Maybe.....just maybe, the idiot in Texass tried to purchase a gun and was thwarted be the laws that are in place. Thus saving the lives of dozens of people.
http://www.mindblownt.com





Edit: I forGot the

HitsRus;1423025 wrote:I agree with this also, except I don't think it is funny. I think it is disingenuous opportunism....to use a tragedy to drive a legislative agenda that doesn't even get to heart of the problem. Doing 'something', just to do 'something' is not a very good reason, especially when doing that 'something' would be completely ineffectual. More than that, it's dangerous self delusion that you are solving the problem, when you refuse to admit or recognizing the real problem. That problem is, a violent subculture, that is not going to go away simply because you ban assault style rifles or large magazines. As long as people (children) are herded in to gunfree zones, they will continue to be easy targets for those who wish to do harm unless you provide a credible deterrent.

You're pre-supposing that the problem is a "violent subculture" when we've already covered on multiple threads how other countries with equally violent sub-cultures (if not more so) and more immorality and less religion and spirituality do not have the gun-related homicides and gun-shot wounds and gun violence that we do; Beyond our horrific problem with firearms massacres (because of which you'd think conservatives could at least support universal background checks as a large majority of the country does but alas...silly me forgetting their moral vendetta against the state).

For example;

Law Abiding Gun-Owner/Good-Guy with a Gun in the form of Sheriff's Deputy has son who picks up his private gun when it is set on bed and shoots wife;

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/4-year-old-fatally-shoots-wife-tenn-sherrif-deputy-article-1.1311459

These types of negligent, random deaths are what occurs in society's with widespread promotion, love and use of firearms.

Personally would not choose gun "bans" if I were king and could have my way but firearms enthusiasts, distributors, and manufacturers ought to pay for these negative external costs and have them internalized into the product as they would be in a truly free and competitive market...at the very least...and, as even libertarians generally support the tort system as the way to receive redress for harms you'd think we could at least allow for better product's liability laws. These things are such non-starters with red-staters that we're left with something as benign and common sense as better background checks and we can't even pass that.

QuakerOats;1422700 wrote:Yeah, but guns protect The People from government tyranny ....... and we can't have any of that you know.

DING DING DING we have a winner. Too bad people do not realize that the republicans and the democrats are on the same page. You are watching Pro wrestling all the politicians go get drinks together laughing at the idiocy of the American people being polarized.

justincredible;1422988 wrote:

Your map is neat with the colors but your "1-5" cutoff that it uses is almost the perfect example of misleading with statistics. It's sad that this was covered already in the previous thread too...showing how futile these exercises really are any way.

The United States has 4.78 homicides total per 100,000...just slightly more than Chile and India for example...much higher than other advanced countries in the OECD with the next being Finland at 2.27 and then Canada at 1.81

Pretty neat what happens when you lump it all into 1-5 eh?

Also, 67.5% of the homicides in the United States are performed with a firearm compared to 19% in the next closest country that is rich (Finland) and 32% in Canada.

It is pretty clear and obvious that a shit tone of people die at the hands of guns in the United States. A greater percentage of our murders are committed with firearms than in several third world countries. Our overall homicide rate is pushing those of the former Soviet bloc. Let's stop acting like it doesn't happen. We have guns, we love guns, and some statistical lives taken by firearms are the cost of freedom.

Zombaypirate;1423078 wrote:DING DING DING we have a winner. Too bad people do not realize that the republicans and the democrats are on the same page. You are watching Pro wrestling all the politicians go get drinks together laughing at the idiocy of the American people being polarized.

There are more efficient ways that we could prepare militias and would be average citizens who become guerillas when Obama takes over than nearly unregulated, untrained, unorganized private gun ownership. In fact the Swiss, regulated model that RWNJ's constantly like to trump (without examining why the Swiss have private, regulated gun ownership) would be something to consider to that affect.

Nevermind the obvious hilarity from the many Republican gun enthusiasts who tell us that they need guns to stop government tyranny and then constantly argue why we need to argue the would-be tyrant to the teeth so he would be impossible to defeat. etc.

queencitybuckeye;1422983 wrote:Becoming a lawyer or a doctor are not protected by the constitution.

Fundamental Rights can be regulated! That is what kills me about this gun debate. The folks opposing any and all proposed regulations are acting like, because of the 2nd amendment, any attempts to regulate who can buy or own firearms, what people have to go through to buy them or use them or laws about what types of firearms may be bought or sold are prima facie unconstitutional....this is simply untrue.

