This shouldn’t really have to be explained. Bloomberg is the poster child for nanny statesman. I believe Feinstein was the one who found Harvey Milk after he had been shot therefore I sympathize but completely disagree with her. I would wager most people think of these two first when they think of gun control.
The fact that advanced background checks didn’t get passed being the fault of gun rights activist unwillingness to debate is ridiculous. If I come to your front door offering to sell you Girl Scouts then come back after five minutes offering to sell you Girl Scout cookies the answer is still “get the fuck off my porch”. The debate was led with an assault weapons ban by Feinstein who is an unideal spokesman. That makes people distrust motivations right off the bat. Any bill which makes guns illegal based on cosmetic tells you proponents of the bill are ignorant to what their trying to legislate. Then we have the fact that they tried to rush it through without really measuring its impact on society, completely irresponsible. The entire process was sloppy and it ended with a bill that could at best be described as “ok”. I bet if the debate turned into how effective is closing the gun show loophole on preventing crime, it would go south on gun control advocates pretty quick.
And texting while driving is banned pretty much everywhere. I don’t think even the biggest gun opponent would oppose guns at shooting ranges.
The NRA position on texting while driving, however, would be to allow it as within your rights but punish someone who killed another person because of texting while driving. And if he killed six want to shut down any discussion of the problem until we got over the tragedy.
California does not represent the country at large. For example it’s gone for Democrats in every presidential election since 1992, but Democrats lost several of those elections.
In other words you’re going to continue to bring up the worst example you can think of as an excuse to call people dishonest and reject compromise as a concept. Got it- this has been enlightening. I think I’ll quit here while pointing out that you’ve confirmed every single thing I’ve said about the disingenuous debate tactics some gun control opponents will use.
Manchin-Toomey had a majority. Who stopped it? :dubious:
Manchin-Toomey had nothing to do with assault weapons.
So the filibuster was based on emotional dislike of someone who wasn’t even doing what you say she was, not actual facts or reasoning? Remarkable.
Has it ever occurred to you that your visceral dislike of the persons you identify as the poster children for something you hate just might be the product of the intellectual environment you choose to inhabit, and nothing more?
The question was about Manchin-Toomey. :rolleyes:
Oh, all right, if you insist on discussing your pet peeve instead, *what *negative impact on society are you referring to?
It is *most *convenient to be able to say that anyone who disagrees with you must be a fanatic who cannot be reasoned with, isn’t it? Saves a lot of trouble.
I agreed with you by the way. For the purposes of discussion, I’m willing to discuss the merits of any item without resorting to strongarming tactics or the slippery slope. Feel free to respond accordingly.
Yeah but suicides don’t count. We’ve had this discussion before.
What sort of gun law could you pass that would reduce suicides to any meaningful degree.
We have more guns than any other developed country in the world and yet our suicide rate is absiolutely normal. If more guns = more suicide, wouldn’t we have significantly higher suicide rates than average?
Perhaps people who are actually intent on committing suicide will do it even if they have to jump off a building or throw themselves in front of a train.
The great majority of them started out with anti-gun agendas and ended up with anti-gun conclusions.
What do you think such a campaign would look like?
Its not like the media doesn’t vilify gun ownership enough.
So what restrictions on the first amendment have we passed in the last 20 years? The 4th? The 6th? The 8th? Why does it matter when they were passed?
The manchin Toomey bill was so toothless and ineffective that I personally didn’t see any point in trying to block it but the well had been poisoned by that time and the pro-gun folks weren’t going to give you anything even if it didn’t cost them anything.
I was indifferent to the Manchin Toomey bill, mostly because it would have accomplished little to nothing. But I didn’t see the harm in it. It was a fig leaf so that the gun grabbers taht had overplayed their hand could say that they at least got SOMETHING for all the political capital they blew on the assault weapons ban.
The well had been poisoned at that point.
I happen to think that the wake of tragedies are the only time when the gun control lobby has the political capital to get anything accomplished. I think the gun control lobby wastes their politcal capital on useless symbolic shit that don’t save any lives, or they overreach and get nothing, or both.
LBJ tried to apss licensing and registration requirements after MLK and RFK assassinations. He seemed to think he could get it passed in the wake of the assassinations. But the Feinsteins of his day (a senator from Maryland) tabled licensing and registration in an effort to ban some categories of guns and they ended up with background checks (a poor substitute for licensing adn registration). LBJ cursed the NRA for the failure of the licensing and registration scheme but he could have had it if the gun grabbers hadn’t overreached in an attempt to get seomthing that was probably less effective (but more symbolic) than what LBJ was going for.
Did you bother reading the article?
