Mr. Ambien Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Right. Because there's absolutely no middle ground, even though the proof is all around, in the form of other countries who don't cling to their guns like Americans do. It seems you prefer looking all around and everywhere else except the place it matters.. the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 It seems you prefer looking all around and everywhere else except the place it matters.. the US. And it appears that you prefer not to look at all... The first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 And it appears that you prefer not to look at all... The first step to solving a problem is admitting that you have one. We've already agreed there is a problem.. unfortunately your political persuasions has you with tunnel vision toward guns rather than taking a step back and realizing the problem with gun violence is a microcosm of "violence" in the US. Taking away guns doesn't change the nature of Americans regarding their violent culture. All it would do would limit the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. And since that goes against the US Constitution, consistently reaffirmed by SCOTUS, which matters far more than "all around and everywhere else", where logic should take someone is that obsessiveness about the gun is not even remotely the logical course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 We've already agreed there is a problem.. unfortunately your political persuasions has you with tunnel vision toward guns rather than taking a step back and realizing the problem with gun violence is a microcosm of "violence" in the US. Taking away guns doesn't change the nature of Americans regarding their violent culture. All it would do would limit the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves. And since that goes against the US Constitution, consistently reaffirmed by SCOTUS, which matters far more than "all around and everywhere else", where logic should take someone is that obsessiveness about the gun is not even remotely the logical course. Well at least you've admitted that there is a problem. However, I fail to see how you think it can be addressed. How exactly would you go about changing the "culture of violence" in the US? Seems like a pretty tall order, IMHO. While you're working on that, my common sense approach, (which has never been "take away all the guns", a fact that you choose to consistently ignore) might just save a few hundred lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Well at least you've admitted that there is a problem. However, I fail to see how you think it can be addressed. How exactly would you go about changing the "culture of violence" in the US? Seems like a pretty tall order, IMHO. While you're working on that, my common sense approach, (which has never been "take away all the guns", a fact that you choose to consistently ignore) might just save a few hundred lives. Dude, I've never said there's no problem in the US on this subject. We've had these debates how many times now? And presuming you're talking about regulation (which is not even remotely close to a new concept in US politics), it's been proven not only to be ineffective (which I already knew first hand as someone who lived under tight gun restrictions in SF and has had guns pulled on me and others I was around before) but the overly zealous jurisdictions that implement these don't seem to be able to use a "necessity" (i.e. only regulating absolutely necessary aspects rather than regulate as a rule) approach to regulation that doesn't get wiped out in court for being overreaching and broad. Plus, I don't have all the answers to US violence. Honestly, it perplexes me. I know the US was founded upon violent overthrow, followed by concessions and debates. I know that Americans have a history of violence against even their own government, so in an absolutist sense that you're probably looking for, I wouldn't have the answers. OTOH, the US violence problem has been consistently getting better, in light of more emphasis on gun rights (and beating back regulations) since 2000. I'm not suggesting that more guns and lax standards has been the cause of it, however, it does throw a wrench in the idea that already disproven regulations are likewise necessary. They aren't. The impetus for regulating a right required is astronomical. Why do you think a decade and a half after 9/11 so many Americans are pissed off and moaning about first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights too? The US government overreached, yet only parts of the overreaching response to 9/11 has been, to this point, nullified. It's obviously not happening fast enough given the importance of justifying even an inch and no leg to stand on overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Dude, I've never said there's no problem in the US on this subject. We've had these debates how many times now? And presuming you're talking about regulation (which is not even remotely close to a new concept in US politics), it's been proven not only to be ineffective (which I already knew first hand as someone who lived under tight gun restrictions in SF and has had guns pulled on me and others I was around before) but the overly zealous jurisdictions that implement these don't seem to be able to use a "necessity" (i.e. only regulating absolutely necessary aspects rather than regulate as a rule) approach to regulation that doesn't get wiped out in court for being overreaching and broad. Plus, I don't have all the answers to US violence. Honestly, it perplexes me. I know the US was founded upon violent overthrow, followed by concessions and debates. I know that Americans have a history of violence against even their own government, so in an absolutist sense that you're probably looking for, I wouldn't have the answers. OTOH, the US violence problem has been consistently getting better, in light of more emphasis on gun rights (and beating back regulations) since 2000. I'm not suggesting that more guns and lax standards has been the cause of it, however, it does throw a wrench in the idea that already disproven regulations are likewise necessary. They aren't. The impetus for regulating a right required is astronomical. Why do you think a decade and a half after 9/11 so many Americans are pissed off and moaning about first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights too? The US government overreached, yet only parts of the overreaching response to 9/11 has been, to this point, nullified. It's obviously not happening fast enough given the importance of justifying even an inch and no leg to stand on overall. Honestly, all I take away from this is "I don't know what to do about the problem, but I know what not to do"... ..."anything". I disagree that anything has been "proven". I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the less guns that are available, the less people will use them to kill each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Honestly, all I take away from this is "I don't know what to do about the problem, but I know what not to do"... ..."anything". I disagree that anything has been "proven". I think the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the less guns that are available, the less people will use them to kill each other. As usual, I agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 It's sad because we hear so much of this stuff lately that it starts to be desensitizing. But every single life that is taken senselessly leaves a trail of people who have to carry on and deal with it. Just awful. We all need to be a little kinder, gentler to one another. It starts there, as simple and pathetic as that sounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 But people and the courts in the US are going to buy into that? Man, I wish I could go to this imaginary land, where getting rid of guns solves the US' problems. Except, I don't believe in fairy tales. It's a lot more realistic then waiting until people decide to be nice to each other. I'm sorry to say this, but that Dalai Lama is overrated. A master of stating the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 So, the takeaway from this is that you don't believe the US has a gun problem, rather they have a mental health problem...is that about it? I don't disagree with the second, although I've seen no statistics that tell me there are bigger mental health issues in the USA than there are in other first world countries. OTOH, I wholeheartedly disagree that the US doesn't have a gun problem. No-one is talking about banning guns, either. Make them difficult to get. Restrict the type of weapons that can legally be sold. Put restrictions on the types of ammunition one can possess. You know......common sense regulations. It doesn't do a lot of good to place regulations on something, when people can drive an hour and get it anyway. If you watch the video I linked to by Bill Whittle... US appears to have a gun problem if you separate gun murder rates and regular murder rates. In terms of just outright murders, the United States are middle of the pack internationally. Break things down further, most murders (and gun crimes) are located in US areas that are stricter in their regulation regarding firearms. Places like Plano, Texas, the heart of gun culture has one of the lowest murder rate, not just in the US, but the world. If more guns = more murders... theoretically, pro-gun areas should be positively correlated to those numbers, but most of the time, it's the opposite. Just simply restricting "high powered" weaponry doesn't curb the amount of violence. Someone trained in a Glock handgun with multiple high capacity magazines could easily kill more people than some random nut job who grabbed any firearm. A regular handgun is easier to handle than say a regular AR-15. The majority of mass shootings in the history of the US are actually committed with multiple handguns. For all the mass shootings, I don't ever seem to recall anyone buying a fully automatic, military spec assault rifle with armour piercing / incendiary rounds and going Rambo with it. It's mostly been someone getting a hunting rifle, maybe a shotgun, mostly regular handguns and maybe perhaps a semi-automatic rifle.... pretty much the same weapons you are limited to in Canada. The problem with many, especially the media, is that if a weapon looks scary it's automatically classified as a "high powered, assault rifle", when in actuality, it's just a semi-automatic rifle that happens to looks "aggressive" and it's black coloured. It's that kind of thinking that got the CZ-858 prohibited in Canada, just because it sort of resembles the AK-47... even though it's a completely different gun that operates differently and does not have any interchangeable parts. Canadian perspective, but describes firearms a bit more accurately. So simply asking for a ban on anything deemed "excessive" is pointless as most of those ammo and equipments are beyond the price ranges and abilities of most people, save for the real firearms euthuthists. Handguns are usually very restricted in most places in the US anyways, so trying to limit something deemed "excessive" is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Owning a firearm increases your chance of death. Full stop. One can have liberty without being able to own a gun. This notion that the two are joined at the hip is nonsense. There are plenty of restrictions put in place for the betterment of society. Severely restricting firearms should be treated no different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 A libertarian against gun control? Shocking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 A libertarian against gun control? Shocking... A Marxist that suggests explicit individual rights to protect one's self be curbed for the "betterment of society". Totally shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 A Marxist that suggests explicit individual rights to protect one's self be curbed for the "betterment of society". Totally shocking. Classic Ambien - dodge and deflect with fallacies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Classic Ambien - dodge and deflect with fallacies. Fallacies eh? Make sure to give me the case number to your Supreme Court challenge of the second amendment. Clearly you've got a slam dunk case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Fallacies eh? Make sure to give me the case number to your Supreme Court challenge of the second amendment. Clearly you've got a slam dunk case here. More idiocy. The second amendment can be changed - whatever nonsense you're hopelessly trying to articulate doesn't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 More idiocy. The second amendment can be changed - whatever nonsense you're hopelessly trying to articulate doesn't change that. Yeah, so where are the votes to change it gonna come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Yeah, so where are the votes to change it gonna come from? You know the answer, but I'd like to Know what this has to do with your idiotic Supreme Court comment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 You know the answer, but I'd like to Know what this has to do with your idiotic Supreme Court comment? You keep trying to use words like idiotic like you're going to piss me off or hurt my feelings. It's pretty simple.. take your case to SCOTUS. Bam. If your argument is so compelling, SCOTUS will roll over for you. I'm pretty sure doing something useful though will take an easy back seat to pissing and moaning on the internet and trying to take your anger out on pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.