Florida School Shooting

[Adrift]

But it coincides with a primary liberal goal.

What liberal goal of mine does it coincide with?

[Mountain Man]

I've maintained from the start that guns aren't THE problem. They're part of the problem. Which is precisely why I'm for multi-pronged solutions in dealing with the problem.

And by "multi-pronged solution", you of course mean "First, we ban guns..."

[Jedidiah]

It's not a refutation at all. Why would anyone think that guns make people more criminal? If that's honestly what you all think is the gun control view, then no wonder there's so much miscommunication about the subject. The argument is, again, that violence committed with guns is more lethal.

Read my post again. I never made such a suggestion. I said, in effect, since you know that that access to guns does not make people criminal, then there is no point of trying to limit guns.

[Adrift]

And by "multi-pronged solution", you of course mean "First, we ban guns..."

Not necessarily, but that's certainly among the solutions.

[Adrift]

Read my post again. I never made such a suggestion. I said, in effect, since you know that that access to guns does not make people criminal, then there is no point of trying to limit guns.

There must be some sort of mixed wires or something because I've read your post several times, and you seem to be saying the exact same thing here. Making people criminals is never the reason I was for gun control in the first place. I'm for gun control because guns are incredibly lethal, and I believe those who are criminals, or those who would be criminal, will be prevented easy access to such lethal force. I'm also for gun control so that suicides and home accidents are reduced. Most of this I've repeated probably a couple dozen times now.

[Littlejoe]

First off, I'd like to say this thread is progressing much faster than I can keep up since I have limited time and resources to respond at work during the day...so, please don't be surprised if this is my last response to you.

Huh? I did explain my reasoning. The US, like other 1st world nations have the wealth, resources, and transparency to carry out something like gun control. Incredibly poor, and corrupt nations likes Mexico and Jamaica do not. I can't help but feel that you're putting me on, that you understand this as well, but you're pretending not to. But if you sincerely feel that the reason I offer is not reasoning, or if you really do deem it prejudism and cherry picking, then I don't know what more I can say. You will have to go away thinking I'm unreasonable, and prejudiced I suppose.

Ok, gotcha. On the one hand, you may be right that the US might possibly be able to carry out some semblance of gun control...but many on your side decry the "corruption" of our politicians that "take all that money from the NRA and do nothing"...so, you can't have it both ways here. Secondly, if's a bit ironic IMO that you can't see how prejudicial your statements are. Therefore, yes, we're pretty far apart on this view and I do not see any way to reconcile it.

Gun control advocates are aware of this, and also think it's bad. Gun control advocates don't only advocate when no mass shootings go on, but when a mass shooting happens, it's natural for these issues to come to the forefront for the Joe on the street. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

My point is it's the mass shootings that bring out the cries for gun control when the number of people killed by them is infinitesimal to the overall total...that's my only point in bringing it up.

No, I definitely saw that and addressed it,

Yes you did. My mistake.

here, I'll repeat what I wrote, "And why are you including both injured and dead? That sounds like you're purposely attempting to balloon up numbers."

Let me get this right...a gun rights advocate intentionally blowing UP casuality numbers to make a point? Ok, seriously? I guess I didn't realize your ONLY concern was gun deaths, and so, I was trying to make a point about the "civilized" country of France with it's strict gun laws suffering more casualities than in the US. I'll continue this below.

I am going by 4 minimum dead. I can list the tragedies for you if you'd like (it'll take a bit), but they're in the middle of the page I linked. Again, why are you selectively choosing just the Obama administration to make your point? The Paris terrorist attack alone that included both mass shooting AND suicide bombs counts for the majority of dead and wounded in France's 6 attacks during Obama's administration. You might as well compare that one attack to the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers. And still, America saw more dead during Obama's administration due to mass shootings.

Why pick the Obama administration? Well, there's no nefarious reason, it's a well defined period and is the most recent, and pretty much all of the numbers have come in so as to be pretty accurate. Why does it bother you so much? Isn't ANY time frame chosen arbitrary? If you say, why not go back 10 years (instead of 8), or 20 years...I might counter, well lets go back 200 years...I'm seriously puzzled why you have a thing about the time frame.


Yes, if you only counts deaths you are correct. To further address the charge of why use injuries and deaths instead of just deaths...the answer for that is that I saw the totals for both countries to be within 10 or 20 people(?) of each other. And it seemed to me that it was strange that with roughly the same number of people were hit by gunfire that more of them died in the US. Was that coincidence, better medical care, pure luck? Poorer marksmanship? THAT'S why I was using both figures. It seems to me to be pure luck that with the same number of total casualties that less people died in France. Does that adequately explain why I included both now?

[Psychic Missile]

Were things worse during say the Great Depression?

The Great Depression is a different circumstance than what I was imagining, which was impoverished communities, especially those with drug problems.

[Adrift]

First off, I'd like to say this thread is progressing much faster than I can keep up since I have limited time and resources to respond at work during the day...so, please don't be surprised if this is my last response to you.

Ok, gotcha. On the one hand, you may be right that the US might possibly be able to carry out some semblance of gun control...but many on your side decry the "corruption" of our politicians that "take all that money from the NRA and do nothing"...so, you can't have it both ways here. Secondly, if's a bit ironic IMO that you can't see how prejudicial your statements are. Therefore, yes, we're pretty far apart on this view and I do not see any way to reconcile it.

The good thing about not having a side is that I don't really have to worry about what other people say. Also, I don't see how it could be ironic that my view is prejudicial even if it were the case. Where exactly is the irony? But I'm also not too worried about people thinking it's prejudicial to point out that Jamaica is, in fact, poor, corrupt, and lacking in resources. Do you doubt that these things are true, especially compared to most first world nations?

