So what do you propose instead? Got anything for us?
Or are you going to use your imagined slippery slope as an excuse for resisting anything and everything?
What do I propose for what? Continuing to cut the murder rate?
*Continue to do what has worked very well at cutting the murder rate since 1970: remove lead paint from housing, keep abortion and contraception legal and available, intervene in domestic violence situations before they become homicides.
*Do everything we can to accelerate the trend away from using violence as childhood “discipline,” which is the surest way to create violent adults. The growing awareness of this fact has been a huge contributor to the existing downswing in murders, and really pushing it, especially into communities where the culture is currently nonreceptive to the idea, will go further.
*End the drug war that incentivizes gang violence.
*Fund mental health services better. Stop embracing insanity as “identity” and get people who are detached from reality into treatment whether they want to be or not.
*Take threats seriously. Every one of these mass shooters has told people exactly what they were going to do, but because we’re too focused on nonsense like gun laws, video games, and Marilyn Manson, posting detailed plans on the web of how you want to shoot up your high school gets ignored when reported to the police (or, in the case of Columbine, the FBI).
Or, you know, abandon all of that and try to purge the 100 million Americans who own guns legally and have never shot anyone with them, because facts nuts and statistics nuts and empiricism nuts are running roughshod over your fantasies of starting a civil war. Whatever floats your boat.
If we’re talking about, e.g., universal background checks, I think the burden of evidence is on the other side. If you think this would help, it’s up to you to show support for that claim.
And what have you done to end the war on drugs today?
No, you call it pro-murder because you’ve turned off your brain. Same as the WBC folks shut out all reason and sanity so they can keep chanting “god hates fags” with a straight face. You don’t care about the facts or about my reasons for supporting the positions I do, and no explanation of them I can give will satisfy you. And I don’t mean satisfy as in you agree with the facts or accept my reasoning or conclusions – I mean you cannot even imagine any motivation for my beliefs besides a sociopathic desire to see children murdered. All you have is a moral outrage that comes from a fundamental misattribution, and you won’t let anything deprive you of that prejudice.
CR: Yeah, that’s what I thought. :rolleyes:
Excuses, excuses. :rolleyes:
Diversions, diversions. :rolleyes:
Wrong. I care deeply, and I understand them better than you do yourself. Scary thought, innit?
You haven’t been paying attention. No, I don’t think you want people murdered. But you *are *willing to accept their deaths as the price of you keeping your binkies. That is not the sign of a healthy mind.
The misattribution is yours alone. The moral outrage comes from a “prejudice” against murder that is shared by civilized societies universally, with the exception of their psychopathic members. You don’t have a defensible argument to make on that point, but it’s not surprising that you don’t realize it - you literally can’t.
I’m glad you thought that I had a detailed, fact-based plan for addressing the murder rate, firmly rooted in empirical fact about what has worked to this point and not limited to either “conservative” or “liberal” dogmas, and I’m happy that you gave me the chance to confirm that your thoughts were correct!
Hey, you didn’t make ME do it, I never wanted to kill the background check at gun shows, I thought it was a meaningless fig leaf for the gun control types, so they wouldn’t feel like such losers. The NRA wanted to kill it, they want to kill just about any gun control you can think of and if that makes you look like a loser its only icing on the cake.
In January (after Wayne LaPierre’s crazy speech) they didn’t have the power to stop something like the Manchin Toomey bill, they were looking at real and significant gun control. Fortunately for them, people like you outcrazied the NRA gave the NRA the power and the credibility to shut down even the mildest forms of gun control after your ignorance and idiocy on this issue were displayed for all to see (See AWB).
You are the NRA’s greatest allies. But keep doing what you are doing, keep vilifying gun ownership and people who believe in gun rights. If you do it loudly enough I bet Hillary will start going on hunting trips with Democratic congressmen and senators from swing states between now and 2016.
Hell, they might even go hunting with those assault weapons you’re so afraid of.
