Yep, there is no such thing as a "law abiding gun owning citizen", it's something that's made up by the NRA. No one is perfect, and kids often know a LOT more than parents believe, such as the location they hide their gun, the combo to the safe, etc. Kids are curious too. We have to realize humans are not infallible and put in reasonable controls.
Gun Control
not all households with guns are also households with kids. just sayin'.
growing up, my dad had (at minimum) a shotgun and a rifle (increased over the years). He stored them with a trigger lock and unloaded, but not in a safe. The bullets were kept locked up though. Then again, I also went through hunter safety training when i was 12 so I could get a jr hunting license. Much of it was focused on gun safety.
Double fixed. There should be 5 or 10 year road tests for people to prove that they can actually drive. Then you aren't segregating old people, and if you ****ing suck at driving, you'll get weeded out.
I've passed far too many texters and weavers to think that only old people are at risk. It's usually the 40 year old white ladies that are the most angry and aggressive/dangerous.
Also, the car analogy is bad because most states require safety inspections, registrations, and have certain limitations on what you can do to a car to prevent hazardous and unsafe vehicles from being on the road. If assault rifles are deemed unsafe, you have no argument. Just because I want to cover my car in spikes doesn't mean I can nor have the right to.
Well, I take it back. RIP Cliff St.Martin, Visalias first homicide of the year.
Hell of a football player.http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20130121/NEWS01/130121003/Man-dead-first-homicide-year-Visalia
that's kind of my point. i don't think banning them is the right solution. i think for certain classes of guns (like say, high powered rifles ie a .50 cal rifle), there should be more stringent rules than for say, a muzzleloader.
but more importantly, regulating guns doesn't solve the underlying issues - ie the violence that is inherent in our species. improving access to mental health care for those who need it should be priority #1. but that would mean taking it out from behind a pay wall. and the last time fox news told me, that was socialist.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/01/nopd_4_people_shot_in_central.html
- mass shooting of 5 kids
- they were black males
- ergo: nothing to see here, MSM; move along
i wonder if obama will harken back to the trope "if i had a son..." to crackdown
- mass shooting of 5 kids
- they were black males
- ergo: nothing to see here, MSM; move along
i wonder if obama will harken back to the trope "if i had a son..." to crackdown
Seriously that's one hippie claim (that they shouldn't be) that pissess me off. A near blind old man ran over and killed my grandfather 10 years ago. He didn't even noticed a 100kg man has hit his windshield. Of course he knew the prosecutor so he got his drivers license a week later...
I don't think it's a species problem as much. It may sound like leftist propaganda ( I don't like old euro socialism) but all countries that experiemented with neo liberal economy have large areas where you are not safe and can loose your life or end up in a hospital because of income inequality. On the other side I can't imagine there are many places in continental yurp where you should never go because the chances of you getting shot or stabbed are very high. Yes there are some worse districts but they are much smaller and not nearly as dangerous.
Last edited:
My point was more to the effect that people have been killing each other since before written history. Guns are just another way to do it.
I dunno if it's so much a species problem per se. As Norbar points out, you can find dangerous area's/people pretty much any where, but the extreme level of violence and/or idiocy were talking about here surrounding "gun culture" seems to be uniquely American. How one goes about fixing, or even identifying it's cause is beyond me. In all honesty I've kind of quit paying attention to the argument. Much like the abortion issue, I'm pretty sure the issue has ground to a halt in so far that either side is going to make any progress against the other.
lupe fiasco played the angry son part yesterday....
regardless of the exact details, its a matter of taking a step back and looking at the big picture. people being violent to one another is nothing new.
the bolded part serves to prove my point better than yours. in that there's violence and violent people in all cultures. think of it like doing an RCA (root cause analysis) [edit] This does beg the question, do we have more violence because we have more guns / better access to guns? or does the violence that would occur anyways become more extreme becuase of more guns / better access? how do things like education (where we're notably low in general) and the media factor in? [/edit]
Last edited:
ftfy1
so do atomic bombs... but no one is complaing about lack of access to those.
we can add all sorts of other things to the list of "ways to kill lots of people with great efficiency"
I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that as Americans, gun violence, in all it's forms, seems to be the only thing America is still #1 at. I think the "solution" is to identify why. It seems to me to be a Freuddian Id issue more than anything.
don't get me wrong, i'm very pro gun and i'm also very pro gun control - REASONABLE gun control, but regulating guns isn't going to resolve the underlying causes of violent acts.
Easy access to more efficient weapons doesn't make cultures safer but it does make violent crime far more frequent. The UK has a lot of crime but knives and other less effective options don't work as well as uncommon guns. Their violent crime rate would have to increase over five fold to come on par with the US.
source?
again, source?
the UK also has a 10pm last call which in turns creates tons of binge drinking. or are they just raging alcoholics to begin with?
I've already posted the numerous peer reviewed metastudies on gun control from Harvard several times in this thread.
Again: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/
I also posted national violent crime rates, but I don't have the time to dig that up but few come close. We are more on par with the third world than developed nations. People have a greater right to enjoy first world living conditions than free access to guns which have zero relevance to freedom in a modern nation.
Last edited:
I know, right? Because building an atomic bomb is so simple...
I've got one.
Pssshhh! That's nothing! I've got the neutron bomb!
In all seriousness, why is no one bringing up the machine gun ban from BITD, post all the assassinations as an "issue"? Or is that just a point that most gun users silently concede? It seems that given the evolution of weapons & technology, semi's could be close to the use of ease of use that machine guns had back in the late 60's?
In all seriousness, why is no one bringing up the machine gun ban from BITD, post all the assassinations as an "issue"? Or is that just a point that most gun users silently concede? It seems that given the evolution of weapons & technology, semi's could be close to the use of ease of use that machine guns had back in the late 60's?
Last edited:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/01/18/169526687/the-decades-old-gun-ban-thats-still-on-the-books
Also of note, the NRA's own admittance of it's unwillingness to compromise.
Reminder, Norway still has far less violent crime than the US...
http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/
Last edited:
b/c they have less americans than we do, duh
they also have a troll problem
Its also easy for drunks to circumvent regulations on driving and public intoxication. I guess that means we should repeal those laws.
But they are socialists which causes them to lose ambition.
no, just means we should have alcohol consumption permitted only if licensed to consume. in no time, we'll all have costanza sized wallets.
in fact, driving while impaired shouldn't necessarily be illegal, but should affect how viable a car is for operation. should start off w/ a substance-correlated governor & have an on* system that will disable the vehicle & send it to the breakdown lane when other cars are within 5 seconds distance. the real deterrent comes not from incessant pulling over, but from numerous 'check mate' scenarios w/ other impaired drivers.
we could just make drunk driving mandatory
revise my prev post to include race conditions (not checkmate), as well as earned credits toward impaired driving forgiveness, obviously to be rated purely upon demographic data, legitimacy of which has been verified through almost a century of data.
done & done.
done & done.
the only thing that can stop a sober driver is a drunk driver
There are various dry counties and areas in the West and Alaska, the illegal sales aren't making people rich.
the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence