RE: The Gun Control divide

RE: The Gun Control divide (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

The Gun Control divide

I despise you and your poll.

19% (5)

I need a weapon so I can defend my family from others and tyranny.

15% (4)

I need a weapon so I can defend my family from tyranny.

0% (0)

I need a weapon so I can defend my family from others.

0% (0)

I don't need a good reason for owning a gun. It's my right.

26% (7)

Weapon access causes harm, individual rights wins because Constitution

3% (1)

Weapon access causes societal harm which trumps individual rights

26% (7)

Access to weapons does not cause societal harm

7% (2)

Total Votes : 26

(last vote on : 6/19/2016 9:25:06 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Nnanji -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:43:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji So basically, you googled something and didn't read it I order to make an implied point. Because, your link certainly doesn't prove any implication you presented. No, I didn't google anything and even if I did, who cares? Second, the point is that even in the USA - which the NRA and their weak-minded proxies claim is SO different that the gun control would never work - we already see evidence that gun control DOES work even if the mechanisms for the correlation are not clear. I'm sure your next response will be to proclaim the American Medical Association to be a bunch of leftist fascists. I'm glad you're sure...not what my actual real "next" response was above. No, it was equally idiotic though, so I'm chalking it up as a win. Whatever keeps you happy.

Nnanji -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:52:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji It also is full of stuff like this: "In an analysis of all states using data from 2007 through 2010, we found that a higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state. This association was present both before and after controlling for other state-specific and socioeconomic factors. Although the results across quartiles 2 through 4 of the legislative strength score demonstrated lower firearm fatalities, these results were only significant when the states with the highest scores were compared with those with the lowest scores. It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship." That's absolutely correct, but the wonder is that they were able to find a difference at all. States are not isolated, their borders are porous, which means that people from other states still travel in and out of the state. Nonetheless there is a correlation between the presence of strong gun control legislation and reduced firearm fatalities. Putting another nail in the coffin of the NRA's lunatic claim that gun control won't reduce homicides and will actually increase them. You're projecting things no study has found as if you already know and are just waiting for the inferior people to come to your understanding.

Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:54:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire the only verified person on these forums is me and it is the realm of lying cunts idiots 100%, other than ,me Really? You should have mentioned it before. He has. Multiple times. He's into solipsism in a big way. Do they not do sarcasm where you come from? They do, but it's a tone thing which doesn't carry over in text - and I have no idea if you've been here long enough to see his proclamations.

Nnanji -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:55:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji It also is full of stuff like this: "In an analysis of all states using data from 2007 through 2010, we found that a higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state. This association was present both before and after controlling for other state-specific and socioeconomic factors. Although the results across quartiles 2 through 4 of the legislative strength score demonstrated lower firearm fatalities, these results were only significant when the states with the highest scores were compared with those with the lowest scores. It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship." That's absolutely correct, but the wonder is that they were able to find a difference at all. States are not isolated, their borders are porous, which means that people from other states still travel in and out of the state. Nonetheless there is a correlation between the presence of strong gun control legislation and reduced firearm fatalities. Putting another nail in the coffin of the NRA's lunatic claim that gun control won't reduce homicides and will actually increase them. Well, I guess if you ignore everything the study actually says, including this: "Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period." You could make that assumption. You're quoting the report evaluating the assault weapons ban which has absolutely fucking nothing to do with the study I referenced you fucking idiot. It was stated (not quoted) in your report. Your report also said this: "In conclusion, we found an association between the legislative strength of a state's firearm laws—as measured by a higher number of laws—and a lower rate of firearm fatalities. The association was significant for firearm fatalities overall and for firearm suicide and firearm homicide deaths, individually. As our study could not determine a cause-and-effect relationship, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association. Which completely agrees with my previous quote excerpted from the study, and refutes your thesis.

Edwird -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 11:05:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery More parroting of the NRA Kool-Aid instead of any actual research. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/ So your big results that I'm drinking koolaide is this: I think the more convincing proof that someone is drinking the Kool-Aid is that when under the influence, they seem to always spell it as "koolaide."

Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 11:07:34 AM)
. . . and that little wayne is always parroting the NRA.

mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 11:18:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I read as far as you equating gangs with all blacks and stopped wasting my time there. Your reading comprehension difficulty will limit you in life. I did no such thing. I was merely separating the activities of the various active hostiles by their group identities. Most of each of these groups are composed of fine, upstanding people.

Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 11:31:04 AM)
Yeah. Not what you wrote. But glad to hear it.

Edwird -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 11:35:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mrevibo quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery I read as far as you equating gangs with all blacks and stopped wasting my time there. Your reading comprehension difficulty will limit you in life. I did no such thing. I was merely separating the activities of the various active hostiles by their group identities. Most of each of these groups are composed of fine, upstanding people. "I did no such thing!" "Instead, I did exactly such thing!" That's telling them!

Edwird -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 11:46:34 AM)
I'm not hurting for funds, by any means. But if I based my perceived need for weapons based on some people's idea of 'hostile minorities,' considering all the blacks and Chinese and 'Mehicanos" in my area, I'd have to go into Reagan-level debt just to feel more "secure." (Based on 'local hostiles' numbers.) Fitting the three or four tanks in the condo as requirement to that purpose would be another issue.

mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 12:26:28 PM)
Ok, first of all, both of you, I'd like a clear explanation how I equated the hostiles with "all blacks", and second, I never mentioned gangs at all. We do have things like Black Panthers, new or otherwise, Louis Farrakhan and his tuxedoed goons, etc. Once again, not a majority, but definitely not eager to assimilate. We have the publications, we have the riots, we have the speeches. All you have to do is listen/read what these people say, what they say they intend, and what they expect. It's not a tinfoil hat theory just because the major media refuse to cover it.

