We happen to be a wealthy industrialized country. And crime is a young man’s game; if you keep young people from getting hold of guns, the problem of well-armed criminals goes away after awhile.
Mexico is all but a failed state right now. Mexico may have laws on the books, but they don’t really mean much.
OK, tell me about the gun laws in Israel and Switzerland. My recollection is that guns are way more heavily regulated in both those places than anything I’m proposing, and what I’m proposing is way beyond what’s remotely possible anytime soon here. But if I’m wrong, let me know.
Yet they never turn on the NRA for opposing their interests. Which would lead one to conclude they don’t really mean it.
No it didn’t, but nothing more substantial stood a prayer in Congress, and as you recall, Manchin Toomey itself failed.
They are at fault for standing in the way of any and all attempts to deal with gun violence.
And (a) we’re working hard, and with great success, to reduce that number, and (b) the random people are almost all other drivers.
And we’re working hard, and with great success, to reduce that number, too. Thirty years ago, hardly anyone had heard the phrase ‘designated driver,’ and most drinkers would have ridiculed the concept. A bit different now, huh?
And we libruls would go a good deal further in dealing with the problem, but conservatives have an almost religious opposition to public transit.
This is what we do with most public health problems in this country: we study them, attack them, and ultimately reduce the damage they do. The pro-gun types in the USA have blocked even the study of the gun problem.
Sure it does. But the shooters are ALL gun owners. Seems fair to me that gun owners should pay the full cost, rather than offloading most of it on the rest of us.
Ranting? Surely. ‘Just’ ranting? I don’t think so.
But the tolerance of gun deaths in this country, and the willingness of gun owners to condone and support those who block all efforts to deal with this problem, is worth ranting about.
You’re defending a presumed right to *kill *on the basis of free speech? :eek:
See above comments about disregard for human life itself, and symptoms of psychopathy. You are doing nothing but demonstrate your own unfitness to have access to a deadly weapon.
If you could even once demonstrate factual error on my part, you might have a point there. But ranting that could be improved upon by a typical seventh grader only helps illustrate your utter unfitness to be a citizen of a civilized society.
The problem is that you seem to think that anyone that wants a gun is mentally ill.
[/quote]
All? No. And don’t complain about strawmen. :rolleyes:
No, the mentally ill include those with a callous, even gleeful, contempt for human life. Like you, for instance.
Sometimes we do, yes.
Demonstrated psychopaths.
Can you prove they don’t? And what difference does legality make to the dead?
This has been explained to you enough times that for you to continue in this vein further demonstrates your psychopathic inability to recognize that yes, human life is indeed what matters most, as all human societies have as their most basic moral principle.
No, what I “fear” is *not *guns, but people with guns, especially people like you readily willing to use them to end human life. But it’s a laughing matter to you. A laughing matter.
No, you moron, YOU are advocating taking away people’s rights - Ted Nugent’s and Wayne LaPierre’s - apparently based only on what they say (since you cannot point to any crimes they committed).
Your statement was that countries with strict gun laws have fewer gun deaths. If you want to back away from that, thats fine but I was just pointing out that it isn’t true.
They keep the law abiding citizens from buying guns at the local gun store so it probably means something to them. And its not like Mexico is an isolated example. There are countries all over the world with strict gun laws where the murder rate is higher than it is here.
I’m not saying that our murder rate is low but that gun laws are no guarantee of low gun violence.
I’m just pointing out that its not gun possession, its not gun laws, its how many of your criminals have access to guns. And our criminals are very well armed and I have consistently advocated for rules that I think will reduce guns in the hands of criminals while maintaining the private citizen’s access to guns.