My point is it's the mass shootings that bring out the cries for gun control when the number of people killed by them is infinitesimal to the overall total...that's my only point in bringing it up.

Ok, well to put your mind at ease, I believe in gun control regardless of whether or not there are mass shootings.

Yes you did. My mistake.

No problem.

Let me get this right...a gun rights advocate intentionally blowing UP casuality numbers to make a point?

Of course? Why wouldn't they, as long as it paints a picture that other places with stricter gun control laws are worse off than the US.

Why pick the Obama administration? Well, there's no nefarious reason, it's a well defined period and is the most recent, and pretty much all of the numbers have come in so as to be pretty accurate. Why does it bother you so much?

Isn't ANY time frame chosen arbitrary? If you say, why not go back 10 years (instead of 8), or 20 years...I might counter, well lets go back 200 years...I'm seriously puzzled why you have a thing about the time frame.

Because it just happens to coincide with the most deadliest attack in France since WWII. Wherever you got your source knew exactly what he was doing. This might be a convincing strategy to you, or you may think it not a big deal. You're welcome to that belief. I'm not so convinced.

Yes, if you only counts deaths you are correct. To further address the charge of why use injuries and deaths instead of just deaths...the answer for that is that I saw the totals for both countries to be within 10 or 20 people(?) of each other. And it seemed to me that it was strange that with roughly the same number of people were hit by gunfire that more of them died in the US. Was that coincidence, better medical care, pure luck? Poorer marksmanship? THAT'S why I was using both figures. It seems to me to be pure luck that with the same number of total casualties that less people died in France. Does that adequately explain why I included both now?

As we've seen, the numbers don't appear to be very accurate, and they're fudged to take advantage of a peculiar event in France's history. Again, this might be convincing for you...not so much for me.

[Mountain Man]

Source: Survey: Americans Blame School Shooting on Government, Not Guns

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey shows that Americans blame government rather than guns for the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.

According to Rasmussen, 54% of Americans believe government failure is to “blame for the mass shooting.” Only 33% of Americans blame guns. Eleven percent of Americans say they are unsure what contributed to the occurrence of the mass shooting.

When the sample group was adjusted so as to focus only on Americans “who have children of elementary or secondary school age,” the percentage of Americans who cite government failure as causal jumped to 61 and the percentage who blamed guns dropped to 23.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ment-not-guns/

© Copyright Original Source

[guacamole]

I see where you're headed, it's the old "the Founding Fathers never could have dreamed of today's technologically advanced weapons when they wrote the Second Amendment, so it should be assumed to only apply to muskets and flintlock pistols" chestnut. That would be as silly as saying, "The Founding Fathers never dreamed of something as technologically advanced as the Internet when they wrote the First Amendment, so it should be assumed to only apply to newspapers and books."

But the answer to your question "Exactly which firearms are covered by the second amendment?" is, of course, all of them.

No. I'm arguing that you can legal ban certain classes of firearms without infringing on the right to bear arms. Nothing modern vs. antique about it.

[TheWall]

No. I'm arguing that you can legal ban certain classes of firearms without infringing on the right to bear arms. Nothing modern vs. antique about it.

Which class though?
Almost every gun is a semi automatic.

If you do callibur bans most guns are not cassull, but .38 or nine millemeter.

To me taking away things like that is not going to do anything except make people upset.

[Littlejoe]

The good thing about not having a side is that I don't really have to worry about what other people say. Also, I don't see how it could be ironic that my view is prejudicial even if it were the case. Where exactly is the irony? But I'm also not too worried about people thinking it's prejudicial to point out that Jamaica is, in fact, poor, corrupt, and lacking in resources. Do you doubt that these things are true, especially compared to most first world nations?




Ok, well to put your mind at ease, I believe in gun control regardless of whether or not there are mass shootings.




No problem.




Of course? Why wouldn't they, as long as it paints a picture that other places with stricter gun control laws are worse off than the US.



Because it just happens to coincide with the most deadliest attack in France since WWII. Wherever you got your source knew exactly what he was doing. This might be a convincing strategy to you, or you may think it not a big deal. You're welcome to that belief. I'm not so convinced.



As we've seen, the numbers don't appear to be very accurate, and they're fudged to take advantage of a peculiar event in France's history. Again, this might be convincing for you...not so much for me.

No, we haven't seen that the numbers are inaccurate. Your numbers were only dead not both. That's simply a bait and switch on your part...And I'm not a bit surprised you basically hand wave away my points. Thanks for the discussion. Have a good one.

[guacamole]

Which class though?
Almost every gun is a semi automatic.

If you do callibur bans most guns are not cassull, but .38 or nine millemeter.

So every gun isn't a semi-automatic then?

To me taking away things like that is not going to do anything except make people upset.

That's okay. We can ruffle some feathers.

[Cow Poke]

So every gun isn't a semi-automatic then?

Revolvers are not. The case was made elsewhere on Tweb that, for all practical purposes, you can 'rapid fire' most any gun, so.... But, technically, a semi-auto is one where you can fire as many rounds as quickly as you can pull the trigger and ammunition is available to the weapon.

That's okay. We can ruffle some feathers.

If people on both sides aren't unhappy, it's not compromise*.




*a slight exaggeration, perhaps, but hopefully you get the point.

[TheWall]

What I mean by upset is an understatement. It would go like this.

Government- Sir your ruger mini 14 is now illegal.
Person- Are your armed guards illegal?
Government- Sir give us the gun.
Person- See that have an flag? Get out of here you tyrannical pinko.