Edwird -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 12:35:06 PM)
I pay more attention to what people I meet in everyday life have to say. If you want to read about people with hostile intent hundreds or thousands of miles away from you so that you can feel worse about life and be scared out of your pants all the time, that's your choice.

mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 1:09:44 PM)
We have that stuff right here in my town. Not the Mexicans, so much, they don't seem to want to take Indiana, but I've seen the literature the black guys down on Fall Creek hand out, and met the local Black panther grand poobah. T'ain't just thousands of miles away, and it doesn't ruin my life. I just like to be aware and prepared instead of willfully ignorant and surprised if something ugly goes down.

Edwird -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 5:54:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mrevibo We have that stuff right here in my town. Not the Mexicans, so much, they don't seem to want to take Indiana, but I've seen the literature the black guys down on Fall Creek hand out, and met the local Black panther grand poobah. T'ain't just thousands of miles away, and it doesn't ruin my life. I just like to be aware and prepared instead of willfully ignorant and surprised if something ugly goes down. I'm sorry the black people are so much more menacing up there than in Southern latitudes. We can only leave to conjecture as to the the far greater occurrence and acceptance of blatant bigotry in Northern latitudes and the inescapable correlation there as that might concern causation of that phenomenon.

cloudboy -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 7:31:15 PM)
When did the NRA change into the extremist advocate it is today? When did it dig in against gun control v. focusing on responsible gun ownship? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/frontline-answers-your-questions-about-the-nra/

mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 7:46:41 PM)
Frontline, jeez. But they started taking the threat seriously back when they got Charleton Heston on board (no, there was no causation there, it was just a contemporary landmark). They do still focus on responsibility and safety, you just don't hear about it because it doesn't push the anti's buttons.

Edwird -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 8:42:15 PM)
Maybe if they weren't wasting so much time trying to invoke as many horrible deaths as possible which, by their account, only occurred due to lack of fire power, to prove that there can never be enough fire power in the American home ... Or the movie theater, or the grocery store, or wherever. Or, if they didn't spend so much time and money and effort to push buttons at every opportunity ... Some people might actually notice their token nod to 'responsibility and safety.'

LadyJSirF -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 9:08:55 PM)
Just caught up with everyone here. People called me out because I stated bad people will do bad things. But i never said I was in favor of assult weapons being easy to get a hold of. Theright to bear arms Iis in the bill of rights. The First Set Of Ammendment our founding fathers added. To many people messing with those ammendment shakes the very foundation of our way of life. People are killed every year in cars, a large portion due to intoxicated drivers. Cars and alcohol are still legal. The largest killer in America is heart disease, yet healthy natural food is out reach of a large portion of our population. Gun control is a good hot button topic, but let's think logicly and a bit heartless. 50 people is the worst mass shooting in our history. Most parts of the world that's Wednesday. You take studies from northern euorpean countries that have a social and cultural past that is completely different from ours. You want that way of life? Give us 60 percent of your pay in taxes and live in homes that are half the size of yours that cost twice as much. Plus we don't let in outsiders to unbalance our way of life. Try to move there and be a part of that society. We have guns, but we don't have the violent society you seem to think. Do any of the studies take out the gun violence linked to other criminal activity? If they did the percentage of innocents involved in t gun violence would not be favorable to gun control proponents. Sandy hook, orlando, San Bernardino. They are tragedies because they are so rare. So against the norm of our lives. We aren't soaked in the type of violence that desensitizes us to these heinous crimes. one life is too many moraly and emotionally. At 450 million people in the us the percentage of dead is so miniscule that it is an oddity. You have a better chance of being struck by lightning 10 times as being a victim of mass murder in this country. Someone should tell God he has to put lightning control on his agenda. We aren't giving up our gun. And we shouldn't have to. With all our socal and economic problems we need to fix, this debate is actually a bit silly. Let'sfix the big problems Iinstead of making people feel better because "we just want to be safe" and feel virtuous about "doing something good"

Edwird -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 9:40:28 PM)
How can we feel 'safe' in public with this?: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/30/idaho-toddler-shoots-kills-mother-walmart It was only by luck that the mom was killed. It could have been anybody else in the store. How are you going to feel safe letting your kids play at other people's houses with this?: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/3-year-old-alabama-boy-accidentally-shoots-kills-sister-9/ http://www.mprnews.org/story/2013/07/27/regional/boy-shoots-sister-in-oakdale http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-deland-shooting-chlidren-gun-20141112-story.html

thishereboi -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/16/2016 3:44:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The Australian experience of gun control, (Australia has a similarly heterogeneous population, is also English speaking and subject to the rule of law, and so directly comparable to the US in this instance) is also compelling evidence that the introduction of strict gun laws in the mid 1990s did not result in anarchy or anything remotely approaching it. In fact crime rates fell after gun control was introduced. Again the opposite to your claim. Directly comparable? I suppose if you look at land mass and the language spoken that's true. But when you start comparing the population numbers and the number of large cities they are not even close. According to the internet your largest city has around 4.5 million people. The total of your 5 biggest cities doesn't come close to the total in New York alone. Throw in the mix of cultures that we have there and the poverty in a lot of the areas and you are going to have an increase in violence. Trying to blame the weapon they chose is just stupid and won't solve anything.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Spam Policy

0.046875