Gun Control

[It'sNotAFakeID]

What you posted provides no causality whatsoever.

But it made my point that more guns don't equal more crime, and more gun laws will not equal less crime. Let's not focus on the minutiae in order to avoid confronting the obvious here, okay?

A population of educated gun owners, licensed to conceal carry meaning they're probably your average human being, are at the world's largest gun show and there's no deaths. And that somehow makes the point that more guns don't equal more violence? Are you f'ing serious?

Here's the one thing I'll give the pro-gun side: yes, any legislation that might be passed will make getting a gun a little more difficult. There's no way around that. I'm sure a majority of gun owners are educated gun owners. But it's not the educated gun owners that are going to clubs, schools, etc and killing people. If we can make acquiring guns a little more difficult for that fringe percent of people thinking of carrying out a mass shooting, isn't that worth it? Are the lives of those lost and the families of those lost not worth taking action to stop these senseless tragedies?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Just to be clear, Moiraine, you want the CDC to spend money to do studies that you now say has already been done by others. Is that correct?

As for the "No fly, no buy" idea, we could hire the disgraced former head of the IRS, Lois Lerner, to administrate it She would bebringing the same lack of ethics and political debauchery to her new job as she did to the IRS checking nonprofit status of conservative groups, right?

What point are you trying to make?

Obviously any criteria we should use for any gun control legislation passed should be based on theoretically driven criteria.

 

[TAKODA]

SOME Criminals will get their guns no matter what changes are made to prevent the legal acquisition of guns through the system.

fixed this for you

My bad, thanks +1

 

[QMany]

[No message]

 

[Enhance]

Just to be clear, Moiraine, you want the CDC to spend money to do studies that you now say has already been done by others. Is that correct?

As for the "No fly, no buy" idea, we could hire the disgraced former head of the IRS, Lois Lerner, to administrate it She would bebringing the same lack of ethics and political debauchery to her new job as she did to the IRS checking nonprofit status of conservative groups, right?

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do.

So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives?

 

[zoogs]

Bowfin, it's really not hard to google answers to your questions. "Why do people feel the CDC is most equipped to do this sort of research" and "Why the current state of gun violence research is hamstrung without the CDC". This is not unknowable information.

You could try to argue that the CDC shouldn't research gun violence. Or that gun violence research is not being impeded by lack of CDC involvement. You could even insist that Republicans aren't behind Congress stiffing the CDC on research funding. But then you'd have to support those positions (which might be hard to do, but do go for it) instead of this bizarre "I don't know the answer to this question, and I don't care to know, therefore my opinion" tactic; is that so hard?

I mean, let's just get right to it. In your view, it's fine that the CDC doesn't research gun violence. And it's fine that the NRA and the Republicans support this. No? ...

 

[huskerfan2000]

lol nope

Oh my heavens, what will I ever do.. A poster is ignoring my posts. I have lost the will to go on!

 

[huskerfan2000]

Just to be clear, Moiraine, you want the CDC to spend money to do studies that you now say has already been done by others. Is that correct?

As for the "No fly, no buy" idea, we could hire the disgraced former head of the IRS, Lois Lerner, to administrate it She would bebringing the same lack of ethics and political debauchery to her new job as she did to the IRS checking nonprofit status of conservative groups, right?

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do.

So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives?

100% a lie, but don't let that stop you! AND if you want to live in those countries, move to them. The countries that have less than us also have less freedoms than us.

 

[TAKODA]

lol nope

Oh my heavens, what will I ever do.. A poster is ignoring my posts. I have lost the will to go on!

Huskerfan, really? We are talking about gun issues and you make this comment. Please do not inflate (add too) the national statistics regarding suicide and guns. If you need someone to intervene, please reach out to a mental health expert!

 

[NM11046]

Just to be clear, Moiraine, you want the CDC to spend money to do studies that you now say has already been done by others. Is that correct?

As for the "No fly, no buy" idea, we could hire the disgraced former head of the IRS, Lois Lerner, to administrate it She would bebringing the same lack of ethics and political debauchery to her new job as she did to the IRS checking nonprofit status of conservative groups, right?

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do.

So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives?

100% a lie, but don't let that stop you! AND if you want to live in those countries, move to them. The countries that have less than us also have less freedoms than us.

Please explain what freedoms Australia, England and others are missing that we have.

 

[huskerfan2000]

You're almost up there with the guy who thinks abortion causes gun violence.

...and you (and a couple of others here) are a predisposed victim hoping that if we disarm everybody else you can hide in a sea of other victims in waiting and that would be fair. As it is now, you are voluntarily abrogating your right and duty to self defense for you and for those around you, and that no doubt impacts your self esteem and gives you a little twinge of guilt that you don't have the courage or won't make the effort to protect yourself and others.

There, enough for one night. We all have something to think about and I am sure my opinions and ideas will be valued at the same level as I hold those of the dissenting side of the debate.

The hilarious thing about this reply is you're projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I value some people's opinions on both sides of the argument, but I don't value yours because you make crap up and then state it as fact, over and over.

