Well, once again, Kip, you’re way off base. It is an honest question because for many, if not most, gun control people, it is all about the gun, not the lives.
Thanks for the confirmation by the gun control crowd that it is really all about the gun and not about the lives saved.
BTW OldCoal, it isn’t the NRA’s interpretation, but the Supreme Court’s interpretation from several decisions on the matter. The latest is DC vs. Heller. How about you get your facts straight.
Also, are you aware that gun confiscation and bans in the UK and Australia made the murder rates go up when, according to the gun control twits, it should have all but disappeared? How is that possible? Oh right. You’re so focused on the bad ol’ gun that you refuse to acknowledge people will continue to do bad things even when you take a tool away.
Toon accurately represents the “La PIerre NRA”, which is NOT AT ALL the original organization, or even up to the time the rational leaders there were driven out. It IS notable that many gun enthusists, like GHW Bush, left the organization when it went nuts for armor piercing bullets and protecting huge magazines, NOT hunting rifles and shotguns.
I’m a gun owner with concealed carry license, which, proof of compentence for that license should be the minimum requirement for obtaining any hand gun, and a numer of rifles not really suitable for hunting, or “street sweeper” shotguns. (as examples.)
“1. Yes, it’s about the lives. Don’t be a dishonest idiot.”
If it were about lives, the lives saved by guns would be part of the discussion, yet as shown in this thread, it is dismissed out of hand. So despite your insults, the truth wins out. Who is the dishonest idiot again? Look in a mirror.
“2. Murder rates in Australia and the UK have both dropped.”They both dropped after years of being higher than they were before the gun ban. In Australia, the murder rate after guns were banned in 98 didn’t drop to the same level as they were in 98 until 2003. Now they are just marginally below where they were in 98. In the UK, the murder rate didn’t fall to the same level as when the gun ban was implemented in 98 until 2011. In 98 there were 600 murders in the UK. In 2003, that number peaked at over 900.http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences—2012-13/rpt—-chapter-2—-homicide.html#tab-Trends-in-Homicides
BTW: NRA is always citing phony statistics on crimes prevented by guns, CDC says no such thing, and DOJ and Police statistics don’t even begin to support the NRA wildly exaggerated claims. Also, the toonists keep going after Chicago, but real statistics on real shootings show Miami, among other places, with lax gun regulations, have far higher rates of gun deaths per 100,000 population, Chicago doesn’t even make close to the top of the list. Yes, they still kill too many, but even 1 homicide is too many in our so-called “civilized” society, where we lead in incarcerated people (mandatory minimums and “three strikes” on minor criminals), AND gun homicides for “first world” or “industrialized” countries.
I don’t hate the 2nd amendment, but I do hate it that so many people die from gunshots. Do those who think there should be no restrictions or regulations have a plan to reduce gun deaths in the US?
“The Supreme Court, in its controlling 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, concluded that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited with regard to who may possess firearms, what kinds of firearms they may possess, or where they may possess them (29). The Court made clear that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”; identified a nonexhaustive list of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures”; and noted that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use, such as firearms that are most typically used by the military (29).
Further, after Heller, more than 900 court decisions have upheld a wide variety of regulations to reduce gun violence (30), and only a few rulings have struck down certain types of firearm laws (31–32). No ruling of the Supreme Court (or any other court, for that matter) calls into question any of the specific proposals that we recommend."
Sorry to hear about your digits. Me, it’s my knees. I suppose it’s good to be getting older, rather than the alternative, but it’s not always convenient.I don’t expect to change minds when I post. In this instance, I think our friend is mostly interested in proving to himself, if to no one else, that all those gun control people really want to take away all the guns. So even when I explicitly say that I think there are lots of situations in which people should be allowed to have guns, he tries to twist my words the way he wants. So I’m not going to get upset if he can’t read a plain statement. I post to try to clarify my own thinking, and I read the posts of people who can educate me — you, Baslim, martens, Hiram, omQ, motive, and so on, all good smart people with lots to say.
rallsolo almost 9 years ago
An honest question for the gun control crowd. Is this about your hatred for an inanimate object or is this about saving lives?
Kip W almost 9 years ago
Oh, who cares about lives? This is all obviously just about hatred of people who favor a different deathstyle. Some “honest” question.
rallsolo almost 9 years ago
Well, once again, Kip, you’re way off base. It is an honest question because for many, if not most, gun control people, it is all about the gun, not the lives.
rallsolo almost 9 years ago
Thanks for the confirmation by the gun control crowd that it is really all about the gun and not about the lives saved.
