(10-08-2015, 01:33 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 01:28 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]The solution is simple. First and foremost address the metal health issue. 2nd, make guns safer. 32,719 Americans died in automobile accidents in 2013. Actually, cars exemplify the public health approach we need to apply to guns. Do we ban cars? No. Do we ban fast cars? No but we do require driver’s licenses, seatbelts, airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and collapsible steering columns.
What?
The solution is not simple - it has multiple components, in my opinion.
Making guns safer does nothing to address the problem of gun violence homicides. At best, it might reduce the small fraction of gun deaths attributed to "unintentional" or "accidental" firing.
Technology. Public health experts cite many ways we could live more safely with guns, and many of them have broad popular support.
A poll this year found that majorities even of gun-owners (like F.U.) favor universal background checks; tighter regulation of gun dealers; safe storage requirements in homes; and a 10-year prohibition on possessing guns for anyone convicted of domestic violence, assault or similar offenses.
We should also be investing in “smart gun” technology, such as weapons that fire only with a PIN or fingerprint. We should adopt microstamping that allows a bullet casing to be traced back to a particular gun. We can require liability insurance for guns, as we do for cars. All very simple answers to the secondary problem. The first problem is the complicated one HoTD. Address those two issues.
People should always check their sources, Gunnar.
User's source, the BBC, and the data year is imbedded in the "homicide" chart itself. It checks out.
If you think that's unreliable and want to try to impeach it with a conflicting more credible source, go ahead.
Charts and graphs from credible and validated sources, when doing comparative analysis, are extremely helpful to me.
Bullshit, on the other hand, is easy to spot and toss.
(10-08-2015, 01:37 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: [ -> ]Technology. Public health experts cite many ways we could live more safely with guns, and many of them have broad popular support.
A poll this year found that majorities even of gun-owners (like F.U.) favor universal background checks; tighter regulation of gun dealers; safe storage requirements in homes; and a 10-year prohibition on possessing guns for anyone convicted of domestic violence, assault or similar offenses.
We should also be investing in “smart gun” technology, such as weapons that fire only with a PIN or fingerprint. We should adopt microstamping that allows a bullet casing to be traced back to a particular gun. We can require liability insurance for guns, as we do for cars. All very simple answers to the secondary problem. The first problem is the complicated one HoTD. Address those two issues.
Thanks for informing me that F.U. is a gun-owner, Gunnar.
I'm well aware of F.U.'s changing position(s) on universal background checks; we've exchanged no less than 20 posts on the subject.
I understand what the polls reflect. Too bad the NRA and the politicians it owns don't listen to their more rational members and the public as a whole.
I don't have a strong opinion or knowledge about the merits of replacing current guns with 'smart guns', aside from it likely reducing gun violence committed with stolen guns. Outside of that, I imagine, putting a 'smart gun' in the hands of a violent, homicidal, or suicidal person won't make anyone safer from violence, homicide, or suicide by those hands.
So, I'll stay out of the "technology is the solution" discussion for now.
Cars are a transportation tool.
Guns are a killing tool.
Man, this shit gets old.
(10-08-2015, 01:50 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Cars are a transportation tool.
Guns are a killing tool.
Man, this shit gets old.
You're telling me this shit gets old. It's public safety we're discussing right or wrong? Why take a different approach because the tools serve different purposses? Do you keep your wrenches in a different tool box from your screw drivers, sockets, pliers etc? Doubtful. Regardless of what the tool is used for public safety is the issue.
(10-08-2015, 01:59 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
MS is as extreme as FU.
You're trolling me right?
(10-08-2015, 11:04 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 10:55 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 09:28 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]My question was are you OK with certain types of firearms being taken away, Your answer is yes, as stated above.
I am not Ok with that. If it ever is attempted they will get none of mine.
As I've posted many times, I'd rather try better regulation of the process, screening and enforcement, as opposed to restrictions and bans.
But, the NRA, its owned politicians, and gun enthusiast extremists, like you, aren't rational or strategic. Rather than consider even such administrative regulations to increase public safety, you instead resist any change whatsoever in order to maximize profits (NRA) and maintain your personal gratification/convenience - using ignorant fear-based arguments and false rhetoric.
So, while it's not my preference, it won't bother me if the feared "slippery slope!!!" is avoided and the law jumps straight to restricting and banning some types of firearms. That too would be wholly in line with a well-regulated right to bear arms, per the Second Amendment. At this point, I'd be okay with that too.
Well regulated was not referring to the type of firearm. It was in reference to the person/militia.
15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.
While it doesn't exactly pertain to our discussion right now I also found # 14 interesting.
(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
The first thing that popped in to my head reading #14 was George Zimmerman. *shudders*
(10-08-2015, 01:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm well aware of F.U.'s changing position(s) on universal background checks; we've exchanged no less than 20 posts on the subject.
Is it a bad thing that I have reconsidered my stance on BG checks?
(10-08-2015, 02:19 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 01:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm well aware of F.U.'s changing position(s) on universal background checks; we've exchanged no less than 20 posts on the subject.
