Is it time to talk about guns?

Don't forget that guy in Las Vegas who shot nearly 600 people from his hotel window, just because they were attending a concert.

 

Your posts would suggest otherwise. To return your quip. But the issue isn't about you. Nor about me.

I have seen a few clips of Tucker and he agreed with me in those. He seemed solid to me. But I don't know enough about him to defend him fully.

Sometimes each of us find ourselves on the wrong side of an argument. Recognizing that helps you mature and grow as a person.

 

Then you and whoever else you include with "we" shouldn't exercise it! But stop telling more competent people what to do. It's ridiculous to assume everyone's at your level. How about let's figure out what drives people to go insane and kill people, whether by firearms, knives, or kicking them in the head???

 

I'm glad someone can read that guy's mind! The cops have been searching for a motive since the event. I'm sure they'd be happy to learn the mystery has been solved!

 

That doesn't fit the approved narrative. Just FYI.

 

Facts lead to a very different set of conclusions. The number of gun deaths continues to skyrocket as the availability of guns increases. Not just murders by criminals, but accidental shootings and shootings of family members in the heat of anger. The number of shootings in defense of one’s self or family is a tiny fraction of gun deaths. Nothing about the unlimited availability of military style weapons makes me feel safer. And for those people who really shouldn’t have guns, shouldn’t we have legislation tailored at preventing those people from owning weapons of mass leathality at the very least?

And for the previous post seeped in white smugness and racism, it’s no wonder our citizens of color and other minorities don’t feel safe...period. They aren’t prattling on about a “freedom” they are denied. We as a Nation have a long way to go to create a community of inclusiveness, equality, and justice.

 

Uh oh. An independent thinker. We're not going to be able to outsmart her... What can we acuse her of so she doesn't make us look so stupid for not doing our homework... I got it! Phobia, some kind of phobia. Let's throw in racist, too, for good measure. Nobody can defend themselves from the accusation of racism, and if we call her that, everyone will believe us. The only problem is you're supposed to believe all women. They told us that, a lot. So yikes, what a conundrum... Maybe they'll never notice. Let's go with that. Our friends have our back. We don't need to make sense. Once we get their guns, we can turn all the survivors into robots. It's going to be great when we humiliate the achievers and don't have to feel inferior anymore!

 

Again

I would wish people would read the thread before posting in it – in the case of this thread it would stop (or hopefully lessen) the number of times the same pro-gun lobby arguments are repeated and so already covered and that the same pro-gunners could then answer the many outstanding questions and criticism that remain unanswered, rather than making those people that are in favour of gun control having to repeat them.

 

Post 131

What tyranny was there before 1776?

Those fermenting the rebellion certainly began calling British rule tyranny because…well they were trying to ferment a rebellion, but actually many colonists were happy or at least apathetic to British rule.

As Francis D Cogliano asks -Was the American Revolution Inevitable?

Writing with the benefit of hindsight in 1818, John Adams, one of the central figures in the American Revolution, recalled that Americans were committed to independence in their hearts long before war broke out in America in 1775. Adams' comment suggests that American independence was inevitable: this was not the case.

In 1763, Americans joyously celebrated the British victory in the Seven Years' War, revelling in their identity as Britons and jealously guarding their much-celebrated rights which they believed they possessed by virtue of membership in what they saw as the world's greatest empire. Americans had contributed significantly to the recent victory both militarily and financially….In 1763, the average Briton paid 26 shillings per annum in taxes whilst a Massachusetts taxpayer contributed one shilling each year to imperial coffers.[my bold]

It was only when the British parliament (against many members opposition) began rising taxes in the colonies (that was going through a recession at the time) that the colonists started getting annoyed

And remember their call was - "No taxation without representation"

It wasn’t a call against tyranny or for war - it was asking to have representation within the British Empire in Parliament.

If it was tyranny they were basically asking to be part of the tyranny.

Even when the war began there were American colonist who stayed loyal to the British Crown for example William Franklin the son of Benjamin Franklin was a loyalist who worked to build Loyalist military units to fight in the war on the side of the British and of course the famous and much maligned name been Benedict Arnold.

The historian Robert Calhoon wrote in 2000, concerning the proportion of Loyalists to Patriots in the Thirteen Colonies:

Historians' best estimates put the proportion of adult white male loyalists somewhere between 15 and 20 percent. Approximately half the colonists of European ancestry tried to avoid involvement in the struggle—some of them deliberate pacifists, others recent immigrants, and many more simple apolitical folk. The patriots received active support from perhaps 40 to 45 percent of the white populace, and at most no more than a bare majority. And large numbers of slaves joined the British side.

I ask again -when would (should) Americans start killing their political opponents and fellow citizens?

 

Kathys

Again already covered several times -

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.

But let us take an American city – Philadelphia* – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.

So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons?

*I was comparing a couple of urban areas of roughly the same size and population density

Philadelphia - population density of 11,457 people per square mile
London - population density of 11,760 people per square mile

Gun related Deaths per 100,000 (CDC)

Texas – 12.7

Arizona – 15.1

New Mexico – 22.3

Florida – 12.7

*

UK – 0.23

Total Homicides

Texas – 4.9

Arizona – 5.0

New Mexico – 8.6

Florida – 5.2

*

UK –1.1

Gun related homicides

Texas – 3.2

Arizona – 3.6

New Mexico – 3.3

Florida – 3.4

*

UK – 0.05

 

Kathys

Post 390

In another gun related debate I had one person tell me that they were not interested in gun control because they believed that most gun related deaths involved black or brown criminals and he was quite happy to see such people die.