Its one thing to ask if you are for or against something, its another thing to turn on the only organization that seems to prevent stupid shit like the Assault Weapons Ban from becoming law. I think universal background checks are ok (I prefer licensing and registration because it is only slightly more burdensome and provides (IMO) much more benefit) but
Then why did you bring it up as if that was what was being proposed? Manchin Toomey failed in the wake of a failed push to pass a retarded assault weapons ban. If the Manchin Toomey bill had been the first thing they came out with it would have passed, heck I think licensing and registration had a chance after Newtown. Sure, the NRA would have had fits but licensing and registration makes sense while it was quickly apparent to everyone that the AWB was a silly stupid law.
So you are saying that legal gun owners as a group (not the NRA) stand in the way of any and all attempts to deal with gun violence?
Cite?
Only by the CDC et al. The DoJ and other agencies are free to do whatever research they like.
It seems fair to you to kill a law abiding gun owner every time someone gets shot and killed with a gun because that will even the tally or something or do you just hate gun owners. Do we get to bring one of them back to life every time a gun saves a life?
Everyone has the freedom to own guns, not just gun owners. Does this mean we should kill the children of pro-choice activists for every child murdered by Kermit Gosnell? Your argument is fucking retarded.
I think we’re done. When you advocate killing law abiding gun owners because some criminal kills someone, I can safely say your reason has left you. Of course I’m the one that people on your side will call a psychopath because i don’t support banning and confiscating all the guns.
Its a particularly retarded and hateful sort of ranting but yeah it is just ranting, primal unreasoned ranting.
Prove that lawful gun ownership is a net problem. So far you have given us a 6 degrees of separation sort of link between lawful gun owners exercising their rights and you saying that they should pay with their lives every time someone gets killed with a gun.
Manchin Toomey was not licensing and registration. it was a meaningless fig leaf that the gun control folks wanted to cover the embarrassment they felt as blowing an opportunity at real gun reform by chasing a retarded AWB. The NRA denied them even that tiny little fig leaf, they rubbed your noses in it and you’re still butthurt that they spike the ball in your scrotum.
I’d be hard pressed to find a page where there weren’t factual errors on your part.
So is almost all of Africa and South America uncivilized? How about central asia, the middle east and eastern europe? Are all these places uncivilized as well? You are so fucking stupid and retarded, you are an embarrassment to anyone on your side of any debate.
Yeah yeah, I kill babies and drink their blood.:rolleyes:
Are psychopaths not mentally ill? Do you have a definition of psychopath that differs from the commonly understood definition?
I don’t have to prove a thing, I’m not the one trying to take away someone’s rights. And it makes a difference because nothing you have proposed is going to make a difference in murders committed by criminals.
If you ever saw me laughing in this sort of thread I was laughing at you, not gun deaths.
Nobody gives a shit about shutting them up, “moron”. We’ve been discussing restricting the mentally ill from having access to firearms, haven’t we? You aren’t even against that. And isn’t what someone says a primary indicator of their mental health?
You and **Damuri **say you want not to be considered equivalent to Ted Nugent and are offended at the very idea, I certainly understand. Well, you’re *not *- but the difference is that he’s talented, wealthy, and famous.
Show us on this doll where the Feinstein touched you.
“Any and all”, says the guy who claims to object to strawmen? :rolleyes:
You’re really struggling to make it appear as if you do not have a depraved indifference to human life. Sometimes psychopaths are able to mimic concern for others quite effectively, some are less skilled, unfortunately you’re one of the latter.
You know there are restrictions on that, and you even claim to favor some.
Already done, quite amply. You just don’t like it.
Just a couple of your favorite examples, then.
If you think you’re making a point of some kind, you’re mistaken about that.
Of course you are.
No, I use the common one, that includes an inability to understand the meaning of human life, such as you continue to demonstrate for us.
Wrong. You want to be able to threaten, even take away, others’ right to life. And for what? To exercise your fetish.
Yes, murder makes one a criminal. Duh. Even *threatening *to does, did you know?
You need more practice at trying to appear normal.
It was the CDC that was banned around 1996, the NIH was only included around 2011. Depending on the time frame being discussed, the claim that it was only the CDC would be accurate. Even if we are discussing the current time period, a mistake is not a lie.
But what’s funny is that you mischaracterize the statement that you are criticizing as a lie. I’ve seen you do this multiple times now, mischaracterize that is. His actual statement was:
(my bold)
Calling it a lie is a rather petty nit to pick - and factually incorrect when you examine the actual statement. It can only be considered a lie with some mental gymnastics, and then again only if you omit parts of the statement you are claiming is a lie.
Yeah. Where logic comes in is thinking about solutions and how to support them. And you do everyone a disservice with tripe like this:
You just called everyone on the other side of the issue from yourself a psychopath. Congratulations, you’re an unreasonable prick. This isn’t a matter like “should gays have rights” or “should we keep slaves”, this is an issue of the freedom to own firearms. Let’s cut the bullshit, eh? I can’t even disagree with **Terr **here - Nugent is an asshole, a bigot, generally a contender for “terrible harmless celebrity of the year” award, but he’s not criminally insane. He’s not a lunatic on the edge. He’s a cranky old white guy with too much money and too much publicity and some beliefs we wish were more uncommon among such types than they actually are. He’s an asshole - that doesn’t mean we should take away his rights, and that doesn’t mean we should treat him as though he’s mentally insane, and you make all those in favor of gun control look like assholes when you pull out such an extreme position.
No, fool. Only those who demonstrate a lack of concern for human life. *The *most basic moral principle. Those who think gun rights are real but life rights are dismissible abstractions.
*Not *everyone on the side of protecting some gun rights has what is in legal terms a “depraved indifference to human life” (you could look it up). But there are many who do, far too many, including the most belligerent “gun rights advocates” on this board.
Yes, please, let’s do that. There are *multiple *freedoms involved, aren’t there? Do us a favor and show us you know what they are, then perhaps there can be a discussion involving you.
Does he have a disregard for the value of human (others’, that is, of course) life? :dubious: Or consider it less important than his fetish?
Your issue with him is only of style, not substance.
did you see the “et al” (i.e. the medical establishment)?
And who gives a fuck if its the CDC and other agencies within HHS. The point is that it wasn’t a blanket ban on all government funding. There was a reason the CDC was targetted (not really sure why the rest of HHS was targetted. This is the sort of nitpicking bullshit that seems to anchor your arguments.
Already done, quite amply. You just don’t like it.[/quuote]
You keep claiming you have proven it and yet you have proven nothing. just like your side claims that despite the fact that EVERY FUCKING STUDY TO DATE shows significant number of defenisve gun uses, you handwave it away by saying that it doesn’t PROVE anything. So tell me again how you have PROVEN net lives lost from the legal ownership of guns?
Yeah, you don’t know what the word civilized means i.e. you are wrong.
I’m absolutely right. You want to take away a right, you bear the burden of proof. If I kill someone with a gun, they still have the right to live, I may have violated it if the shooting was unjustified and would go to jail. You want to take away the right so you bear the burden of proof.
Why not come to Great Debates and see how well your “reasoning” stands up when you can’t rely on insults to make your argument?
Not really. It did at first but then folks started to ask Elvis to stop being on their side. I call out the loonies on my side and people on your side do the same. The only difference is that the loonies on my side find themselves in hostile territory on virtually every issue and either leave or get banned, the loonies on your side find a less hostile environment for their looniness.
I agree with Terr on virtually nothing but guns and energy and he isn’t a saint but its pretty hard to be a full spectrum conservative on this board. The board would be poorer without the conservatives and the conservtives on this board are like the Sarduakar from Solaris Secundus, hard places make hard men and this is a very hard place for a conservative. We toughen them up and they probably faceroll over the liberals they meet in the wild.
TheDailyShow looked at the gun control issue, with a gun ban and other methods, a few months ago. I know we’re a different culture than Australia, and I don’t condone banning all firearms (as I’ve said before). But it seems to me like there should be common ground we can all agree on somewhere.