BTW OldCoal, it isn’t the NRA’s interpretation, but the Supreme Court’s interpretation from several decisions on the matter. The latest is DC vs. Heller. How about you get your facts straight.
Also, are you aware that gun confiscation and bans in the UK and Australia made the murder rates go up when, according to the gun control twits, it should have all but disappeared? How is that possible? Oh right. You’re so focused on the bad ol’ gun that you refuse to acknowledge people will continue to do bad things even when you take a tool away.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
Toon accurately represents the “La PIerre NRA”, which is NOT AT ALL the original organization, or even up to the time the rational leaders there were driven out. It IS notable that many gun enthusists, like GHW Bush, left the organization when it went nuts for armor piercing bullets and protecting huge magazines, NOT hunting rifles and shotguns.
I’m a gun owner with concealed carry license, which, proof of compentence for that license should be the minimum requirement for obtaining any hand gun, and a numer of rifles not really suitable for hunting, or “street sweeper” shotguns. (as examples.)
Donaldo Premium Member almost 9 years ago
brilliant cartoon
rallsolo almost 9 years ago
“1. Yes, it’s about the lives. Don’t be a dishonest idiot.”
If it were about lives, the lives saved by guns would be part of the discussion, yet as shown in this thread, it is dismissed out of hand. So despite your insults, the truth wins out. Who is the dishonest idiot again? Look in a mirror.
“2. Murder rates in Australia and the UK have both dropped.”They both dropped after years of being higher than they were before the gun ban. In Australia, the murder rate after guns were banned in 98 didn’t drop to the same level as they were in 98 until 2003. Now they are just marginally below where they were in 98. In the UK, the murder rate didn’t fall to the same level as when the gun ban was implemented in 98 until 2011. In 98 there were 600 murders in the UK. In 2003, that number peaked at over 900.http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime-stats/crime-statistics/focus-on-violent-crime-and-sexual-offences—2012-13/rpt—-chapter-2—-homicide.html#tab-Trends-in-Homicides
Booby_Shoes almost 9 years ago
These are really good comments.
Dtroutma almost 9 years ago
BTW: NRA is always citing phony statistics on crimes prevented by guns, CDC says no such thing, and DOJ and Police statistics don’t even begin to support the NRA wildly exaggerated claims. Also, the toonists keep going after Chicago, but real statistics on real shootings show Miami, among other places, with lax gun regulations, have far higher rates of gun deaths per 100,000 population, Chicago doesn’t even make close to the top of the list. Yes, they still kill too many, but even 1 homicide is too many in our so-called “civilized” society, where we lead in incarcerated people (mandatory minimums and “three strikes” on minor criminals), AND gun homicides for “first world” or “industrialized” countries.
lonecat almost 9 years ago
I don’t hate the 2nd amendment, but I do hate it that so many people die from gunshots. Do those who think there should be no restrictions or regulations have a plan to reduce gun deaths in the US?
lonecat almost 9 years ago
Thanks for these, ahab. as usual, your post is informative.
lonecat almost 9 years ago
From ahab’s second link:
“The Supreme Court, in its controlling 2008 decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, concluded that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited with regard to who may possess firearms, what kinds of firearms they may possess, or where they may possess them (29). The Court made clear that the Second Amendment should not be understood as conferring a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”; identified a nonexhaustive list of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures”; and noted that the Second Amendment is consistent with laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” not in common use, such as firearms that are most typically used by the military (29).
Further, after Heller, more than 900 court decisions have upheld a wide variety of regulations to reduce gun violence (30), and only a few rulings have struck down certain types of firearm laws (31–32). No ruling of the Supreme Court (or any other court, for that matter) calls into question any of the specific proposals that we recommend."
lonecat almost 9 years ago
Sorry to hear about your digits. Me, it’s my knees. I suppose it’s good to be getting older, rather than the alternative, but it’s not always convenient.I don’t expect to change minds when I post. In this instance, I think our friend is mostly interested in proving to himself, if to no one else, that all those gun control people really want to take away all the guns. So even when I explicitly say that I think there are lots of situations in which people should be allowed to have guns, he tries to twist my words the way he wants. So I’m not going to get upset if he can’t read a plain statement. I post to try to clarify my own thinking, and I read the posts of people who can educate me — you, Baslim, martens, Hiram, omQ, motive, and so on, all good smart people with lots to say.