But as I asked then - were such people born criminals.

If you had read this thread you would know that the main aim of gun control is to try and lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal.

But it is also understood that tackling the US gun issue is not just about gun control measures it is about looking at tackling crime in a different way by looking at and addressing the cause of crime rather than the symptoms

For example - If criminality and the violence that comes with it are the result of current drug policies then change the drug policies so that it reduces or stops creating criminal activity.

And also ask why are people turning to criminality, have they education, have they hope, have they employment?

 

Kathys

Post 133 and Post 375

The Defensive Gun Use arguement - is actually very bad for the pro-gun lobby if you just think about it for a minute

The argument is that guns are good at tackling crime

But it has already been established that the general crime rates of the US are not that different than other comparable countries with much lower levels of gun ownership or eaase of access to guns.

But if guns are good at tackling crime - then the US with its much much higher rates of gun ownership and ease of access to firearms should have much lower rates of crime than places witthout.

But it doesn't - in other words ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to relate to lower general crime rates.

Some gun people argue that these crimes stopped by DGU are not reported - but if that's the case then the US has higher crime rates than comparable countries that don’t have guns so actually they are doing a lot better at tackling crime than the US with guns.

But the US has vastly greater gun related deaths and injuries compared to those countries where ease of access to guns is lower.

So ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to tackle crime but does increase the likelihood of people getting killed or injured by a gun.

Any rational and reasonable person would conclude that it would be better to take ease of access to guns out of the equation when tackling crime, for both law enforces and citizenry

 

Kathys

Many posts in this thread have already gone through this.

Why are you so afraid of been attacked that you feel so desperately in need of such a lethal weapon?

I mean you clearly seem to think that you are going to be attacked in your home or on the street or anywhere else and at any moment, how is that healthy for you are your society?

And please don’t say it’s just about been prepared the only reason someone would feel the need to be prepared is because they fear being attacked.

Others say ‘better to have and not need than to need and not have“ - but again I would opinion that they only feel the need because they fear they could be attacked.

Wouldn’t you want to live in a society where you were not so scared all the time?

 

Please can the pro-gun lobby stop rehashing and representing the same arguments that have already been presented 1000’s times and been found wanting every time.

If you have anything new or can actually address the many, many outstanding criticisms of the many pro-gun stance arguments already posted please do so.

*

PS: Oh and please don’t claim (as many have in the past) to have already addressed criticisms only then to be unable to say where or actually repeat them

 

The U.S. (population: 328.2 million) has more civilian-owned guns than any other country on the planet; 393,347,000; more than enough for every man, woman, and child to have one (actually; 1.2 per capita).

Your answer to your fear is more and more guns, because, you know; <WHISPER>Negroes</WHISPER>. How many more guns would it take for you to feel safe? two apiece? Four? Six? Eight?

Existential angst (and innate racism) doesn't work that way.

 

right...

You seem to represent exactly the population I'm referring to, with the lingo and everything. The "gun-grabbers" and possibly a few utterances of "libruls" here and there peppered throughout. Right?


You're out of your mind. Do you think for a minute that they won't? Come and take 'em. Ok. We'll see who's on the side of good then. & for the record, I hope they do!


Here is a link to the CDC on firearms. Unrelated? let's talk about then... Is homicide unrelated to the CDC? Gun deaths per capita?


Everyone please click the link: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC.

 

Yes? Like who!?

Ok... at least the vernacular is expanding beyond "gun-grabber".

And you among them, yes? Say something independent for us.

I'm glad to see the apostrophe though. Really...

The uneducated perhaps latch onto the word "Marx", but I have expanded on Marx? I think so. He was really really smart, right? I'm not wrong.

And that my friends is ad hominem.

But who is the lost one? Please review the material and try again...

Disagree. I have my 2-year degree in sociology. That's enough of the discipline to make an informed decision about race, gender, and cultures; as well as decisions about social problems and how they should be solved, not ignored...

Thanks for playing!

 

That's one of the funniest "tells" that you live within a Reich-Wing echo chamber; to blithely assume that all Libtards don't know their way around an M-16.

 

A reasonable question, Yes?! Did anybody answer that?


I take it seriously. These people stand with their gun where? Government buildings, supermarket parking lots? parades? Mounted on a rack in the back of their car?! Oh ... And we're supposed to trust that their intentions are safe or sane?

This*

Problem. He has a valid point. That's significantly more gun-death.

Helllooo?

Again, that illustrates adequately the point: less guns heavily and strongly correlates to safety from homicide.

So, we're letting the exception become the rule? Yeah, as if that totally proves gun laws don't work....


With the stance of the American people changing rapidly toward a more peaceable union, the political climate is charged for good! VOTE!

 

Here's one perspective:

*waiting for someone to make the landmine comparison*

Car wrecks? mmk. So which one do you drive to work?