The fundamental right to an abortion, the fundamental right to speech, the fundamental right to association, the fundamental right to interstate travel, the fundamental right to marriage...and on and on and on....all settled by the Supreme Court are all regularly regulated and all plenty more so than firearms.

Stepdad and Grandpa just bought one of these each. Scary huh?

Pick6;1423103 wrote:Stepdad and Grandpa just bought one of these each. Scary huh?

Murderers!

Pick6;1423103 wrote:Stepdad and Grandpa just bought one of these each. Scary huh?

Why do they want children to die?

You're pre-supposing that the problem is a "violent subculture" when we've already covered on multiple threads how other countries with equally violent sub-cultures (if not more so) and more immorality and less religion and spirituality do not have the gun-related homicides and gun-shot wounds and gun violence that we do

No, Boatshoes ...YOU have already covered in your own mind on multiple threads picking out countries you want to highlight and convientiently dismissing those that don't support your argument (like Russia.) Then you cite some story about an accidental shooting (in the form of a sheriff's deputy who would have had a gun anyway). What does that have to do with Sandy Hook...or Columbine? What in any of the proposals offered would have prevented either? Yet these two tragedies are used to opportunistically pass legislation that forwards an agenda and does little to protect the vulnerable. Yet you champion this...versus something that actually could help. You push for more laws and target guns that look like military weapons and magazine restrictions....as if any of that is going to stop someone who wants to commit mass murder. Yet when it comes to simply increasing security or jawboning Hollywood to quit glorifying violence...the Left is strangely quiet. Can you explain that to me?

Fly4Fun;1422910 wrote:And yes, you're right that the Constitution in the Second Amendment provides for the right to bear arms. But I always find this provision interesting when conservatives interpret this. Usually they like to call for a strict interpretation, which is sticking to the text and the historical context, but not so much when it comes to Second Amendment rights.

You will find that many "conservatives" would disagree with your definition of their textual/historical/originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Fly4Fun;1422910 wrote:The Second Amendment was written in the same sentence and thus context of being associated with a well regulated militia as a necessity for the security of the state.

True context and textual/historical/originalist interpretation transcends a single sentence. The phrase "the people" or the "rights of the people" are referred to several times most notably in the bill of rights as a separate entity than that of federal or state governments. The 9th notes that the rights of the "people" are not limited to those listed 1-8. The 10th affirms that only powers given to the feds and restricted of the states are subject to the constitution. The 10th specifically notes the feds the states and the people as three separate entities with the rights of the state and the people specifically protected under the constitution.

BoatShoes;1423087 wrote: The United States has 4.78 homicides total per 100,000...just slightly more than Chile and India for example...much higher than other advanced countries in the OECD with the next being Finland at 2.27 and then Canada at 1.81

And yet Canada has its share of guns. Switzerland has a lot of guns, as well. So perhaps the murder rate is really not correlated to gun ownership but that there are other drivers. I'd guess violent crime in the US, and not just murders, is also higher than these other countries. I'd also guess those rates are skewed by some of the large metropolitan cities.

gut;1423233 wrote:And yet Canada has its share of guns. Switzerland has a lot of guns, as well. So perhaps the murder rate is really not correlated to gun ownership but that there are other drivers. I'd guess violent crime in the US, and not just murders, is also higher than these other countries. I'd also guess those rates are skewed by some of the large metropolitan cities.

Absolutely. I've seen a homicide by county heat map floating around somewhere but I can't seem to find it. It very clearly illustrated this point.

HitsRus;1423192 wrote:No, Boatshoes ...YOU have already covered in your own mind on multiple threads picking out countries you want to highlight and convientiently dismissing those that don't support your argument (like Russia.) Then you cite some story about an accidental shooting (in the form of a sheriff's deputy who would have had a gun anyway). What does that have to do with Sandy Hook...or Columbine? What in any of the proposals offered would have prevented either? Yet these two tragedies are used to opportunistically pass legislation that forwards an agenda and does little to protect the vulnerable. Yet you champion this...versus something that actually could help. You push for more laws and target guns that look like military weapons and magazine restrictions....as if any of that is going to stop someone who wants to commit mass murder. Yet when it comes to simply increasing security or jawboning Hollywood to quit glorifying violence...the Left is strangely quiet. Can you explain that to me?