Earlier in the debate, there was enough polical capital for SOMETHING to be done if the gun grabbers moved fast enough. They could have gotten something that would have saved lives (probably wouldn’t have prevented newtown but would prevent a lot more gun deaths than an Assault Weapons Ban). Instead they threw all their political capital at an ineffective assault weapons ban. They also vilified and alienated gun owners in the process. So when they moved back to a “fallback position” they found out that they had burned all the bridges behind them and had nowhere to fall back to.
The gun industry has very little power without the support of gun owners/voters.
Do you honestly think that a gun show background check requirement would have made any difference when all other private gun sales did not require background checks? It was a symbolic fig leaf and denying this fig leaf to the gun grabbers was also symbolic.
I don’t know if even a single life is saved or lost.
Isn’t this true of all my rights? Doesn’t the Koch brothers rights to spend 125 million on political ads affect us? Doesn’t it affect us when a criminal is freed because the cops bungled the warrant requirement? I’m not sure what your point is, other than “guns make me nervous”
He has this discussion with me quite a bit. I suspect that Bone thinks I favor more gun control (mostly because I do).
I remember having LOTS of comic books when iw as growing up in the 1970s.
Graphic novels didn’t start appearing until the 1980’s IIRC. I remember going to the Forbidden Planet and seeing glossy comic books for $5 and thinking, who the hell buys those things?
How about Manchin and Toomey? They seem relatively moderate to me.
There are moments in history when the gun rights folks CAN’T just dig in their heels and obstruct aeverything coming their way. The aftermath of Newtown was just such a time and the gun grabbers blew it.
You’ve incorrectly narrowed the subject to “passed.” A moment’s thought should tell you how much concepts like the right to a speed trial and safety from seizure have changed since September 11th in particular.
Illustrating how the debate on guns has progressed.
No, you don’t understand. It was a toothless, ineffective tyrannical theft of our freedoms. Or something.
Its a law review article. The cites are checked and the words in the article stand on their own two feet. What is there to be peer reviewed? All the factual stuff is in footnotes the main body is analysis. The article cites several sources and makes an argument for the bias at the CDC. Do you see a problem with any of their cites or arguments?
I’m not interested in discussing this with you if you’re going to throw around juvenile, stupid terms like “gun grabber.” If you want to have a sensible discussion of the issue, we can do that. If not, I’ll find a better way to occupy my time- whether that’s discussing this issue with someone else or just doing something else.
I’m not an expert in this field, and, as such, I don’t have the expertise on my own to make sure that they produced a thorough and representative summary of the evidence or that their methodology is sound according to the standards of the field. Peer review serves to ensure that this is the case.
I agree that folks at times, including myself, have taken the position that there is no reason to engage because we are winning. It is an effective strategy - however for the sake of discussion on this board, I will refrain from doing that in the future.
Yes, and I’ve shown that most people who survive near-fatal gun suicide attempts don’t try it again, because of the attempt being an impulsive act concerning temporary circumstances.
Except in near-end-of-life scenarios, every life if precious. But a good case can be made that the life of the average suicide is more precious than that of the average homicide victim, due to consideration of frequency with which homicide victims are other than innocent victims:
This of course isn’t to excuse homicide, or minimize the need to lessen it. My point is only that the case for callousness towards suicide victims is no stronger than the case for callousness towards homicide victims. I can’t believe one situation devastates surviving family member more, or less, than the other.
Since every life lost to gunshot is precious (except for unusual end of life situations), I bristle at the phrase “meaningful degree.” Saving lives is always meaningful. But I’m not greatly interested in additional laws because we already have too many people locked up because of too many criminal laws. Also there is the factor that gun lovers will buy more guns if they feel threatened. Instead we should mount a public education campaign against guns, as has been done so successfully with tobacco.
No, because there are other factors. The Japanese smoke almost twice as much as Americans, but the Japanese still live longer than the people of any other country (except maybe Monaco) because there is more than one cause of long life, just as there is more than one cause of suicide.
As far as I can see, they don’t vilify typical gunowners, and shouldn’t.
However, as one point of comparison, I think they more often cover research showing the dangers of obesity, when it appears in second and third rate journals, than they do comparable gun research in better journals. I suspect this is particularly true of the number one US news outlet (in terms of viewer or reader minutes per day), that being FoxNews.
Ultimately it isn’t up to the media, or the government, but to everyone who wants America to be less of an armed camp to politely say so.
Yes I’m aware. Manchin-Toomey is what two other senators salvaged out of Feinstein’s attempt at yet another silly assault weapons ban. Unfortunately Feinstein and the general appeal to emotion fallacy expressed by proponents of gun control informed the whole debate.