Is it a bad thing that I have reconsidered my stance on BG checks?
Not at all.
My point was that since you can and do speak for yourself, and I can and do read and consider your comments addressed to me, I'm clear as to where you stood and where you stand now.
However, the fact that you're a gun-owner is quite shocking. You really had me going there.
(10-08-2015, 02:28 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 02:19 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 01:49 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm well aware of F.U.'s changing position(s) on universal background checks; we've exchanged no less than 20 posts on the subject.
Is it a bad thing that I have reconsidered my stance on BG checks?
Not at all.
My point was that since you can and do speak for yourself, and I can and do read and consider your comments addressed to me, I'm clear as to where you stood and where you stand now.
However, the fact that you're a gun-owner is quite shocking. You really had me going there.
OK, I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that .
(10-08-2015, 02:13 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 01:59 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
MS is as extreme as FU.
You're trolling me right?
Its all good MS. Extreme is good. Who wants to be a run of the mill, average sheep?
(10-08-2015, 02:19 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 11:04 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 10:55 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 09:28 AM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]My question was are you OK with certain types of firearms being taken away, Your answer is yes, as stated above.
I am not Ok with that. If it ever is attempted they will get none of mine.
As I've posted many times, I'd rather try better regulation of the process, screening and enforcement, as opposed to restrictions and bans.
But, the NRA, its owned politicians, and gun enthusiast extremists, like you, aren't rational or strategic. Rather than consider even such administrative regulations to increase public safety, you instead resist any change whatsoever in order to maximize profits (NRA) and maintain your personal gratification/convenience - using ignorant fear-based arguments and false rhetoric.
So, while it's not my preference, it won't bother me if the feared "slippery slope!!!" is avoided and the law jumps straight to restricting and banning some types of firearms. That too would be wholly in line with a well-regulated right to bear arms, per the Second Amendment. At this point, I'd be okay with that too.
Well regulated was not referring to the type of firearm. It was in reference to the person/militia.
15) That the militia should be "well-regulated" is not a basis for restricting the keeping or bearing of arms. The term originally meant "self-regulated" and militias could be independent of state or national authority if not called up by such authority. Militia members may be required to carry certain standard arms during formations, but they cannot be forbidden from carrying additional arms of their own unless doing so would impair normal militia operations. State-appointed officers may direct when, where and in what manner members of the militia are to train and perform their duties, but may not forbid them to meet on their own.
While it doesn't exactly pertain to our discussion right now I also found # 14 interesting.
(14) With the high levels of crime we now endure, the only effective way to extend police protection to a level that might deter crime is to recruit a substantial proportion of the public to go armed, by issuing them carry permits, offering them police training, and organizing them into a network of militia units closely coordinated with regular law enforcement agencies. It is likely that as many as 25% of the adult public could serve in this way on a regular basis, and another 25% on an occasional basis, and that if they did, we might expect it to have a significant positive impact on crime. Some such citizens might even be granted higher police rank, and perform regular police duties on a part-time basis. Such involvement of the public in law enforcement would also have other benefits: breaking down the social and psychological barriers that now separate the regular police from civilians, and deterring some of the abuses of authority that police have sometimes fallen into.
http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm
The first thing that popped in to my head reading #14 was George Zimmerman. *shudders*
I never thought of that user. However I am good with that. Gotta keep those hoodie wearing skittle eating thugs in check somehow.
Be careful about cozying up too much to MS, F.U.
Before you know it, the pansy ass will have pried all of your guns from your hands and fed them to the chop saw!!!!!!!!!!!
Snark, snark, snark.
(10-08-2015, 02:36 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 02:13 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 01:59 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
MS is as extreme as FU.
You're trolling me right?
Its all good MS. Extreme is good. Who wants to be a run of the mill, average sheep?
There are evil people in this world who do cowardly things.
Do I want to see all responsible gun owners punished for the actions of a tiny percentage?
No, however, I don't really know what the alternative is.
Remember, the victims of gun violence had rights too. The right to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.
They're dead now, and their families have holes in their hearts that will probably never heal.
Gun folk say 'it's not the gun'.
Yes it is.
I don't remember the stat from up thread, but it was a staggering number of shootings in a very recent span of time.
You, Six, Maggot are clearly not the problem, but none of you really even acknowledge that there IS a problem.
There's no easy solution, other than maybe going back to institutionalizing people the way we did a half century ago.
But, that would take the govt getting involved in that business too. Outrage & uproar would follow. 'How dare you lock Jimmy up, he wouldn't hurt a fly.'
Then we're right back to where we are now.
Very loose rules which allow just about anyone to slip through the cracks, buy a gun & ammo, & kill as many people as they can.
(10-08-2015, 02:48 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (10-08-2015, 02:36 PM)F.U. Wrote: [ -> ]Its all good MS. Extreme is good. Who wants to be a run of the mill, average sheep?
Those who don't share your fears are not sheep.
Any animal will work. I could have used jackasses, but then I thought a sheep is much nicer.
