Phatmasser Gun Leanings

[dairygirl4u2c]

that is a pretty good argument about curtailing the first amendment due to the deaths it can cause. i think it just comes down to some people dont view guns as much of a right as speech and religion. in fact, the USA is an outlier in thinking guns are a right. people say never use the state as a metric for what is right and wrong, and that would be applicable here too. true rights are common across the board, not that the majority of states is a good metric either, admittedly. 

 

Edited January 9, 2016 by dairygirl4u2c

[PhuturePriest]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

Should we also in effect ban or severely curtailing the First Amendment due to religious extremism/terrorism? I could also make the same argument in favor of banning or severely curtailing the First Amendment that you have made in favor of banning or severely curtailing the Second Amendment. Because I could also argue as you do that the thousands and tens of thousands of deaths each year due to religious extremism/terrorism is unacceptable. I could also find numerous images of children holding weapons as well as wearing military attire taken by religious extremists/terrorism. In effect I could just swap out some of your words and phrases against the Right to Bear Arms and use it for an argument against the right to Freedom of Religion. If we can severely restrict or even ban the rights of gun owners because a small number (in comparison) of evil men do evil things with guns, then logically we can also severely restrict or even ban the rights of religious persons because a small number (in comparison) of evil men do evil things with religion. I could make this argument but I won't, not in a serious manner, because I unlike you do not support authoritarianism.

I don't think this is a fair argument. I don't think we should ban any speech, no matter how radical -- not just because I believe every belief deserves to be voiced, but because it's a lot easier to lock onto crazies when they say their crazy stuff publicly. I also think it's nicer when the average crazy thinker doesn't have easy access to weapons. We can't stop criminals from getting guns completely, but we can stop much or most of them from getting them by making it harder. 

The argument that we should just let anyone get guns because if we put restrictions "only the criminals will have guns because they don't care about the law," is like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because "criminals don't care about the speed limit." In fact, with that line of logic, laws simply shouldn't exist. People who break laws don't obey them, so what's the point?

Edited January 9, 2016 by PhuturePriest

[dairygirl4u2c]

On 1/7/2016, 10:50:37, Not A Real Name said:

I think the gun death toll data itself needs to distinguish between which deaths are caused by legal gun owners and their registered firearms vs. deaths caused by wepons which were obtained illegally.  Are there any statistics which show this?  I must admit I haven't read through every post, so if someone has listed a source like this then just point me to the page.

As one SWAT officer from Florida told me, "Strict gun laws take away firearms from responsible gun owners, and gives more power to criminals who neither care about the law or the rights of others."  

Frankly until I see data showing that legal guns owners kill more people than those who obtained their guns illegally, then I will never be open to the possibility of strict gun laws or a ban on guns.

"  In 2004, the government conducted its periodic Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. It found that among inmates who had a gun when they committed their crime (16 percent of all prisoners), about 11 percent had bought the firearm at a retail store, a pawn shop, a flea market or a gun show. Another 37 percent had gotten it from a friend or family member. About 40 percent said they got it illegally on the black market, from a drug dealer or by stealing it. "

this would indicate that most guns used in crimes are obtained legally or without regulation to hinder the transaction. that is, a family gift of a gun might be illegal transaction but if we at least had universal background checks, that transaction would be less likely. 

[superblue]

 

I use to really love South Park back in the day, now South Park is just another political satire show with a dash of stupidity.  I still get some laughs from it though. I hate that they try to teach and preach though through irony. An CNN can dunk a doughnut.

 

 

[Socrates]

On 1/4/2016, 4:44:50, PhuturePriest said:

One thing I find very interesting (and perhaps points to the almost deification of firearms in America's gun culture, in my opinion) is that pro-gun advocates who are of the mind that we should have very few gun laws and we should be free to carry whatever type of firearm we please anywhere we please, seem to only think along those lines when it comes to firearms. I question how comfortable they would be if a law were passed and 90% of the population suddenly walked around with swords, for instance. . . .

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to own and bear arms.  "Arms" are not restricted to guns/firearms, but would also include other weapons such as swords, knives, crossbows, batarangs, whatever, if that's their preference.  And last I heard, carrying swords is not against the law.   And I've actually been present at various events where guys were (peacefully) walking around with swords, and somehow managed not to freak out.  I'm also not aware of any strong supporters of the second amendment regarding guns who support government bans on swords, knives, or other weapons.

