I’m going to have to go with an OH HELL NO on that one. Legislation on smoking is an example of politicians saying one thing while doing something else.
If I remember correctly the smoking bans started with overseas flights
-then in the work place
-then in restaurants
-then in bars
-then in apartments
Add federal, state, and local taxes and the agenda seems pretty clear and that’s to eventually ban cigarettes or make them too expensive to smoke.
Nobody used Jones as the source. You’ve told multiple times that the website was simply a link to the 60 minutes interview, and you were then given a YouTube link showing the same exact interview. Is your argument so weak that you cannot get past the source of the 60 minutes clip? Did anyone quote Jones? Drop it for fuck’s sake. :rolleyes:
You were the one who used Alex Jones as your source.
Don’t get upset at me for pointing it out to you.
If you can’t take people critiquing your argument because you used a 911 truther then I’d recommend you not use a 911 truther.
Bwahahaha. Can you at least try? The closest country on your list has a GDP 1/3 of the US, and happens to be an ex communist state with a population of 1.34 million. Are you claiming that Estonia or any of these other countries on your list is a reasonable comparison for the US of A?
US GDP = $48,328
Russia = $12,993
South Africa = $8,078
Lithuania = $13,262
Estonia = $16,568
You might have; pkbites appears confused on the point.
Then, we will have to find something that will. The floor is open for suggestions.
You asked for “developed countries”. You didn’t specify a GDP cutoff. CIA Factbook includes South Africa in the list of its “developed countries”. Some people consider OECD to be the “developed countries” - Estonia is a member. Do you have your own, special, criteria for what a “developed country” is?
Whaddya mean first step? I think they’re pretty much the answer. If that doesn’t work then we can either amend the constitution or just live with gun violence.
I know what you mean, she almost seems like false flag.
So no more AWB?
High cap magazines are a bit harder to defend but fortunately, I don’t have to. You have to make a case for banning them. Thats the way constitutional rights work.
The only argument I can really come up with (other than the constitution, but that doesn’t seem to carry much weight with some folks), is that I don’t want to ban anything that will nonetheless be widely available to criminals. I don’t see why they need the advantage.
We don’t ban beer and wine either.
He was basically admitting that the AWB was retarded. It is a negligible factor in gun violence generally and would not prevent or ameliorate any future massacre.
Rifles (of which assault rifles are a subset) account for 33% of guns in private hands. They represent about 3% of all gun murders. Handguns account for about 33% of guns in private hands and account for over 90% of all gun murders.
When the Republicans went after in person voter fraud by demanding voter ID when the vast majority of voter fraud occurred in the arena of absentee voting, some people on this board thought that there might have been something other than concerns about voter fraud that might have been driving the voter ID alws.
When Democrats go after gun crime by targetting a category of guns that account for a teeny tiny little peice of gun violence and almost entirely ignore handguns, why is it suddenly irrational to suspect that perhaps gun violence isn’t really what is driving the ban on Assault weapons.
I’m not sure that is the proper way to look at constitutional rights.
If you have a right to abortions and Santorum would prefer no abortion (or even contraception at all, do we need to compromise or do we place the burden on them to justify the restriction of our rights?
Liberals are frequently afraid of guns and vilify them because they have not had much exposure to guns and they only see negative portrayals on TV and the movies. Its pretty much the same reason a lot of conservatives are afraid of minorities.
A lot of people say that registration is the first step towards confiscation, not in the sense that it will make it easier but in the sense that this is the ultimate plan.
There are 300 million guns in the hands of almost 100 million gun owners. The military, national guard and reserves combined are less than 2.5 million. I don’t think they would try even if they knew where every gun was.
There is a difference between confiscating all the guns and confiscating a small category of guns. Could they confiscate all full auto 50 caliber machine guns? I don’t think they can confiscate ar15s without running afoul of the constitution but I think they could confiscate full auto 50 cals.
It sounded a little bit like you were trying to call Feinstein a Nazi.
Constitutionally, how do AR15s and 50 caliber machine guns differ? Is it just that one you have to register already and the other they just want to make you register?
I’m not upset at you for pointing out the same thing multiple times. I am upset that it has been made abundantly clear to you that I used to site to show the interview, and then posted another hosting yet you cannot get past the point of where it was hosted even though it makes no difference.
You have nothing else to argue with me other than what site is She said what she said, regardless of what site is hosting her interview, that cannot be just waved away.
Right.
Cuomo did not say he wants to confiscate guns. He said it was an option in changing the laws in New York. It was not an option that was pursued.
She didn’t say it was her end goal.
And it’s not configured that way. When the Assault Weapons Ban passed the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate as well as the presidency, and their gun control bill did not include any gun confiscations. Today they control the Senate by a similar margin and Republicans control the House, so if anything the prospect is even less likely- and nobody is proposing confiscations, which is why you’re forced to cite something Feinstein said in 1995.
