Notice From My Cold Dead Hands...... (4 Viewers)

[Phatguysrule]

Blazers won!

I'm conflicted... We have a stretch of games coming up where we could literally win 11 games in a row... Just in time for Dame to think we have a chance. And he'll come back and push us back into the playoff picture.

Sigh...

 

[Stevenson]

Stevenson doesn't like conflict. He just likes to sit on the sidelines and talk shit. Lol.

Just like how all you want is to just get along and not rase a fuss. It's just that you are always so misunderstood, right? And you wish people really knew that you're just an innocent victim and that you just hate, hate being the center of attention!!

 

[Lanny]

Right. But the vast majority of guns (literally 99.9%) are owned by sane people who don't do that.

The problem is the crazy people, not the gun.

Crazy people can't kill anyone without a gun. What's easier to spot a crazy person in a crowd with a gun or a crazy person with no gun in a crowd?

 

[Orion Bailey]

Just like how all you want is to just get along and not rase a fuss. It's just that you are always so misunderstood, right? And you wish people really knew that you're just an innocent victim and that you just hate, hate being the center of attention!!

Yep!

who is the aggressor here? You or me?

Anyhow, Sly asked us to stop.

So please stop.

 

[Lanny]

We've been over this, though. US violent crime and murder rates have dropped more than either the the UK or Australia since the 90s, when both enacted their sweeping gun control.

Since that time the US has more than doubled the number of guns and let the assault weapons ban expire. The same assault weapons ban that made no statistical difference in violent crime or murder rates, or gun crime.

And Australia now has more guns than they did before...

View attachment 44251

Sources
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate_by_decade

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1

http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=crim_off_cat&lang=en

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/auss...8BCDCF9DCA2578B700119690/$File/45100_2010.pdf

Wikipedia:
“Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Do Australian schools have active shooter drills?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Wikipedia:
“Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.”
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/
Do Australian schools have active shooter drills?

Lanny, the US didn't see the increase for a couple years, and our murder rates have dropped as much or more. This drop is due largely to a culture shift in the west, as well as Western countries giving up on leaded gasoline in the early 80s.

The numbers simply do not support the case you're trying to make regarding guns.

The US is more violent than Europe and Australia. Just like it always has been. And by about the same rates of difference regardless of increased gun control in the latter and increased access to guns in the US.

The difference is due largely to less access to education, healthcare, and social safety net here in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–...sica Wolpaw Reyes,% decline in violent crime".

 

[Phatguysrule]

Crazy people can't kill anyone without a gun. What's easier to spot a crazy person in a crowd with a gun or a crazy person with no gun in a crowd?

Crazy person with a pressure cooker? Crazy person with car? Crazy person with car bomb? Crazy person with explosive vest?

Crazy people with guns still kill people in Europe and Australia. Though, again, there are more crazy and violent people here in the US.

You know the math Lanny. Americans are far more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist with a gun.

More Americans die in animal attacks than from terrorists.

20x more more school children are killed by their parents than by a gun during school.

I understand where your heart is, but you're not being logical. Supporting increasing gun control can only cost Democrats votes. It can't help them.

The numbers don't back up the effectiveness of increased gun control. It is nearly impossible to make much progress with in the US. It's incredibly politically expensive. And there are already too many guns in circulation to make a difference regardless of restrictions.

 

[Hoopguru]

Crazy people can't kill anyone without a gun. What's easier to spot a crazy person in a crowd with a gun or a crazy person with no gun in a crowd?

Whats the solution? outlaw firearms because crazy people could get ahold of one?

 

[andalusian]

Whats the solution? outlaw firearms because crazy people could get ahold of one?

The solution is better control over who gets to get guns and how they are stored and used. Sane people will continue to be able to own them, we filter some of the crazies and save some lives.

The problem is that entitled people are not willing to go through some hurdles to prove they are responsible members of society because of their 'freedom'.

 

[Hoopguru]

The solution is better control over who gets to get guns and how they are stored and used. Sane people will continue to be able to own them, we filter some of the crazies and save some lives.

The problem is that entitled people are not willing to go through some hurdles to prove they are responsible members of society because of their 'freedom'.

Agree.Im all for better control, background checks, registrations required certifications etc.
As a society we don’t seriously address the core issues such as drug abuse and control of illegal drugs entering, alcohol abuse and seems law enforcement has weakened in major metropolitan areas.

 

[jonnyboy]

Sane people will continue to be able to own them, we filter some of the crazies and save some lives.

This is extremely oversimplified. I’m not sure how you think our inept government is going to characterize ‘sane’ while filtering out ‘the crazies’. These are subjective terms that you want to give the most corrupt entity on the face of the earth the power to define. It’s a little short sighted, especially in a completely divided society where one half of the population literally thinks the other half is crazy. Are we all going to swap guns every election?
I’m not sure if or when you’ve ever purchased a firearm, but you don’t just walk in a get one. If you even have a name similar to someone with a non-violent felony, prepare to exchange paperwork with the FBI for MONTHS in order to retain your 2nd amendment right. The FBI, in all their glory, has never heard of a social security number as a means of identifying a US citizen. I had the pleasure of experiencing this loosely regulated, give all the crazies a gun policy last year. I actually said fuck it and gave up, and may pursue again this year.

