Peter Ubel is a *****
- Thread starter GalenAgas
- Start date
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Messages
- 1,189
- Reaction score
- 359
What do you find *****ic?
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 3,477
- Reaction score
- 1,676
lol forbes
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Forbes totally sold themselves out when they started letting anyone make a blog on their site. I don't trust anything from a Forbes link now.
(sent from my phone)
(sent from my phone)
4
45408
Please, don't elaborate.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 8
It's essentially an opinion piece. Opinions cannot be trusted?
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,815
- Reaction score
- 1,229
The article is basically a giant mess that could be condensed into: "Well, I don't want to stake out a firm position so I'll just say both sides have merits and leave my readers more confused than they were before."
Anyway, the argument for gun control predicated on the fact that people are killed by gun accidents is absurd. You don't make laws assuming people are idiots; that's the very definition of a nanny-state.
Anyway, the argument for gun control predicated on the fact that people are killed by gun accidents is absurd. You don't make laws assuming people are idiots; that's the very definition of a nanny-state.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 495
Not all articles have to take strong positions or be solutions-oriented. Sometimes it nice to just have a discussion about the merits of the various viewpoints, without anyone attempting to persuade people or "make his case".
The talking heads spew a lot of hot air, but the "gun" issue ultimately boils down to two opposing values: upholding the 2nd amendment vs decreased gun violence/making rare super-tragedies even more rare.
If you favor the 2nd amendment then you've got to accept the consequences of occasional gun violence. If you believe preventing such violence is more important than the upholding the 2nd amendment, then you've got to accept the fact that ultimately we're going to have to overturn one of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and all the implications thereof and precedents set by so doing.
We'll probably spend a few more decades squabbling over various levels of control, with some states taking more restrictive stances than others, but ultimately that's where all this is heading.
The talking heads spew a lot of hot air, but the "gun" issue ultimately boils down to two opposing values: upholding the 2nd amendment vs decreased gun violence/making rare super-tragedies even more rare.
If you favor the 2nd amendment then you've got to accept the consequences of occasional gun violence. If you believe preventing such violence is more important than the upholding the 2nd amendment, then you've got to accept the fact that ultimately we're going to have to overturn one of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and all the implications thereof and precedents set by so doing.
We'll probably spend a few more decades squabbling over various levels of control, with some states taking more restrictive stances than others, but ultimately that's where all this is heading.
Having a position of increased gun control is not inconsistent with a view of wanting to uphold gun rights ownership. We already have laws that prevent citizens from owning certain types of weapons (e.g. fully automatic machine guns). It is not absurd nor a leap for an intelligent individual to see that semiautomatic assault rifles have no place in a modern US society. They are wanted merely for the fact that people can have them and they think that they are cool. They serve no purpose. The question of whether a ban on such weapons will prevent violence is irrelevant as the ownership of such weapons is unnecessary and dangerous regardless.
If you have a differing view then you should be ok will allowing people to open carry any weapon they want at any location. This means your patients can walk into your office packing an assault right. Hey they need it for their personal protection after all in your typical suburban neighborhood and it is their constitutional right to do so! And this should decrease crime... Obviously the founding fathers intended for ordinary citizens to own any and all weapons. If you are not comfortable being around people you don't know at all walking around with weapons open that with the pull of a trigger can kill from many yards away without you being able to defend yourself, then I suggest you rethink your position (as that is essentially the position of the NRA). Fact is guns have far more lethality than any other weapon.
Fact is also that having guns in the hands of average citizens does not decrease crime and mainly leads to more gun deaths (red states have the most gun deaths, crime is not associated, countries with strict laws have very few gun deaths, etc). Hundreds are killed every year from accidental gun deaths. Hardly ever do you hear stories of "would-be heroes" stopping a crime with their gun. Police note that brandishing a weapon most often leads to an escalation of violence. Handguns for protection in the home... certain rifles used for sport and sustenance... fine. High powered semi auto assault rifles used by the army?? seriously?
Being future doctors and having seen many a patient bleed out in the ER as a result of some gun myself, I am always surprised with the vehement beliefs of some medical people out there. I suggest you all think for yourself. Don't feel that you must adhere to the views of a political party or school of thought due to some misplaced idea of loyalty (btw I am conservative).
Also I have these opinions and this topic should be discussed regardless of what occurred with mass deaths via guns recently (newton, aurora, ny firefighters, etc).
