duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

As a gun control advocate that has carried a weapon for work and pleasure let me point something out.

Bans and prohibition do not work. Never have. But controls do work. You have to give a path for people to follow if you want them to do something. You want people to stop making their own alcohol because it is killing them? Don't ban it, regulate it. Deaths drop. Drug violence? Don't ban drugs, give a legitimate path to sales. Deaths should drop. Gun violence? Don't ban them, just make the path more controlled. Automatic weapons are not banned in America, but they also don't account for large numbers of deaths. Why? Because they are controlled and their value is placed out of reach of those with less control.

Gun control works. The populations of New York and California equals the pop of all of the Southern States and yet the raw numbers let alone the adjusted numbers are staggering. These red states can't even figure out how to lower the rate of teen pregnancies and now we are going to trust them with firearm safety?

Deaths in the U.S. Automobiles, which kill 117 Americans a day, or nearly 43,000 a year. Then comes flu, which (along with pneumonia, its associated disease) kills 36,000 people. Third is guns: 26,000 deaths. Fourth, food-borne illness: 5,000. And finally, terrorism, which in a typical year claims virtually no U.S. lives

Yeah "statistics" taken from a Twitter feed with the sole purpose of promoting the awareness of said "statistics" and being presented as factual...awesome.

manimal2878: Chummer45: Schroedinger's Glory Hole: Cars kill more people every day and it's not like we're moving to make those things autonomous so they're taken out of human hands amirite?

Seriously. And it's not like we have any regulations restricting who can legally drive a car, where they can legally drive, or how they must drive.

Then again, some people will always speed, drive drunk, and die in car accidents no matter what, so maybe all of our car regulations are completely pointless and we should get rid of all of them.

Or maybe we have the laws in place and only punish those that break them. Not everyone that wants to own a certain thing.

You're talking about an entirely different thing. To you, any gun regulation that interferes with your "rights" is unacceptable. It's the equivalent of saying "I have a constitutional right to drive a car - therefore, any law regulating cars (i.e., requiring licensing, limiting speeds, requiring safety devices, etc.) is an unwarranted infringement of my fundamental rights."
I wouldn't support a ban on guns. But I do support legislation that recognizes the fact that guns are lethal killing devices, and regulates them as such.

tricycleracer: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Guess you're the type of person who pisses himself at the idea of drawing attention to the ugly side of your hobby.

Or maybe I saw how well the PATRIOT Act worked. You know who else was cool with warrantless wiretapping of citizens?




Feel free to give up your rights, but don't go trying to retroactively criminalize those that manage to keep their heads out of their own asses.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Virtue: Then lets crowd source all the defensive gun uses !

You can do whatever you want but considering studies have already been done on the matter that conclude that successful defensive gun incidents are fairly uncommon (even when you include "defensive" actions like chasing down an assailant after they've already begun to flee) you might want to look into the facts a little more closely before you make them there numbers too visible and hold them up next to the thousands of gun deaths that will occur in the coming year.
There's a reason gun nuts don't generally quote hard numbers and stick more to generic statements like "it won't work because culture". The numbers don't look very good from that side of the argument.

It's the same reason a lot of the Repubs wouldn't accept Nate Silver's analysis of the presidential race. Numbers have a liberal bias. Just let them go, if you let them get high on their own jenkem it makes their tears even more delicious later on when their side inevitably fails.

/tears marinated in jenkem
//I regret nothing

Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?

Virtue: Because the AWB worked so well last time right?.....

You won't see me defending the AWB. It was a stupid and pointless POS.

The fact that the NRA neutered it and then chopped it off at the knees, however, is no reason not to do it properly this time around.

Amusement: Please tell me about how to ban guns so I can start banning cars. Cause, you now, cars kill people too.

[24.media.tumblr.com image 480x307]

But it's not intentional, and that matters for some reason. I guess if a whole school full of children die in car crashes each year, it's not as big as a classroom full being killed in a day, once in 20 years (this is the first mass shooting like this in an elementary school that I'm aware of).

So 20 deaths in a day, first time in 20+ years-HUGE F***ING DEAL.
Hundreds of deaths every year for 20 years. Not nearly as important they died due to he unintended effects of something not "designed for killing"

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

-Thomas Jefferson

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-------

John Whitehead explains: "The Patriot Act drove a stake through the heart of the Bill of Rights, violating at least six of the ten original amendments-the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments-and possibly the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as well. The Patriot Act also redefined terrorism so broadly that many non-terrorist political activities such as protest marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience were considered potential terrorist acts, thereby rendering anyone desiring to engage in protected First Amendment expressive activities as suspects of the surveillance state."
Link

It appears we will soon be able to add the Second Amendment to Whithead's list of destroyed amendments. If not destroyed then violated/ignored.
-------

It is very interesting how anyone that seems pro-gun is treated like they committed the crimes in Connecticut. The anti-gun left chatter is at most times degrading and violent to anyone that holds a different belief. I don't think any of us are unaffected by what happened a week ago. The problem with the surrender of rights though, even to a small degree, is that once gone they are almost impossible to get back. Also the end result will most likely not be what anyone expects:

Link
-------

Finally those capitalist pigs will pay for their crimes, eh? Eh comrades? Eh?

