Re: Guns in the USA | Shooting the news
Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2016 12:04 pm
nothing in this life is settled and purging one party of supporters is going to put the whole thing on the table.
Another day in the Universe
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/
https://www.onthenatureofthings.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3493
The easier it is to do something, the more likely it is to be done. Guns make it easy to terrorize people, which is why they are so highly sought after by criminals.Mr. Perfect wrote: As always you have the market cornered on rookie mistakes. You guys are claiming a correlation between guns and crime/murder (the foundational priniciple of gun control), and my charts of course turn your argument into particles.
As gun freedoms and ownership have risen crime has dropped. Your argument is as false as the flat earth.
"Self regulation" is no regulation at all. It's complete legal nonsense. The term regulate in a government document is plainly understood as regulation by the people's government. The Founding Fathers' writings also support this, although these writings are not legally binding in any way.The militia was instructed to be regulated, but the militia is a non government entity so the regulation (walking in straight lines and having a chain of command, etc) would have to be self regulation.
And with all the intellectual finesse of a GOP presidential candidate, you've redefined "well regulated" to mean "no regulation." Too bad nobody agrees and we have more than a century of precedent in favor of gun regulation. They will never be unregulated.The guns were to be kept and borne by the citizens without infringement, which means no regulation. No background checks, no magazine bans, no feature bans, no waiting lists. Without infringement.
I concede that being as uneducated as they are, many Republicans could read "well regulated" as "no regyoolayshun". They also seem to misread "background checks" as "knocking down doors and taking our guns".Anybody reading the language in it's simplicity will know that automatically.
I suppose it's no coincidence that there are enough holes in this gun control regime to make it look like a used target.It tells nothing. We already have registration, background checks, we have already every form of gun control there is in various states, cities, counties and Federal and they don't deter any crime.
Well, it's difficult to make laws that work when a substantial body of legislators are opposed to them. Slowly but surely, this battle will be won, like every other cultural battle your side has waged.That's your problem. You keep making laws that don't work. We already have all the gun control liberals ask for and the result is those districts have the highest crime and murder problems.
It would dramatically curtail straw purchases, saving thousands of lives.And, how would that prevent a single crime.
It works fabulously well. Guns are so difficult to procure that would-be jewelry store thieves in London have to resort to the use of crude machetes, rarely leading to casualties of any kind. Police walk around unarmed.No we did a thread on it. Gun control does not work in Europe.
Yes, crime has dropped at the cost of a totalitarian carcerial state with trigger-happy police that routinely terrorize citizens.Mr. Perfect wrote: And thank you for wildly misinterpreting those charts. It makes for so many more months of merriment as I drive the chainsaw deeper into the forehead, but for now we'll say that crime has dropped everywhere while gun ownership and freedoms have increased everywhere for 30 years.
Yes, because those districts cannot enact or enforce laws in surrounding districts from which weapons continue to flow freely.Except the gun control districts have 4-10 times higher murder rates, still, than the white countries you guys like so much, using the same laws.
Babes with products have always been a winner with advertisement, from Crystal Pepsi to automobiles.Mr. Perfect wrote:
Etc.
Democrats are as Democrats do.Zack Morris wrote: Yes, crime has dropped at the cost of a totalitarian carcerial state with trigger-happy police that routinely terrorize citizens.
How come the surrounding lawless districts don't have the murder problems though.Yes, because those districts cannot enact or enforce laws in surrounding districts from which weapons continue to flow freely.
Low population density, high homogeneity. In urban areas with comparatively relaxed gun control, crime is higher than in surrounding rural regions.Mr. Perfect wrote: Yes, because those districts cannot enact or enforce laws in surrounding districts from which weapons continue to flow freely.
How come the surrounding lawless districts don't have the murder problems though.
So how come states with more guns and less laws have fewer crimes.Zack Morris wrote: The easier it is to do something, the more likely it is to be done.
Which is why they always seem to get around the gun laws. Prohibitions never seem to work do they.Guns make it easy to terrorize people, which is why they are so highly sought after by criminals.
"Self regulation" is no regulation at all. It's complete legal nonsense. The term regulate in a government document is plainly understood as regulation by the people's government.
They certainly are because the Courts appeal to them from time to time.The Founding Fathers' writings also support this, although these writings are not legally binding in any way.
No, a plain reading is that the militia was instructed to regulate itself, and guns were not to be regulated at all.And with all the intellectual finesse of a GOP presidential candidate, you've redefined "well regulated" to mean "no regulation." Too bad nobody agrees and we have more than a century of precedent in favor of gun regulation. They will never be unregulated.
Again, simple reading matters. The militia was to regulate itself while guns were to be unregulated. Just read the thing for a change. It says the right to keep and bear arms is to be uninfringed. That means no regulation. Self regulation was in regard to the militia, not gun ownership.I concede that being as uneducated as they are, many Republicans could read "well regulated" as "no regyoolayshun". They also seem to misread "background checks" as "knocking down doors and taking our guns".