Well, we will have to just agree to disagree on this one. It is clear to me what they want. Whether they have the ability to get it done is another thing. As a gun owner, Cuomo, Feinstein, and others make the whole “compromise” meme extremely hard to jump on board. If the Dems really wanted to get serious on “reasonable” restrictions, someone would tell Di and Andy to STFU. All they are doing is giving the pro gun forces plenty of material to work with.
Here is a news conference from 12/2012 where Feinstein mentions re categorizing all AW’s under the NFA act where current full auto guns reside. This would force registration, and in many states, forfeiture of AW’s as NFA firearms are not permitted to be owned by civilians. I fall under that situation. This did not get added to her recent bill, but at the 12:40 mark, she states she was looking at it. That is enough for me.
What is included in the bill today, is the banning of transfers of any AW. Upon an owner’s death those guns would either be forfeited or destroyed. I realize I am arguing with someone who most likely doesn’t give a shit, but in my opinion, short of someone going door to door with a list, this is as insidious as, and equal to outright confiscation. YMMV.
Let me rephrase that as a *relevant *country. Your four examples just don’t seem relevant to the US culture of guns and/or violence.
The UK, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, etc would be examples I’d toss out that are more relevant for comparison (GDP, rule of law, political systems, gun culture history, etc. Although I’ll grant you that their population is significantly less than the US.
One can pick nits all day long but throwing out Estonia as a comparable country that might be valuable for comparison.
Here’s an interesting table on Wiki for non-firearm murders per population (and it breaks out firearm murders, % of murders with firearms, etc.
The US has a non-firearms murder rate comparable but a bit higher than that of
England, Australia, Canada, Spain, New Zealand, etc. While our firearm murder rate is at least 4x higher. Correlation does not equal causation, but at least I have to look at stats like these and consider having ready access to firearms just might be a contributor to having a much higher overall murder rate.
“Relevant” is in the eye of the beholder.
Do you really think that Japan’s “gun culture history” is relevant to United States?
As for correlation/causation etc. - look at this study, it really tried to compare apples to apples (neighboring countries with similar cultures etc) and finds no correlation between level of gun ownership and homicide rates.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
The non‐correlation between gun ownership and murder is reinforced by examination of statistics from larger numbers of nations across the developed world. Comparison of “homicide and suicide mortality data for thirty‐six nations (including the United States) for the period 1990–1995” to gun ownership levels showed “no significant (at the 5% level) association between gun ownership levels and the total homicide rate.” Consistent with this is a later European study of data from 21 nations in which “no significant correlations [of gun ownership levels] with total suicide or homicide rates were found.”
…
gun ownership is irrelevant, or has little relevance, to murder: France and neighboring Germany have exactly the same, comparatively high rate of gun ownership, yet the French murder rate is nearly twice the German; France has infinitely more gun ownership than Luxembourg, which nevertheless has a murder rate five times greater, though handguns are illegal and other types of guns sparse; Germany has almost double the gun ownership rate of neighboring Austria yet a similarly very low murder rate; the Norwegian gun ownership rate is over twice the Austrian rate, yet the murder rates are almost identical.
…
Slovenia, with 66% more gun ownership than Slovakia, nevertheless has roughly one‐third less murder per capita; Hungary has more than 6 times the gun ownership rate of neighboring Romania but a lower murder rate; the Czech Republic’s gun ownership rate is more than 3 times that of neighboring Poland, but its murder rate is lower; Poland and neighboring Slovenia have exactly the same murder rate, though Slovenia has over triple the gun ownership per capita.
Here comes the handwave about how somehow the German definition of murder is so fundamentally different than the French one that we can’t use statistics and have to rely on gut feelings about guns being bad…
Well one can say “French are very different from Germans”. Ok. But Germany and Austria? Slovenia and Slovakia? Czechs and Poles?
First, looks like the study is pretty dated. Most recent data is from 2003 or 2004. Since you’re so well read on the topic, would you agree that invalidates findings on England, since the England & Wales rates have fallen dramatically in the past decade?
Second, the study doesn’t compare Europe and European countries with the US. It has nifty tables comparing Germany and Luxemburg but the US isn’t included in the data for comparison purposes. I’d call that a significant oversight because it makes it very difficult for a casual reader like me to compare the data.
So, it’s not really apples to apples. The authors show some data on apples to apples Europe, and apples to apples US States, but not European Apples to American Apples. If you have some relevant parts to highlight that compares Europe to the US on an apples to apples basis, I’d like to see it.
Liberals live in urban areas, which is where the gun violence is. Conservatives live in rural areas, where it ain’t.
The movers and shakers in the Democratic Party and the “progressive” movement don’t live anywhere near “where the gun violence is.” Let’s not bullshit.
Oh yeah. Who is trying to compare apples to oranges here? What in the fuckall has German and/or French definitions have to do with anything?
Furthermore, I’d like a comparison of USA gun violence/murders versus ANY other country that has near our population or anywhere near our population density. With breakdowns by cities, if possible.