Of course, private establishments should be free to ban guns, swords, or whatever else they want on their premises.  (Not that that's necessarily always a wise idea.  Mass shooters prefer to target "gun free zones" where everyone else is unarmed and helpless.)

 

On 1/4/2016, 7:36:03, PhuturePriest said:

 . . . I'm not an expert with them, but I'm competent enough to know the vast majority of people who have them have no clue how to use them, and the only thing more dangerous than a properly trained swordsman is an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. Which happens to be the same with guns, coincidentally. I'm sure you've seen one of the many video compilations of people accidentally shooting themselves and others.

 The NRA and other groups you and your ilk love to demonize are major supporters and providers of gun safety training, as are most serious gun enthusiasts.  The federal government, by contrast, has done nothing to provide gun safety training for civilians.  (Which might actually be effective in saving lives, unlike the unconstitutional "executive" measures pushed by Dear Leader.)

Lots of legitimate tools and things that people use all the time are dangerous.  This includes chainsaws, axes, machetes, gasoline, matches, motorcycles and countless other things which can all result in death or dismemberment by either malice or accident/stupidity.  That doesn't mean they should be banned by the federal government.

If safety is really the great concern, why don't you turn your Nanny-state ire against say, swimming pools instead, which are involved in more accidental deaths in this country than guns?

 

On 1/4/2016, 10:35:45, PhuturePriest said:

That's Mr. Toad to you, cowboy.

I don't know much about France, but I would personally love to move to Britain.  . . .

Then get packing already.  Seriously.  Everyone would be better off if those who despise America and her freedoms and constitutional rule of law moved elsewhere, rather than staying and voting into office public officials who would trample on the rights and freedoms of the rest of us.

[PhuturePriest]

3 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Then get packing already.  Seriously.  Everyone would be better off if those who despise America and her freedoms and constitutional rule of law moved elsewhere, rather than staying and voting into office public officials who would trample on the rights and freedoms of the rest of us.

I agree completely. So get paying for it. If you want idiots like me gone, exert the effort to make it happen. Talk is cheap.

[Socrates]

On 1/5/2016, 6:59:58, Spinozist said:

DairyGirl,

Thanks for presenting your thoughts. The correlation is very interesting, although like you, I'm suspicious about how fortuitous it is. It will be great to see if similar correlations hold up elsewhere, or have already held up elsewhere.

It looks like there will be some sort of potential future correlations to study within the USA: http://mic.com/articles/131809/a-tearful-obama-announces-new-executive-action-on-gun-control

I think this is a great thing. We should experiment with different levels of regulation and find out what works. If this amount of regulation helps, increase it. Keep increasing the regulations until it stops making things better.

So how many other dictatorial and unlawful restrictions on our freedoms by the president (who has absolutely no constitutional authority to either make or change law) should we "experiment" with to "find out what works"?  I guess once we get to the point of, say,  Stalinist Russia, we'll know we've gone too far.

This is about the right of citizens to have and use (closely related to the right to self-defense) vs. those who seek to monopolize power in the hands of the federal government.

All the endless discussion and debate about figures and statistics (while no doubt fascinating in a geeky sort of way), is ultimately an irrelevant distraction from the real issue.

10 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

I agree completely. So get paying for it. If you want idiots like me gone, exert the effort to make it happen. Talk is cheap.

Work and pay for it yourself, Commie.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Socrates

[PhuturePriest]

11 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Work and pay for it yourself, Commie.

You're the one who wants me gone. I'm old enough to vote now, so if you don't want me voting in fellow commies, I'd get those limeys on the line in fast order.

[KnightofChrist]

On 1/8/2016, 7:44:03, PhuturePriest said:

I don't think this is a fair argument. I don't think we should ban any speech, no matter how radical -- not just because I believe every belief deserves to be voiced, but because it's a lot easier to lock onto crazies when they say their crazy stuff publicly. I also think it's nicer when the average crazy thinker doesn't have easy access to weapons. We can't stop criminals from getting guns completely, but we can stop much or most of them from getting them by making it harder. 

The argument that we should just let anyone get guns because if we put restrictions "only the criminals will have guns because they don't care about the law," is like saying we shouldn't have speed limits because "criminals don't care about the speed limit." In fact, with that line of logic, laws simply shouldn't exist. People who break laws don't obey them, so what's the point?