If you have a differing view then you should be ok will allowing people to open carry any weapon they want at any location. This means your patients can walk into your office packing an assault right. Hey they need it for their personal protection after all in your typical suburban neighborhood and it is their constitutional right to do so! And this should decrease crime... Obviously the founding fathers intended for ordinary citizens to own any and all weapons. If you are not comfortable being around people you don't know at all walking around with weapons open that with the pull of a trigger can kill from many yards away without you being able to defend yourself, then I suggest you rethink your position (as that is essentially the position of the NRA). Fact is guns have far more lethality than any other weapon.
Fact is also that having guns in the hands of average citizens does not decrease crime and mainly leads to more gun deaths (red states have the most gun deaths, crime is not associated, countries with strict laws have very few gun deaths, etc). Hundreds are killed every year from accidental gun deaths. Hardly ever do you hear stories of "would-be heroes" stopping a crime with their gun. Police note that brandishing a weapon most often leads to an escalation of violence. Handguns for protection in the home... certain rifles used for sport and sustenance... fine. High powered semi auto assault rifles used by the army?? seriously?
Being future doctors and having seen many a patient bleed out in the ER as a result of some gun myself, I am always surprised with the vehement beliefs of some medical people out there. I suggest you all think for yourself. Don't feel that you must adhere to the views of a political party or school of thought due to some misplaced idea of loyalty (btw I am conservative).
Also I have these opinions and this topic should be discussed regardless of what occurred with mass deaths via guns recently (newton, aurora, ny firefighters, etc).
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 495
Talking about hunters and what weapons are and are not necessary for "personal protection" is irrelevant. The second amendment isn't about those things. It's about the right of the citizenry to possess reasonable arms so that, if need be and if a sizable majority of the public is willing, a forceful revolution may be attempted against a government that infringes grievously upon the rights and liberties set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The unintended consequence of that right is that arms will inevitably fall into the hands of violent criminals.
Stripping the citizenry of that right also has consequences.
The unintended consequence of that right is that arms will inevitably fall into the hands of violent criminals.
Stripping the citizenry of that right also has consequences.
👍
Yes but what's the likelihood of that being effective nowadays? For some reason we like to cling on to rules set out on a piece of parchment written more than 200 years ago as though an update to them would cause our society to disintegrate. I just don't get why the constitution is seen as some kind of holy relic which is absolute for eternity.. times change, society evolves and so should our underpinning values.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,074
- Reaction score
- 495
That's a valid opinion and many who interpret a living constitution liberally agree with you. If you truly believe that then the next step is to get 2/3's of both houses of congress to propose a 28th amendment repealing the 2nd amendment, wait typically 7 years, and then get 3/4's of the states to pass the same amendment individually. That's what it's going to take to get guns out of the hands of "average citizens" (Duckie99's words) in the United States.
4
45408
No, it doesn't. Virtually any proponent of gun rights will tell you that property rights of the property owner supersede those of the individual visiting that property. Haven't you noticed how many places have signs that say "No weapons allowed on the premises"? Those are perfectly legal, and I have yet to hear from anyone that disagrees with that right.
If you want to change the Constitution, then do so. What's so difficult about that? And 200 years is not a long time by any stretch of the imagination. People are pretty similar now as they were then. The scenery has changed a bit though.
You can't just skirt the rules if you don't like them, otherwise there's no point in having the rules at all.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
I'm sure you know it's only some signs that are legally binding, although a property owner can request you leave for any reason with consequence of trespassing for not complying. As an ardent RKBA supporter, I do agree it's distasteful to CC anywhere that openly expresses a desire that you don't, no matter how silly their reasons may be
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 693
- Reaction score
- 8
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 806
You aren't around guns much are you?
1. You can buy FULLY automatic weapons, however, they have be manufactured prior to 1986 and are very expensive.
2. Guns power isn't determined by how 'scary' the gun looks. Yes, the mussel velocity is a little higher with a rifle but almost all mass shootings happen at very close range where ANY semi-automatic is going to be just as deadly. Which brings me to my next point...if you are going to ban semi-automatics then you should ban them all. There are well over a 100 million rifles and handguns. Likewise shotguns are very deadly at close range...if you ban those too then you have the majority of guns in America.
