply to me now. It's not a fight, TGD, so let's move on.

It wasn't a "cry" so much as a question. What has changed between now and two months ago?

Is that a serious question?

Yes. I'm wondering whether it will be worthwhile for me to engage in any sort of discussion with you on any subject. So far today, given this thread and your interpretation of my view on gay marriage, the answer is no.

Oh please- if it was pretty clear, why would be relying on various interpretations of it by split Supreme Court decisions?

Cut the crap- it's vague.

Because the Supreme Court decisions have made the amendment unclear. The Second Amendment is not unclear or vague on its face.

Meh- another insult, and a statement that it ain't vague or unclear. What, in your mind, was clear?

The language of the amendment is very clear. The Supreme Court cases on the issue have made the issue unclear. It's pretty easy to understand the difference.

[Symmetry]

Thanks for the ad-hom "IGNORANT" cry so early on, as is your current want. I acknowledge that this is your current style, and is part of how you reply to me now. It's not a fight, TGD, so let's move on.

It wasn't a "cry" so much as a question. What has changed between now and two months ago?

Is that a serious question?

Yes. I'm wondering whether it will be worthwhile for me to engage in any sort of discussion with you on any subject. So far today, given this thread and your interpretation of my view on gay marriage, the answer is no.

Oh please- if it was pretty clear, why would be relying on various interpretations of it by split Supreme Court decisions?

Cut the crap- it's vague.

Because the Supreme Court decisions have made the amendment unclear. The Second Amendment is not unclear or vague on its face.

Meh- another insult, and a statement that it ain't vague or unclear. What, in your mind, was clear?

The language of the amendment is very clear. The Supreme Court cases on the issue have made the issue unclear. It's pretty easy to understand the difference.

Ok- you have the floor, what is the second amendment (you can pick which of the two versions you want) saying clearly?

[thegreekdog]

Ok- you have the floor, what is the second amendment (you can pick which of the two versions you want) saying clearly?

Why would I want to have the floor in a discussion with you regarding the second amendment? Your motivations for engaging in such a discussion are suspect at best. I'm not keen on submitting myself to your particular brand of argument anymore.

[Symmetry]

Ok- you have the floor, what is the second amendment (you can pick which of the two versions you want) saying clearly?

Why would I want to have the floor in a discussion with you regarding the second amendment? Your motivations for engaging in such a discussion are suspect at best. I'm not keen on submitting myself to your particular brand of argument anymore.

Your argument, I offered for you to explain, you refused.