Carn: Or, you know, traumatize society as a whole. There was something else that happened to society, scared the shiat out of everyone and resulted in lots of new laws and regulations (many of which I don't agree with). Hmm, now what could that have been... I'll give you a hint, it happened 11 years ago and is commonly referred to by a three digit number also used for emergency calls.

Or, as I see it, highly emotional events lead to bad laws. The events on 9/11 were exceptionally rare, yet were so horribly abused by everyone with an agenda to push forward every bullshiat proposal they couldn't get before.

I'm not sure 9/11 is a good reference in support of your position. If anything, it should be a hard learned lesson for people to stop trying to rule with their emotions and feelings.

There's a reason why financial advisers tell people NOT to make any significant financial decisions for 12-18 months after a close relative passes way. Emotions cloud judgement in obvious and surprisingly subtle ways, and people who lose family members, and especially those who walk into inheritances, do (in retrospect for them) foolish things despite their beliefs weeks and months later, that they are 'over it' or feeling fine.

Carn: Up here? I assume you mean Canada. Canada has mag limits and has less gun violence than we have in the US. Now is that correlation or causation?

Correlation. While I admit that high capacity magazines MAY increase the body count in certain mass shooting crimes, your average 10 round magazine is more than enough to commit most murders. The previous Assault Weapon Ban proved to have no effect on street level crime.

Carn: Cancer, by and large, kills older people. So do heart attacks. School shootings kill kids and teachers. Child abuse does also kill children, so let's address both? Your strawman (that I don't care about other causes of death) is hopefully proven wrong and can I get you to concede that all of these issues are not mutually exclusive?

I'm not really sure what your original point was other than to say "Your arguments are invalid because child abuse."

You're sort of correct. I don't think you (or gun control supporters) care that much about causes that don't fit an agenda and/or are harder to deal with then simply promoting gun control.

Cancer and heart attacks do kill a lot old people, so I'd expect a person who claims to be interested in saving old people's lives to focus a lot of attention there, unless they believed that natural causes were impossible to beat , in which I'd expect to see a lot of focus on the top few non-natural causes, in which case I'd exepect to see efforts aimed at car crashes (again)

Firearms are far from the #1 cause of death among teachers and school children, so I do question the integrity of a person who focuses on firearms and sort of handwaves the others. I care about saving the lives of children, and think that the best way to save those lives is to focus on the top 2 or 3 killers as they are the TOP 2 OR 3 KILLERS and cause THE MOST DEATH. I think it's immoral to act as though less common deaths are more important because they garner headlines, or far worse, fit an agenda.

I'm a huge gun nut. Buidling AR's is one of my favorite things to do.

I'm ok with waiting a handful of extra days for a Lower or Firearm.

I'm not ok with banning "military style" firearms that only look like their military counterparts. Unless we ban Jeeps, Suburbans, Hummers and whole fleets of commercial aircraft becuase they have military uses as well.

tukatz: Exactly how long do we have to endure the "GUNZ R EVIL" crap before the media moves on to some other ridiculous topic?  Guns don't kill people.  Stupid people kill people.

I think most of us just want to make it harder for the stupid people to get the guns

Making guns illegal will take them off the street, let's make coke and heroin illegal too. I can grow guns in soil and they change the biology of the users to make them use. Also people die drowning, let's ban pools of water. Guns also naturally form over 70% of the earth and their pooling is necessary for life. What's a false equivalency again?

Is this even a meaningful stat? Simply how many died from guns? Shouldn't we rule out any that are suicides, or by police preventing crime, or people preventing crime, etc? The article specifically states that suicides are usually left out, like that's a bad thing. Why on earth should they count?

I am ok with assault weapons restrictions and permitting, etc. for the record. I just don't see how this single statistic is worthwhile.

Thisbymaster: WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?

The one afraid of an inanimate object.

So, the gun people then.

WhippingBoy: Serious question:

Who's the bigger pussy? The guy afraid of gun violence, or the guy afraid to face life without his gun?

The one afraid of an inanimate object.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: duffblue: Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.

Yep.

Because only a complete coward would think that gun nuts should have a few basic responsibilities placed on the acquisition and distribution of their deadly toys. I mean, it's not like any other rights come with limitations on their use based on the impact it can have on other people or anything.

The REAL tragedy here, after all, is that somebody might have to wait an extra day or two to get a gun or reload slightly more often at the local range. Truly a historical atrocity with no equal.

Millions of law abiding citizens should not have their rights restricted in an attempt to target the few crazies or gang bangers who decide that shooting fellow human beings is a sport..

Virtue: Then lets crowd source all the defensive gun uses !

You can do whatever you want but considering studies have already been done on the matter that conclude that successful defensive gun incidents are fairly uncommon (even when you include "defensive" actions like chasing down an assailant after they've already begun to flee) you might want to look into the facts a little more closely before you make them there numbers too visible and hold them up next to the thousands of gun deaths that will occur in the coming year.
There's a reason gun nuts don't generally quote hard numbers and stick more to generic statements like "it won't work because culture". The numbers don't look very good from that side of the argument.

Slant should count ALL the people that have died and compare the numbers.

Methinks that gun deaths will be down the list a bit....

Vegan Meat Popsicle

Because the AWB worked so well last time right?.....but THIS time it will be DIFFERENT right?

Then lets crowd source all the defensive gun uses !

Gotta love these instant greenlights, guess the mods are the type of people that piss themselves at the idea of firearms.