It is idiotic to ban what looks scary without any sound logic behind it. Either all semi-auto weapons should be banned or none imo. I have shot both semi auto rifles and semi-handguns, they both have more than enough power to be deadly. I see merits in the gun control arguments but these knee-jerk emotional ideas really weaken their arguments.
Imo better gun control would consist of better background checks whenever you buy guns + ammo, a mandatory safety course, a mandatory psych evaluation, and laws requiring you to lock your firearm in a safe when not in use.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
My concerns would be
A) cost limiting accessibility (I think there should be as little finance-based restriction as possible; this would apply to all of the recommendations, but particularly the psych eval). I think it's reasonable that the government cover the cost of providing safe handling literature, however, and I think that would be a better use of money per dollar spent.
B) How would you enforce locking a firearm in a safe? I think this is more of a feel good law, although maybe it would change some behavior regardless of whether or not it could be enforced.
C) For the psych eval, assuming it somehow was affordable (individually or provided by the government), what diagnoses would prohibit ownership? Which of those are temporary and which are permanent? Can you appeal a decision, and if so, to whom and at whose expense? Are you allowed to try different mental health providers? Are those providers liable if an individual kills himself or someone else following approval? If so, how far down the road are they held liable? Who is going to be willing to do the evaluations (and give approvals) if they are liable?
I think it's easy to say "improving safety education, keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally ill, etc. are the way to go" because they have high face validity, but I think the actual implementation is difficult.
Edit: If I were to propose something, I think even a very minimal amount of education through the public school system covering very basic firearm operation and safe practice would be a reasonable practice. I think people will call me crazy for that, but firearms are a central aspect of american culture and a large part of the bill of rights. It would be widely disseminated and low cost
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
But the Constitution is just a barrier to "progress!"
That's probably the most aggravating part of this debate. People claim that we should ban all guns because "think about the children!" Don't get me wrong, school shootings are tragic and we as a society should do everything possible to prevent them. We should also as a society do a better job at ensuring that guns stay with those that are legally allowed to own them while doing a better job of ensuring that only competent individuals get guns in the first place.
However, we are also a nation of laws and due process. Regardless of your opinion, the Constitution has given the people the right to bear arms. With freedom comes tragedy (as someone else mentioned). I'm totally ok if you want to ban something for whatever reasons you wish, but there is a process by which you have to do that, and in the case of guns, the Constitution must be amended. People claim that our society no longer needs guns, we have guns for stupid reasons, etc., but the reality is that a majority of Americans support the right to bear arms and support the right of citizens to purchase and own firearms. If that weren't the case, our democratic process would have resulted in laws that outlawed their possession. By the way, this is completely ignoring the impossibly absurd task of trying to collect the hundreds of millions of weapons already in homes. What are you going to do, have the police chief come around and search everyone's home?
So, by all means, support your cause and try and get policymakers to support your position. However it is the height of arrogance to somehow think that you support the "right" position when you seem to be in the minority in this debate, and thinking that the country's political process should be altogether ignored because the public is a bunch of gun-happy ingrates is entirely asinine. It is for situations exactly like this that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were instituted to begin with. Maybe those old farts living 200 years ago weren't so stupid after all.
(sent from my phone)
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Uh, no, I don't trust opinion pieces when I'm trying to objectively understand a topic. Do you?
(sent from my phone)
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Interestingly the exact same thing could be set about a complete ban. How are you going to enforce that? By what mechanism do you collect guns that were legally purchased and legally owned in the past? Do you think people that purchased guns in the first place would willingly just surrender them? I sure don't. That's why I think "ban all guns!" is a ridiculous "solution" to the problem. It sounds great but you start to run into problems almost immediately when you begin to implement the ban - unless, of course, we're going to totally do away with civil rights in the process.
(sent from my phone)
4
487806
👍 I was suggesting to do the opposite... promote armed security in all schools (as the NRA suggested). Bans have no effect, since criminals will always find a way to avoid them. Even a constitutional ban will be useless (see the 18th Amendment)
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
I agree, obviously. Out of curiosity, what's the experience been like in Chicago, particularly following sandyhook? I've never lived in a predominantly anti-gun area.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
I think the NRA's suggestion of armed security in schools is downright silly and makes them look so. The manpower that would be required to actually stand any reasonable chance of preventing a mass shooting is incredibly cost prohibitive. I think a much more reasonable option is eliminating schools as gun free zones and allowing any faculty to carry if they so choose. I do think CC should be required of those that choose to carry however
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
The entire political culture here is... hilarious. Corruption and general stupidity abounds. Rahm, of course, came out almost immediately after the most recent shooting saying that this clearly supports a complete gun ban. Obviously the general culture is very liberal, so people seem to think that if you support gun ownership you're a backwards hillbilly.