Democrats passed these laws, not Republicans. I think at your suggestion we expand the topic to incompetent Democrat legislating.I suppose it's no coincidence that there are enough holes in this gun control regime to make it look like a used target.
Ehh, almost all gun control is at the state level, passed by the state and enforced by the state, almost always Democrats.Well, it's difficult to make laws that work when a substantial body of legislators are opposed to them.
This battle has been won, no doubt about it. Gun control was at it's zenith 40-60 years ago, and gun rights have been winning ever since. We are very close to no gun laws at all. I like it.Slowly but surely, this battle will be won, like every other cultural battle your side has waged.
No it wouldn't.It would dramatically curtail straw purchases, saving thousands of lives.
Not it doesn't, we did a thread on it.It works fabulously well.
No they aren't. The Paris terrorists got bunches of them without any problem at all. There have been 3 Paris assault weapon attacks in the last year. They didn't have the slightest problem getting the weapons at all. It doesn't work.Guns are so difficult to procure
Nice story bro.that would-be jewelry store thieves in London have to resort to the use of crude machetes, rarely leading to casualties of any kind. Police walk around unarmed.
Actually segregated areas like modern Democrat cities are highly homogenous in terms of everyday life of the inhabitants. So back to the drawing board.Zack Morris wrote: Low population density, high homogeneity.
In urban areas with comparatively relaxed gun control, crime is higher than in surrounding rural regions.
No need to wonder, it's the information age.Now, I wonder what European rural crime vs. American rural crime looks like?
How about comparing to Greenland which sits at the world average. Looks like the murder rate in Greenland is 50% larger than the US.Typhoon wrote:Well, I was only going to compare the US to developed countries, but as you insist on comparing the US to Uganda, then so be it.
Whatever. I have owned firearms all my life, have served in the military, and have proficiency. I hardly find them, "icky." I suppose "real men" have to demonstrate their macho by parading them around and preaching their "gun rights," as puerile as that may be...Mr. Perfect wrote:I didn't want to say it, but kmich these women will never ever ever have sex with you. I know lots of gun women and they have special disdain for males who find guns "icky".
Defending rights through responsible political action when they are genuinely challenged is a responsibility of citizenship. Promoting and preaching about them when they are not are exercises in "cheap grace," an adolescent self-indulgent exhibitionism which not only trivializes these rights but also imperils them by repeatedly crying "wolf.'Mr. Perfect wrote:Why would promoting rights ever be puerile. That bill of rights was paid for with blood.
Good Samaritan Shot and Killed by Driver Stuck in Snow, Police Say
A Good Samaritan was shot and killed in North Carolina Friday evening after he tried to help a motorist who was stuck in the snow, police said.
The scene unfolded in Catawba County, outside Charlotte, around 5 p.m. when the suspect's car slid off the road and got stuck in snow.
According to the county's sheriff, Coy Reid, some people who were passing by stopped to help the man.
Reid said that the group believed there was something wrong with the man, so they said they were going to call the police.
"He heard them say that," Reid said. "He jumps out of the car with a pistol."
[...]
He was probably stoned on potYMix wrote:Good Samaritan Shot and Killed by Driver Stuck in Snow, Police Say
A Good Samaritan was shot and killed in North Carolina Friday evening after he tried to help a motorist who was stuck in the snow, police said.
The scene unfolded in Catawba County, outside Charlotte, around 5 p.m. when the suspect's car slid off the road and got stuck in snow.
According to the county's sheriff, Coy Reid, some people who were passing by stopped to help the man.
Reid said that the group believed there was something wrong with the man, so they said they were going to call the police.
"He heard them say that," Reid said. "He jumps out of the car with a pistol."
[...]
Drunk, unlikely, but possible.Doc wrote:He was probably stoned on potYMix wrote:Good Samaritan Shot and Killed by Driver Stuck in Snow, Police Say
A Good Samaritan was shot and killed in North Carolina Friday evening after he tried to help a motorist who was stuck in the snow, police said.
The scene unfolded in Catawba County, outside Charlotte, around 5 p.m. when the suspect's car slid off the road and got stuck in snow.
According to the county's sheriff, Coy Reid, some people who were passing by stopped to help the man.
Reid said that the group believed there was something wrong with the man, so they said they were going to call the police.
"He heard them say that," Reid said. "He jumps out of the car with a pistol."
[...]
We'll have to wait for the toxicology tests to see what's inside.Typhoon wrote:Drunk, unlikely, but possible.Doc wrote:He was probably stoned on potYMix wrote:Good Samaritan Shot and Killed by Driver Stuck in Snow, Police Say
A Good Samaritan was shot and killed in North Carolina Friday evening after he tried to help a motorist who was stuck in the snow, police said.
The scene unfolded in Catawba County, outside Charlotte, around 5 p.m. when the suspect's car slid off the road and got stuck in snow.
According to the county's sheriff, Coy Reid, some people who were passing by stopped to help the man.
Reid said that the group believed there was something wrong with the man, so they said they were going to call the police.
"He heard them say that," Reid said. "He jumps out of the car with a pistol."
[...]
Pot, highly improbable.