You can’t excuse yourself from the burden of proof, mate. It’s stuff like this that makes you pure poison to your own side. You discredit them by mere association. Damuri Ajashi and Condescending Robot are exactly right when they say that it’s people like you who made it so easy for the NRA to sink Manchin-Toomey. You want a place at the table? Stop acting batshit crazy. There’s enough batshit crazy on the pro-gun side as it is without you legitimizing it.
Uh huh. So you can call me out for not personally stumping for change on the floor of the senate, but the moment I ask you the same question, it’s a diversion? There’s only one diversion here, and it’s you basically wearing your underpants on your head in this debate.
Your tactic here is to beg the question of what the causes and effective prophylactics for murder are, and then pretend that the social distaste for unnecessary death (which is of course shared by everyone present) therefore supports your side. This is logical bollocks, especially since you can’t provide any evidence that the recent gun control platforms would actually do anything to help.
I note that Damuri Ajashi’s reply to repeated requests that he support his assertions in some way have resulted in “do a Google search” and “what do you want, research?”
And his fellow psychopath, Stealth Potato, can do nothing other than demand that anyone who wishes to discuss anything that makes him feel uncomfortable do all the work for him, while he relieves himself of any responsibility whatever.
Nothing can be allowed to interfere with their desperate need to suck their binkies, not even death itself.
This just in: Centers For Disease Control report says armed victims of crime suffer fewer injuries than unarmed victims:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
From the cite above
What do you think the word “actual” means in this context? Suggests to me an awareness that the statistics on defensive gun use are open to question, no?
Will you shut the fuck up if I do your googling for you?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ccw+safer+than+general+public
And I think this http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=9928 might be the source of my earlier erroneous statement that seems to be the linchpin of your arguments against me.
Of course there is a chance that Texas and Florida CCWs are not representative of CCWs across the country but the disparity is so large that I don’t think it would be on you to prove why the results would be so different elsewhere in the country.
I think it expresses an awareness that some idiots are going to wave away any use of the term defensive gun use.
We literally had people on this board who wanted to compare justifiable homicides against all gun deaths. How fucking retarded is that?
Damuri Ajashi, that is called a Google vomit, and is a sure sign that someone is full of shit and is just pulling stuff from their ass.
For instance, I can just as easily do this:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=concealed+carry+NOT+safer+than+general+public
This study provides some evidence about the relative safety of CCW people:
Here’s more information about CCW people:
So, in short, I’ve conducted another Google search using “Let me Google that for you” that contains some key conclusions.
Or its a sure sign that the information is so fucking easy to get that it is worth making fun of you for pretending that the information is hard to find.
Yes and the first half dozen hit on your google search seems to agree with me that concealed carry is actually safer than the general public.
-wikipedia Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia
-The Atlantic
And while there is no causal link that concealed carry is the reason crime rates have gone down in places that have adopted concealed carry laws, there is no evidence that adopting concealed carry leads to more violence.
So there was a 6 month period in the late 1990’s when the weapons related arrest rate was higher than the genreal public? I will assume that is true. In your mind what do you think of when you hear weapons related arrest rate? Do you think the guy shot someone or do you think the guy was carrying somewhere he wasn’t supposed to be carrying like a school or post office?
Thats a pretty laughable opinion peice, don’t you think?
And THAT is basically what your arguments amount to. You are right and anyone that disagres with you is a poopyhead especially when they make you look stupid.
So you still got a hardon for that AWB?
THIS again?? Gun owners and carriers are not only yahoos, they’re cowardly paranoid yahoos? :rolleyes:
More straw men than the county fair’s scarecrow contest.
Can we take her guns away now?
Yes, if she’s convicted of the felony charges. Irresponsible or criminal use of guns is a valid reason for someone’s right to own guns to be forfeited. Gun owners just don’t believe in prior restraint except in the most exceptional circumstances. Of course to hear some tell it, the general public shouldn’t be allowed to run with scissors let alone own guns.
Yes, somebody has to die before the guns can be taken away from someone who suddenly stopped being a “law abiding citizen” (that phrase does NOT help you people, btw). And the “exceptional circumstances” never seem to exist.
There’s a difference. The scissors will only hurt the carrier.