Well of course you don't think it fair, unlike the Second you support the First Amendment. But I wasn't talking about speech per se, but religion which has certain radical aspects which abuse religious rights, just as some gun owners abuse gun rights.

I'm comparing your position to the position of those who a very similar one, only difference being it applies to religious rights rather than gun rights. They also hold similar stereotypical views of certain religious persons as you hold of gun owners. They also use photos of children with weaponry to defend their stereotypical views. To be blunt your views of the NRA folks is very similar to views held by people who hold prejudices against Muslims.

[Not A Real Name]

I'm just going to leave this here (Thank You Founding Fathers):

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-robbers-shot-cell-phone-store-20160113-story.html

[superblue]

[4588686]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2016‎ ‎12‎:‎43‎:‎47‎, KnightofChrist said:

I've just ignored this thread, because it's been done a bazillion times before.  I'm sure others have done the same.

The recent terrorists attacks in both France and California are yet more undeniable (for the honest person) evidence that heavy gun control is as ineffective and unrealistic as the war on drugs. Getting crack off the street is just as easy as getting automatic firearms, sometimes from the same dealer. Many people are waking up to the failures of the war on drugs and how ineffective it truly is due to the violence it prevents and even causes. It is likely after many deaths and many ineffective gun laws that most will come to a similar consultation on the war on guns.

Hm. Compare the number of gun deaths in France to the number of gun deaths in the US. Weight is for population. You and @Socrates fail so hard it hurts me and makes me sad.

[veritasluxmea]

What I find amazing is that a lot of gun-ban supporters manage to believe all the below statements, at the same time. Somehow all of these are true and will be solved by not having a gun? I can only see how having a gun would help. 

“You don’t need a gun, because you’re not in constant danger.” 

“We are in a gun violence epidemic you can get shot just going to school.” 

“If you are ever in danger you can just call the police.” 

“The police are racist killers.” 

[KnightofChrist]

17 hours ago, Hasan said:

Hm. Compare the number of gun deaths in France to the number of gun deaths in the US. Weight is for population. You and @Socrates fail so hard it hurts me and makes me sad.

Such a comparison won't make the failure of gun control in France to stop the terrorists from getting guns to murder 130 or so people any less of a failure. Also, comparing the total number of all crimes (gun and non-gun related) the US is higher than France. There are for example about 75% more rapes in the US than in France. Using the same authoritarian logic of the anti-gun groups there should be a call for Penile Control. Due to the unacceptable number of rapes every US male should treated as a potential threat and forced to register his hmm.. unit with the Government. Units that do not conform to approved sizes should be seized and destroyed by the Government, when that fails to actually reduce the number of rapes there should just be a ban of privately owned units all together and only Government officials should allowed to be in procession of such units. Bill "You know you want it" Clinton would have a field day I'm sure. And yes it's stupid logic and an affront on individual liberties but so is gun control.

 

[Socrates]

On 1/22/2016, 9:38:38, KnightofChrist said:

Such a comparison won't make the failure of gun control in France to stop the terrorists from getting guns to murder 130 or so people any less of a failure. Also, comparing the total number of all crimes (gun and non-gun related) the US is higher than France. There are for example about 75% more rapes in the US than in France. Using the same authoritarian logic of the anti-gun groups there should be a call for Penile Control. . . .

If it could be demonstrated that the government forcing everyone by law to live locked in padded cells and be kept under 24-7 electronic surveillance would reduce homicides and accidental deaths, would the bleeding heart supporters of government "gun control" support that also?  Would anyone opposed to such measures be an evil person who doesn't care about killings or value human life?

(I don't believe it's proven that "gun control" laws save lives, but it seems the whole issue of liberty and rights is being sidestepped by the lefties here.)

On 1/21/2016, 3:22:01, Hasan said:

Hm. Compare the number of gun deaths in France to the number of gun deaths in the US. Weight is for population. You and @Socrates fail so hard it hurts me and makes me sad.

Or you can compare the rates of gun deaths per capita in the US to those of places such as Brazil, Mexico, or Russia, which have much stricter gun laws but much higher gun homicide rates.  You can cherrypick stats and countries and use correlation=causation "arguments" to "prove" whatever you want.  Or you can look at the recent miserable failure of gun control laws here in the U.S. in cities such as Chicago and DC to prevent gun homicides.

Though I thought all that was already thoroughly covered by folks about 50 gun debates  ago.  Not that you'd be particularly interested in factual arguments.