I'm glad to not live in a world where Rahm is dictator.
(sent from my phone)
How did other western countries successfully decrease gun ownership? (genuinely curious, I mean I imagine they must have had laxer gun rules in the past and therefore a lot of guns in public circulation, yet have somehow managed to almost eradicate them effectively)
4
487806
Would it be safe to say that the media is the main culprit for exaggerating the mass shooting and focusing on the killer? By focusing so much on the killer, the media has the tendency to incite copycat killings... why can't the media just focus on the tragedy rather than the killer (perhaps few sentences)? focusing on the killer is doing disservice to the victims' families.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
Sound about like I imagined 😀
I think mass shootings sit very low on the totem pole of societal importance. I do think the media has an important hand in overplaying their importance. As far as the etiology of actual mass killings, while the media may play a role by giving the perpetrator notoriety, it's certainly a multifactorial problem, and I think it would be unfair to cast too much blame their way. Mass killings have happened for a long time, and I think the extent of media "glorification" that exists today is a fairly recent phenomenon. They probably play a significant role in copycatting, but as far as mass killings in general, if I had to take a guess, probably not.
I don't think any country that currently has very low levels of gun ownership has ever had anything approaching current U.S. gun ownership (and if they did, it was likely with firearms that are wayyyyy outdated now). I'm also unaware of any implementation of a gun ban that included currently owned firearms that was met with anything generally regarded as success. I'm not a history buff though and welcome corrections here.
As far as a general ban on NEW firearm ownership - I don't think this will happen in the foreseeable future in the US (if ever), but if it did, it would probably take easily 100+ years to see a substantial reduction in firearm ownership. Guns have a very long lifespan, even with reasonably heavy use.
That is not what the second amendment is about. That is what you were told the second amendment was about. The supreme court has ruled that firearms are acceptable for personal protection with use in lawful purposes such as protection of your home. They did not say it was lawful for a citizen to own any weapon they want. It is unlawful to form a militia with the intent of overthrow of the government. In such a case it is also unlikely that you would succeed. I would say such thoughts border on paranoia.
Again I suggest thinking for yourself and not just spouting the line some political entity spouts due to a misplaced sense of loyalty.
The fully automatic weapons you speak of were grandfathered in after the ban was passed. They will decrease in number and function as time passes. My point is that it is currently unlawful to own modern fully automatic weapons... ask yourself why that is...
And I have been around weapons. I have been around people who open carry. It mostly makes people around uncomfortable and I find that those who open carry do it to feel "powerful". It is also obvious that semiauto weapons are more deadly... they fire faster...
I think your suggestions for psych evals, passing safety courses, etc are actually good ideas in theory but perhaps not practical in practice due to the difficulty of setting them up, cost, and current ease of access to so many weapons. I do think they could be implemented if the buyer must be the one to pay for the evals though it may not hold up in court.
The best way to prevent gun violence is to get weapons off the street. This can be accomplished with bans on the possession and manufacture of certain weapons, ammunition, modifications, etc. Generous buyback programs can be initiated to give people an incentive to turn their weapons in. Programs can work very well as is shown here: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Los-Angeles-Gun-Buyback-Assault-Rifle-184950811.html
In the end an argument cannot be made as to why citizens need to possess semi-automatic weapons for their personal use in everytown usa. We already as a country have banned the ownership of certain weapons for private use (e.g. modern fully automatic guns). The argument of the need for the potential to overthrow the government is not valid.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
duckie99 said:
I'm not a constitutional scholar, but Miller vs U.S. ruled specifically based on their interpretation of a firearm being appropriate for militia service.
As far as gun buy back programs,
PMID 8041845 said:
Who do you think make up the vast majority of people turning firearms in? People with legally owned weapons who don't have interest in owning them anymore and are either
(A) unaware of their actual value (a lady recently tried to trash a firearm worth tens of thousands of dollars - the police at the buy back were nice enough to inform her of the gun's value.. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/world-war-ii-era-german-assault-rifle-_n_2270815.html - that's a real assault weapon by the way 😛),
or
(B) aware of the gun's value, and that value is less than they would get by trading it in (I know of firearm enthusiasts who collect "firearms" that hold little more than the value of scrap metal and make a royal amount of money from buy backs; see this link as an example - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/10/pro-gun-group-uses-chicago-firearms-buyback-program-to-fund-nra-shooting-camp/). They even take every useful part of the firearm off the gun before trading it in.
Even in the link you provided, do you see the firearms that are being held? Old ass hunting rifles. They reduce absolute numbers of firearms, but not firearms used in crime.
At any rate, with extremely conservative estimates of 300 million firearms in the U.S. and a buyback value of 100 dollars, you're looking at 30 billion dollars. That's the budget of the entire marine corps
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 806
I live in SC and also have a concealed weapons permit (CWP). For a CWP in SC I had to take a 2 day course consisting of one classroom day and one day at the range. This should be required for all gun owners. We don't let people drive cars without licenses but yet people can own guns without training?
I agree it is generally unenforceable, but if you made it a felony to not lock up your gun I guarantee 99% of gun owners would do it because it is the law (and nobody wants to commit a felony). That would keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and people who have not passed the psych eval and safety course.
You have to pass a pretty extensive physical/eval to get a pilot's license. Likewise if you work for many government organizations, especially those were you have access to classified info you have to meet their mental health requirements/exams. I think a similar exam could be created for owning a gun. I don't know their protocols regarding appeals and such, but a psych eval isn't a new idea by any means. By in large you rarely hear about FBI agents going on shooting rampages or pilots trying to crash planes (except that one Jet Blue captain). Even if the psych eval cut shooting deaths by 1/3 it is worth it imo.
I don't think any gun should be 'banned' outright. If a gun is in sane, well educated, responsible hands I really think it does more good than bad. Responsible gun owners aren't the problem. The problem in many states, mine included, is you just 'check the box' saying you don't have psych problems and you get a gun same day without ANY safety course or instructions for safe storage. PLUS you can buy ammo w/o a background check....meaning if you somehow get a gun as a criminal, you can easily get unlimited ammo for it.
Finally, the burden of cost should be on the gun owner. A safe + safety course + a psych eval should be around $300. That is a lot of money for some, but the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to bear arms is free.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Your entire arguments are laughable. Frankly they aren't really worth responding to - anyone that has spent any sort of time analyzing gun politics can refute your points pretty easily. People carry to "make themselves feel powerful?" Please.
... way to go bro. Because you have no intelligent response you state merely that the opposing view is laughable. Yeah that's a way to get people to support your view.
Anyway the popular view is for some more regulation. This is a fight you will lose. It's inevitable.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
I think a CCL falls outside of the current interpretation of what's guaranteed under the 2nd amendment, though I may be incorrect here (and would be happy if that's the case).
I think it's a reasonable assumption that risk of a felony would lead to decent compliance. What would you define as a safe, and what would you define as "not currently in use"?
Flying, driving, and working for the government are not constitutionally protected rights.
I'm unfamiliar with the data regarding the efficacy of waiting periods, but I think reasonable waiting periods (say, less than 2 weeks?) are an acceptable measure to take. It would be reasonable to assume a waiting period could reduce crimes of passion (at least, firearms-related crimes of passion) or could give opportunity to take notice of an acute psychotic break/manic episode. I think background checks for ammo aren't worthwhile, however. You can easily make your own ammo from components, it would by orders of magnitude increase the workload of NICS, etc.
Given that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right, how would you feel about a several hundred dollar fee as a prerequisite to vote each election? I also feel you're underestimating significantly the cost of a psychological assessment. Also, since it's a pertinent point that was unanswered, who does the testing and what is their liability?
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 806
Specifically I was thinking they would give you a photo id stating that you have passed the evaluations making you eligible to buy a gun and/or ammo. Not a background check every time you buy ammo.
The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Personally, I don't interpret this as a right to have a gun concealed on your person nor the right to even have a gun in your home.
Guns today aren't for a well regulated militia and don't keep our government 'in check.' The founding fathers didn't use the word gun, they used the word 'arms' to allow leeway for future interpretation imo.
In modern times, I don't view owning a gun as a right. There are no 'well regulated militias' (that I know of). I think gun ownership is a privilege similar to driving a car or flying an airplane.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
I could potentially see that, assuming again that the cost was provided for.
