I’ve posted it before, and will put it out again. And, I am not a gun advocate, and do think we have way too many guns out there. But it is only a part (albeit a big part) of a much larger problem with modern society. Fear (legitimate or irrational), alienation, isolation, lack of national cohesion, religion, immature attitudes about love & relationships. Our society can certainly benefit from a little fine-tuning, mass reflection and some LEADERSHIP from Washington D.C..
It is political extremism again. The conservatives want to have no laws concerning the ownership and use of guns. The liberals want to go out and collect them all in an outright ban. Neither position makes any sense. All it does is keep anything from getting done. Some simple commons sense regulation could make a big difference but it is likely we will just continue to wage the war between the sects for the rest of time.
So I will ask it again to watch the gun control nuts scatter like cockroaches. What effective gun legislation would actually have an impact on gun violence? Be prepared to explain how it will impact gun violence. Even a complete ban has been proven to have no effect on the murder rate of a country.
So, in your twisted view, the only people responsible for gun violence is the typical liberal view of the redneck? Why do you insist on ignoring the statistics that show inner cities are the primary place of gun violence and they don’t own guns to defend themselves against the government or out of paranoia. But hey. Don’t let reality rain on your hate parade.
“It isn’t just gun availability, it how stable and rich the society is. The more unstable the more violence. End the (some) Drug War and against sexuality too would help greatly.”.OK, first time you’ve made sense. The problem is a socioeconomic one, not a gun problem per se. Address the issues with inner city despair and the destruction of the family unit. We now have several generations of people who don’t really value life including their own. I don’t have all the answers, but at least people are starting to look in a direction that would have a HUGE impact on violence of all kinds going forward. Hat tip, Night-Gaunt49.
New Zealand doesn’t ban guns, registers gun owners, and the statistics prove their system is far more effective at controlling “gun violence” than the U.S.. It’s one of a number of examples of what works with sound regulation, as in “well-regulated” as mandated in the Second Amendent.
“What we need are psych evals with the person being back ground checked.”.Aside from adding hundreds of dollars to a gun purchase and costing who knows how much time to be wasted, a psych eval is not science. It is a person’s opinion. Yes, it is a professional, but still subject to the personal biases of the professional. This is true either way; it can prevent a perfectly sane, safe person from getting a gun due to an anti-gun bias and it can let someone totally insane get a gun from someone with a pro-gun bias.
alcluin: show me one case of a person killing another with a knife, from 30 yards away, even 30 feet. Take that out to 1,000 yards, done easily by a marksman with the right rifle, and there’s absolutely no contest. Guns simply kill easier, and require far less skill.
Which by the way, in the “old west”, with the inaccuracy of the firearms of the day, let alone in 1779, most “gunfights” were conducted within ten feet of each other, and often required reloading those sixshooters. The reason for pacing off with muzzle loading duelling pistols btw, was also to reduce to rare the actual number of fatal outcomes with those weapons. Hamilton had bad luck more than Burr had good aim.
You failed in every way to address the problems with everyone having to pass an arbitrary evaluation before purchasing a gun. .The “it is worth it if it saves just one life” BS is the quickest way to a completely authoritarian system because it can be claimed as an excuse for any real or imaginary threat out there. Spending money isn’t the solution either. Any fool can spend money. The government spends trillions and wastes most of it.
Wrong yet again, Hiram. I have discussed what the issue is in detail. It is refreshing to hear you admit your complete ignorance on the matter. See? Isn’t it nice to tell the truth for once? ;-)
moosemin over 8 years ago
I’ve posted it before, and will put it out again. And, I am not a gun advocate, and do think we have way too many guns out there. But it is only a part (albeit a big part) of a much larger problem with modern society. Fear (legitimate or irrational), alienation, isolation, lack of national cohesion, religion, immature attitudes about love & relationships. Our society can certainly benefit from a little fine-tuning, mass reflection and some LEADERSHIP from Washington D.C..
Theodore E. Lind Premium Member over 8 years ago
It is political extremism again. The conservatives want to have no laws concerning the ownership and use of guns. The liberals want to go out and collect them all in an outright ban. Neither position makes any sense. All it does is keep anything from getting done. Some simple commons sense regulation could make a big difference but it is likely we will just continue to wage the war between the sects for the rest of time.
Motivemagus over 8 years ago
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/26/were-now-averaging-more-than-one-mass-shooting-per-day-in-2015/
russellc64 over 8 years ago
In a wider view, in panel one armed citizen has a chance to defend himself against an armed criminal. In the second he is shot dead.
rallsolo over 8 years ago
So I will ask it again to watch the gun control nuts scatter like cockroaches. What effective gun legislation would actually have an impact on gun violence? Be prepared to explain how it will impact gun violence. Even a complete ban has been proven to have no effect on the murder rate of a country.
rallsolo over 8 years ago
So, in your twisted view, the only people responsible for gun violence is the typical liberal view of the redneck? Why do you insist on ignoring the statistics that show inner cities are the primary place of gun violence and they don’t own guns to defend themselves against the government or out of paranoia. But hey. Don’t let reality rain on your hate parade.
rallsolo over 8 years ago
“It isn’t just gun availability, it how stable and rich the society is. The more unstable the more violence. End the (some) Drug War and against sexuality too would help greatly.”.OK, first time you’ve made sense. The problem is a socioeconomic one, not a gun problem per se. Address the issues with inner city despair and the destruction of the family unit. We now have several generations of people who don’t really value life including their own. I don’t have all the answers, but at least people are starting to look in a direction that would have a HUGE impact on violence of all kinds going forward. Hat tip, Night-Gaunt49.
Dtroutma over 8 years ago
New Zealand doesn’t ban guns, registers gun owners, and the statistics prove their system is far more effective at controlling “gun violence” than the U.S.. It’s one of a number of examples of what works with sound regulation, as in “well-regulated” as mandated in the Second Amendent.
lesmcf over 8 years ago
Some really good comments here. we have a serious social problem here with people feeling that they must cary a gun around.
rallsolo over 8 years ago
“What we need are psych evals with the person being back ground checked.”.Aside from adding hundreds of dollars to a gun purchase and costing who knows how much time to be wasted, a psych eval is not science. It is a person’s opinion. Yes, it is a professional, but still subject to the personal biases of the professional. This is true either way; it can prevent a perfectly sane, safe person from getting a gun due to an anti-gun bias and it can let someone totally insane get a gun from someone with a pro-gun bias.
Dtroutma over 8 years ago
alcluin: show me one case of a person killing another with a knife, from 30 yards away, even 30 feet. Take that out to 1,000 yards, done easily by a marksman with the right rifle, and there’s absolutely no contest. Guns simply kill easier, and require far less skill.
Which by the way, in the “old west”, with the inaccuracy of the firearms of the day, let alone in 1779, most “gunfights” were conducted within ten feet of each other, and often required reloading those sixshooters. The reason for pacing off with muzzle loading duelling pistols btw, was also to reduce to rare the actual number of fatal outcomes with those weapons. Hamilton had bad luck more than Burr had good aim.
rallsolo over 8 years ago
You failed in every way to address the problems with everyone having to pass an arbitrary evaluation before purchasing a gun. .The “it is worth it if it saves just one life” BS is the quickest way to a completely authoritarian system because it can be claimed as an excuse for any real or imaginary threat out there. Spending money isn’t the solution either. Any fool can spend money. The government spends trillions and wastes most of it.
rallsolo over 8 years ago
Wrong yet again, Hiram. I have discussed what the issue is in detail. It is refreshing to hear you admit your complete ignorance on the matter. See? Isn’t it nice to tell the truth for once? ;-)