That being said, assuming I decided to not own a gun, what you said is not logical. Let's say you're standing in a crowd of 100 people and you know 1 person has to get killed by an attacker with a gun. In that case what you've said is fine. You're hoping you're lucky or that someone has a gun they can use to kill the attacker. That's not reality though. Reality is that we're not under constant attack by guns. Most people don't need them. Not because they're letting someone else save them but because they'll never been in a situation where anyone near them needs to have a gun.

Also, contrary to what you've posted, most people who want regulation just simply want it to be harder to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to own guns themselves. I don't even necessarily believe in what those politicians are fighting for. I think some of it's been said here already (but you clearly haven't read any of the thread considering what you think my stance to be) but there are problems with not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns. Off the top of my head - it lets them know they're on the terror watch list. Kind of hard to get intelligence on someone once they've figured that out.

To the first bold - This whole thread is about opinions, even what I have stated and more importantly everything you just said. There are no facts that more gun control would do anything at all, but that doesn't stop the forum dems/libs from thinking it must be done, infringement be damned!

To the second bold - I would love to see your numbers on "most people", or are you talking about just in this thread.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks

The following article lists several polls and other points.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/

lol, some of the most liberal sites suggest 92% want more gun control. Flat out LIE!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/11/02/Gallup-Most-Americans-do-not-support-gun-control/5291414975282/

This one says it is a lie, and I can find more!

 

[huskerfan2000]

lol nope

Oh my heavens, what will I ever do.. A poster is ignoring my posts. I have lost the will to go on!

Huskerfan, really? We are talking about gun issues and you make this comment. Please do not inflate (add too) the national statistics regarding suicide and guns. If you need someone to intervene, please reach out to a mental health expert!

We are not talking about gun issues, we are talking about gun control! In case you didn't realize, it was a joke, as in I couldn't care less if someone has me on ignore!

 

[zoogs]

Please stop derailing this thread with your raving non-posts.

 

[huskerfan2000]

Just to be clear, Moiraine, you want the CDC to spend money to do studies that you now say has already been done by others. Is that correct?

As for the "No fly, no buy" idea, we could hire the disgraced former head of the IRS, Lois Lerner, to administrate it She would bebringing the same lack of ethics and political debauchery to her new job as she did to the IRS checking nonprofit status of conservative groups, right?

A little earlier in this thread, you suggested one or some of us are focusing on the minutiae of gun violence. However, you have yet to address the biggest elephant in the room, much like huskerfan2000 and much like pro gun supporters nationally. More than 6, 300 Americans have died due to gun violence this year. That number will likely more than double by the end of the year. Our gun violence rates - nationally - dwarf every single other developed country out there, countries who battle the same mental health problems we do.

So, for the second time, I'll ask a simple question - what is your solution to saving lives?

100% a lie, but don't let that stop you! AND if you want to live in those countries, move to them. The countries that have less than us also have less freedoms than us.

Please explain what freedoms Australia, England and others are missing that we have.

Are you serious with his question?

 

[huskerfan2000]

You're almost up there with the guy who thinks abortion causes gun violence.

...and you (and a couple of others here) are a predisposed victim hoping that if we disarm everybody else you can hide in a sea of other victims in waiting and that would be fair. As it is now, you are voluntarily abrogating your right and duty to self defense for you and for those around you, and that no doubt impacts your self esteem and gives you a little twinge of guilt that you don't have the courage or won't make the effort to protect yourself and others.

There, enough for one night. We all have something to think about and I am sure my opinions and ideas will be valued at the same level as I hold those of the dissenting side of the debate.

The hilarious thing about this reply is you're projecting a bunch of opinions onto me that I don't have. I value some people's opinions on both sides of the argument, but I don't value yours because you make crap up and then state it as fact, over and over.

That being said, assuming I decided to not own a gun, what you said is not logical. Let's say you're standing in a crowd of 100 people and you know 1 person has to get killed by an attacker with a gun. In that case what you've said is fine. You're hoping you're lucky or that someone has a gun they can use to kill the attacker. That's not reality though. Reality is that we're not under constant attack by guns. Most people don't need them. Not because they're letting someone else save them but because they'll never been in a situation where anyone near them needs to have a gun.

Also, contrary to what you've posted, most people who want regulation just simply want it to be harder to get them. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to own guns themselves. I don't even necessarily believe in what those politicians are fighting for. I think some of it's been said here already (but you clearly haven't read any of the thread considering what you think my stance to be) but there are problems with not allowing people on the terror watch list to buy guns. Off the top of my head - it lets them know they're on the terror watch list. Kind of hard to get intelligence on someone once they've figured that out.

To the first bold - This whole thread is about opinions, even what I have stated and more importantly everything you just said. There are no facts that more gun control would do anything at all, but that doesn't stop the forum dems/libs from thinking it must be done, infringement be damned!

To the second bold - I would love to see your numbers on "most people", or are you talking about just in this thread.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks

The following article lists several polls and other points.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/jan/05/laura-ingraham/laura-ingraham-say-claim-90-support-gun-background/

lol, some of the most liberal sites suggest 92% want more gun control. Flat out LIE!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/11/02/Gallup-Most-Americans-do-not-support-gun-control/5291414975282/

This one says it is a lie, and I can find more!

here is another one..

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/cnn-most-americans-dont-want-more-gun-control-laws/