How did I know you would reply with Russia again...just like you cited last time! Russia is a post-communist hell-hole! Are you sitting here and saying that Russia is a rich, industrialized, prosperous country that should be held to the same standard as the U.S. Australia and the U.K.?? That the same standards that apply to countries like the Ukraine, Latvia, El Salvador, should apply to the United States?? You're a smart guy and you know that industrialization makes a difference!

I cited the kid story because it was a direct counter example to your subculture of violence meme. Homicides happen all the time in the United States simply because of guns being there and their interaction with human error.

And, I've said that I would rather go after mental health things, etc. and expanded backgrounds checks...Republicans and conservatives have put nothing on the table except hump the idea that we need more people walking around everywhere with guns....they have tacitly and paid lip service to ideas about mental health at all.

Hell, I was listening to Bill Bennett on the drive into work one day and an intelligent conservative caller says..."we should have a pigouvian tax on violent video games and movies"....this....I suspect is an idea you might agree with??? Guess what, I would agree with that too! Dr. Bennet shoots it down....and a majority of conservatives would shoot it down. They've offered nothing except say that everything the democrats have proposed would not work. (As you yourself did in the very post I am quoting).

The Right is not serious about doing anything on the media...or Hollywood...or Mental Health....and don't propose any ideas....and then just complain about what ever ideas the Left has...saying they'd have NO effect....despite lots of success from around the world...and then complain about how the Left (who have their own proclivities) don't put out conservative ideas!!

And hey, it's kind of like the arguments you make about Voter I.D. right?? We don't know if better background checks would have worked for at least the Aurora shooter or the Tucson shooter but it is worth trying. We don't know what mass shooters were stopped or might have been stopped if it were tried.

Kudos to Manchin and Toomey for at least coming to some kind of deal on background checks at least.

gut;1423233 wrote:And yet Canada has its share of guns. Switzerland has a lot of guns, as well. So perhaps the murder rate is really not correlated to gun ownership but that there are other drivers. I'd guess violent crime in the US, and not just murders, is also higher than these other countries. I'd also guess those rates are skewed by some of the large metropolitan cities.

Yes and firearms are much more heavily regulated at the national level in both Canada and Switzerland. You can only have a private firearm in Switzerland if you're in the National Defense Force or Militia or whatever they call it because they have that instead of an Army! In Canada Handguns are heavily regulated at a national level, you have to have a license to merely possess a firearm, there are magazine restrictions they have what would amount to an "assault weapons ban" here etc.

All the bogeyman things the NRA says will allow bad-guys with guns to reign terror on our children!!! And yet, we're the ones with problems!!!

Where are the raving mad canadians who watch all of our violent T.V. and movies made in Hollyweird slaughtering people with assault weapons they obtained illegally while the poor canucks are helpless to defend themselves with grandfathered repeater rifles???

justincredible;1423235 wrote:Absolutely. I've seen a homicide by county heat map floating around somewhere but I can't seem to find it. It very clearly illustrated this point.

Not hard to see why gangs in Chicago that are sensitive to supply and demand and economics would seek readily available and easy to obtain guns across the bridge in Indiana.

"You can only have a private firearm in Switzerland if you're in the National Defense Force or Militia"

If?????

It is pretty much mandated for all healthy males.

BoatShoes;1423249 wrote:Not hard to see why gangs in Chicago that are sensitive to supply and demand and economics would seek readily available and easy to obtain guns across the bridge in Indiana.

Yeah because guns aren't readily available in Chicago. If only Indiana was enlightened enough to ban guns then Chicago would be a veritable paradise. :rolleyes:

How did I know you would reply with Russia again

In the same way I knew that you start up with the "we've already been thru this on multiple threads", and because you said it it must be true a priori.

Russia is a G-8 country. Deal with it. You can't cherry pick your countries.

I have no problem with background checks. I do have a problem with making ineffectual laws when we already have enough of those. I do have a problem with legislation that advances an agenda rather than solving the problem.

Despite the shrill uvulations of politicians intent on their agenda...
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/education/Ohio-Senate-approves-school-levies-for-security-bill-now-moves-to-state-House

....local leaders are actually doing something that at least stands a chance of providing safety for students from ALL types of violence. Better still such a solution keeps control locally where it can be tailored to fit a communities needs and desires.

Manhattan Buckeye;1423266 wrote:"You can only have a private firearm in Switzerland if you're in the National Defense Force or Militia"

If?????

It is pretty much mandated for all healthy males.

Exactly! That's how you get a "private gun" in Switzerland. Should that be what we have in the United States??? If you want to have an AR-15 all healthy males must be conscripted into the National Guard? Something like that is what would follow if we follow the Swiss Model

Which is why I find it odd that conservatives cite the Swiss Model in the Gun Debate because, as a general rule, we might think that the people who vehemently oppose the mandate to, say, buy health insurance might reasonably also oppose that they are mandated to join a militia or military service if they'd like to buy a gun...etc. etc.

It's about as heavily regulated private firearm ownership as it gets.

believer;1423275 wrote:Yeah because guns aren't readily available in Chicago. If only Indiana was enlightened enough to ban guns then Chicago would be a veritable paradise. :rolleyes:

They are readily available and Chicago...and New York...and L.A. and other big cities because they are trafficked in from places that do not regulate guns. This is easy to foresee. We have a guaranteed general right to interstate travel and cannot have State by State customs agents at each State's Borders.

The City of Chicago cannot put firearms customs agents on the bridge in from Indiana.

It is not hard to see why state-by-state regulation and prohibition in a Federal system is a woeful failure.

HitsRus;1423285 wrote:In the same way I knew that you start up with the "we've already been thru this on multiple threads", and because you said it it must be true a priori.

Russia is a G-8 country. Deal with it. You can't cherry pick your countries.

I have no problem with background checks. I do have a problem with making ineffectual laws when we already have enough of those. I do have a problem with legislation that advances an agenda rather than solving the problem.

Despite the shrill uvulations of politicians intent on their agenda...
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/education/Ohio-Senate-approves-school-levies-for-security-bill-now-moves-to-state-House

....local leaders are actually doing something that at least stands a chance of providing safety for students from ALL types of violence. Better still such a solution keeps control locally where it can be tailored to fit a communities needs and desires.

As a G-8 country added as the last one it really isn't on the same level as the others. Can't believe you really want to hang your hat on that one so feel free to have it.

"Hey guys, we're not as bad as a corrupt hell-hole!"





(Graph is a bit old I'd say by they still have a much higher murder rate than us).

I mean you're comparing us to a country that doesn't even release statistics on how many of its homicides are committed with firearms! So, we can't even compare our gun homicide rate to there's (but it's nevertheless 20 times higher than the rest of the G-8)

There homicides are drunk husbands killing their wives with hammers because their country sucks and it's cold. But I guess hang your hat on it because they have tough gun control! Maybe you're right; if the U.S. enacts strict gun control, Former gun-owners will starting getting drunk on Vodka and killing their wives bolshevik style??

Can't believe you really want to hang your hat on that one so feel free to have it.

I'm not hanging my hat on anything, I'm just pointing out that your argument is not nearly as strong as you believe. I understand that you, as an elitist, believe you can sort thru the facts and throw out the ones you don't like because you think you know better.....I'm just not buying it. Like it or not, Russia is a G-8 country that has gun control, yet has homicide rates even higher than ours. That's a fact. Sorry it doesn't support your argument. All your assertions not withstanding, there is no guarantee that even with full implementation or even confiscation, that our violent country is suddenly going to be 'pacified' and violent crime is going to drop precipitously.
The fact remains that what is being proposed no way even remotely protects our children....it is simply a liberal agenda item taking advantage of the Sandy Hook massacre to try to sell the public.

HitsRus;1423641 wrote:....there is no guarantee that even with full implementation or even confiscation, that our violent country is suddenly going to be 'pacified' and violent crime is going to drop precipitously.
The fact remains that what is being proposed no way even remotely protects our children....it is simply a liberal agenda item taking advantage of the Sandy Hook massacre to try to sell the public....

....and circumvent our Constitutional rights.

No amount of Sandy Hook Air Force One flights, leftist Obama-loving media hype, or Boatshoes-style bloviating can hide that fact either.

HitsRus;1423641 wrote:....there is no guarantee that even with full implementation or even confiscation, that our violent country is suddenly going to be 'pacified' and violent crime is going to drop precipitously.
The fact remains that what is being proposed no way even remotely protects our children....it is simply a liberal agenda item taking advantage of the Sandy Hook massacre to try to sell the public....

....and circumvent our Constitutional rights.

No amount of Sandy Hook Air Force One flights, leftist Obama-loving media hype, or Boatshoes-style bloviating can hide that fact either.