Heller vs DC ruled that an individual does indeed have the right to possess a firearm in the house for self defense. You're entitled to your opinion, but current interpretation differs from that opinion, and cost prohibitive measures for obtaining a firearm would likely be ruled unconstitutional, in the same line as voter disenfranchisement.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
"I" am not going to lose anything. I don't own guns and don't have any interest in owning guns. That doesn't mean I support banning things because they're scary.
Also, it looks to me that the majority of people support the status quo or less regulation with respect to gun rights: http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx. But I understand that actually researching something rather than pulling something out of your ass requires a little more work, so I won't fault you for that.
(sent from my phone)
1. I don't support banning "scary" things. Never did I use that word or imply it in any of my posts. Nice try.
2. Most every poll shows more americans want more regulations when it comes to gun ownership than when it comes to protecting gun ownership rights:
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/poll-gun-control-beats-2nd-amendment-85376.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...ll-gun-control-surge-20121227,0,6224756.story
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2012/12/27/20456841.html
3. The poll you cite is flawed and not only because it is very old. For one gallup was extremely off it how it predicted the presidential race so that should be an indication that perhaps that is not the best source. It is flawed in how it asks the question based on your link. It asks how satisfied someone is with current gun policies. Someone who is "somewhat satisfied" could fall into one of two camps: they are satisfied that the laws don't go too far (gun supporter) or they are satisfied the laws go as far as they do (gun control advocator). You can use this logic for all categories. A better question would be "do you support initiatives for increased gun regulations?" In this case a person who says "no" it is clear they don't want anything else whereas a person who says "yes" is clearly an advocate for more controls.
4. Finally I wouldn't put my faith in polls. Average citizens are not informed on the issues and are easily swayed. The fact is my statements in my previous posts hold.
So instead of actually thinking and doing some research from more than just some old and potentially biased sources (not at their own fault necessarily) you berate posters you don't agree with. And you still haven't responded to my original statements that you said were "laughable". At this point I don't expect an intelligent reply because you have shown yourself to be a lackey for a political thought process (tea party, nra, gop, whatever it may be) spewing the same rhetoric rather than an independent free-thinking person.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
I responded to them.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Let's look at what you wrote:
1) You discredit Gallup - one of the largest and most reputable polling organizations around - and instead use polls from random news organizations? One of which is based in Canada? Lol.
2) The poll is not "very old." The data goes into 2011 - less than two years old. Also, do you not know how trends work? There is a very clear and obvious trend that shows the proportion of people supporting "more strict" regulation going down while people supporting the status quo going up. You claimed that most people support stricter gun regulations. I presented reputable data that directly counters that.
3) You present polls that supposedly support your point and then... say polls aren't useful? Then how about you show some data that backs up your claim that you think is more valid? If you actually think that polls are useless, then you made a claim in your previous post that cannot be proved or disproved. Claims like that are utterly useless and not worth discussing, especially in policy discussions.
4) I didn't respond to your statements because they're a waste of time to respond to (much like the post I'm responding to now). When you say something like people that carry do it to be "more powerful," why on earth would I bother to engage you seriously and attempt to have an actual discussion with you? You've made it clear that you are arguing from a position without seriously considering the opposing view. Had you presented your view and supported it with legitimate data - or really anything other than conjecture or personal opinion - I would've taken you more seriously. However it's obvious that you don't want to engage in serious discussion and instead just want to bicker. I'm not going to waste my time with that. For the record, I do not berate posters I disagree with. I berate posters that make claims that are patently false at worse and dubious at best and then claim they have somehow bested the argument and think the opposing side is clearly absurd. I'm willing to consider respectable and reputable evidence regardless of what it shows. I trust an organization whose sole purpose is to make and execute polls over an organization whose main purpose is to make and sell newspapers that does a little polling on the side. There are many national polling organizations in the US. If you don't like Gallup, then use data from any one of those other organizations. There are also many legitimate reasons to support stricter gun control. You opted to not discuss those and instead used the garbage I mentioned above.
Now run along rather than labeling me as a NRA supporter or Tea Party advocate because you disagree with my opinion (which I am neither). I've also added you to my ignore list so I won't be seeing any more of your posts. Cheers!
(sent from my phone)
well you only responded to one comment about a supreme court case. I did a little research and that's an older case about it not being unconstitutional to ban sawed off shotguns. I do not believe there has been a specific case about whether certain types of weapons can be banned otherwise. I know there was a case in 2008 that said DC cannot ban the ownership of all weapons (handguns in this case) as that is against the second amendment.
Personally I am not against small weapons ownership for personal protection. I just have not heard a reasonable argument as to why an average citizen should be allowed to own any weapon they damn well please. Again, we already have banned weapons that I don't hear any complaints about. Banning semi-auto weapons is not necessarily against the second amendment.
Finally as I said it is irrelevant as to what such legislation would do to crime rates, gun-crime, gun deaths (though presumably it would at the least lower some types of gun-deaths), etc because the ownership of such weapons is unnecessary regardless.
^^also lol at nick. ignoring me at least saves me the effort of typing a reply... though a will say citing a poll that only goes into 2011 (as he did) after all that has happened in 2012 makes his poll totally irrelevant to the current situation of the country. And yes, people open carry to show they have power. It makes them feel powerful. Explain to me another reason. Someone? A reason not based on some delusional paranoia. Ok that's what I thought...
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
Pretty much a tenth of my reply to you was in reference to the Miller supreme court ruling. The rest was in reply to your claims regarding the efficacy of gun buy back programs. I really have no idea how you're missing that part of the reply. Here it is again
Me said:
With regard to Miller, charges were filed against an individual for possession of a sawed off shotgun, which the SC ruled was acceptable, given their opinion that there was no militia-relevant use for a sawed off shotgun (which is frankly not true, but that's beside the point here). Implicit in their ruling is the constitutionally protected ownership of firearms useful for a militia.
To your last point, a ban on semi-automatic firearms would absolutely cripple firearm use for self defense. Beyond that, the argument that semi-automatic firearms are not well within the realm of militia utility would be impossible to make convincingly. Finally, the majority of firearms in the U.S. are semi-automatic. A majority of over 300 MILLION. Good luck with that
oh lol I thought the gun buy back stuff was directed at someone else.
anyway perhaps in this case the gun buy back collected those certain types of weapons. However, that doesn't mean they are not worth doing as at the least it prevents potential accidental gun deaths. Also, most guns used in crime are obtained illegally such as by stealing from those who purchased them legally (e.g newtown). As such removing total firearms should help. Properly marketed and fair gun buy back programs I would predict to be pretty successful overall.
Also your argument for pro-semiauto weapons is based on the fact that you think the citizens of the country have the right to form an armed militia with the intent of government overthrow. To my knowledge I am fairly certain such a militia would be illegal and therefore the banning of weapons for such a use would not be unconstitutional. If it was legal then an armed militia with any ideology could be formed at any time. I do not think that is something you would find to be a good idea. And you are basing your argument on an older SC case while newer ones have refined the definition. Anyway this is the underlying disagreement between you and I it seems. It will take more court cases to settle the dispute though I don't see my opinion losing on this one.
Finally I suggest this article for further reading on gun controls as I personally found it extremely interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
Buyback programs suck, frankly, regardless of your stance on gun control.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730846/pdf/v008p00143.pdf
https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/184245.txt said:
They piss money into the wind.
Also, please provide the updated ruling that modifies Miller in the way you're saying
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 9
No, my argument is based on the common use of semi-automatic weapons (handguns, at any rate), making them constitutionally protected for self defense within the home. See Heller vs DC
That case did not say a person can own any firearm they want. It only said that the person has the right to own a firearm. As such bans on specific firearms can still be enforced and from what I know it is not unconstitutional (i.e. no SC case has said otherwise) to enact such bans.
4
487806
That's actually one of the best and most direct things I heard you say. Nicely done.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,266
- Reaction score
- 806
I am not a lawyer nor a judge, however, how the hell did anyone interpret the 2nd amendment as 'guns for self-protection'. It seems pretty clear it is referring to militias and only mentions 'arms' generically.
I realize the judicial branch is suppose to 'interrupt the laws for us' but gezz that is one hell of a leap from what is actually wrote by the founding fathers.
4
45408
this x 1000
The guy killed himself after all this. He clearly wanted to go down in a blaze of glory/infamy, and he succeeded. Ditto for the other two terrible school shootings - Columbine and Virginia Tech.
In the end...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The Constitution is the law. Its house, its rules.
A $300 fee sounds like $300 of infringement. The 4th Amendment doesn't say "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, as long as they pay a $300 fee."
It's called the Bill of Rights!
If it sounds like I'm harping on the wording here, it's because you guys are just blatantly ignoring it.