 

[Phatguysrule]

The solution is better control over who gets to get guns and how they are stored and used. Sane people will continue to be able to own them, we filter some of the crazies and save some lives.

The problem is that entitled people are not willing to go through some hurdles to prove they are responsible members of society because of their 'freedom'.

That's the thing with rights. You get them by default.

You have to do something wrong to lose the right.

I don't have to prove to you that I'm not crazy. The vast majority of people aren't.

However, if you want to mark the ID of every crazy/dangerous person and make checking ID a requirement of every gun purchase I'm fine with that. I think nearly everyone on the right would be fine with that.

 

[andalusian]

That's the thing with rights. You get them by default.

You have to do something wrong to lose the right.

I don't have to prove to you that I'm not crazy. The vast majority of people aren't.

However, if you want to mark the ID of every crazy/dangerous person and make checking ID a requirement of every gun purchase I'm fine with that. I think nearly everyone on the right would be fine with that.

You do not have a right to drive a car without passing a test, registering the car etc...

Should be the same for guns

 

[jonnyboy]

You do not have a right to drive a car without passing a test, registering the car etc...

Should be the same for guns

There is no amendment to the constitution outlining the right to drive a car.

 

[Phatguysrule]

You do not have a right to drive a car without passing a test, registering the car etc...

Should be the same for guns

You don't have a right to drive a car in this country. That is a privilege. We have the right to Firearms written into the constitution and that's not going to change.

You can disagree with that all you want but it doesn't matter. It's a waste of time and effort.

It's just more left vs right BS to get each side riled up with a wedge between them so they donate more money.

Enforcing the ID requirement to transfer possession of firearms would be every bit as effective as any background check, and it would be far less expensive and easier to implement.

And it gets around every argument against background checks by those on the right.

If you can't get behind that kind of compromise you aren't actually interested in keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. You're just interested in the left vs right BS.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Background checks prevent felons and illegals from legally buying guns. If they buy them illegally there are laws for that.

So we can and do have laws for gun ownership.

 

[Phatguysrule]

we can and do have laws for gun ownership.

I don't think anybody is disputing this. Dangerous people can have their freedoms removed.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

The huge drum magazine that carried 40 EXTRA bullets on gun that killed NYC cop was banned in US until 2004 after Stockton School massacre - but is now legal in 41 states

• The magazine Lashawn McNeil, 47, used allowed his gun to carry 40 extra bullets to the usual 10 when he fatally shot Jason Rivera, 22 and injured Wilbert Mora, 27
• It was banned in 2013 after they became legal to use nationwide in 2004 when a federal ban expired
• New York prohibits anything more than that unless you are active law enforcement or military
• Eight other states have banned the magazines, meaning they are still legal in most of the country

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...EXTRA-bullets-gun-killed-cop-banned-2004.html

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I don't think anybody is disputing this.

We have a few current and former members of this forum who believe there should be no laws concerning guns or ownership in this country.

 

[Phatguysrule]

We have a few current and former members of this forum who believe there should be no laws concerning guns or ownership in this country.

Yeah, you're probably right. But they are in the extreme minority nation wide.

I don't think you need a gun law if you only restrict dangerous people.

If you're trying to restrict law abiding citizens I can somewhat see their point.

 

[Lanny]

Lanny, the US didn't see the increase for a couple years, and our murder rates have dropped as much or more. This drop is due largely to a culture shift in the west, as well as Western countries giving up on leaded gasoline in the early 80s.

The numbers simply do not support the case you're trying to make regarding guns.

The US is more violent than Europe and Australia. Just like it always has been. And by about the same rates of difference regardless of increased gun control in the latter and increased access to guns in the US.

The difference is due largely to less access to education, healthcare, and social safety net here in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead–crime_hypothesis#:~:text=Several areas had far greater lead exposure compared to others for years.&text=According to Jessica Wolpaw Reyes,% decline in violent crime".

Our rates have not dropped nearly as much as Australia's and Europe's rates are less than half ours. Europe's rates have been a lot less than ours because they've had gun control a lot longer than we have.

 

[Lanny]

There is no amendment to the constitution outlining the right to drive a car.

Our amendment pertains to controlling slaves.
No amount of gun ownership is going to overwhelm our government's ability to direct our military and law enforcement against any insurrection.

 

[Lanny]

We have a few current and former members of this forum who believe there should be no laws concerning guns or ownership in this country.

Ever the politician in you. Bravo.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Our rates have not dropped nearly as much as Australia's and Europe's rates are less than half ours. Europe's rates have been a lot less than ours because they've had gun control a lot longer than we have.

Our rates have dropped as much or more than both. I posted the chart above, along with sources.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Our amendment pertains to controlling slaves.
No amount of gun ownership is going to overwhelm our government's ability to direct our military and law enforcement against any insurrection.

The ammendment says nothing about slaves. But it does give the descendants of slaves the same rights as the rest of us.

 

[Lanny]

Our rates have dropped as much or more than both. I posted the chart above, along with sources.

I've got my own credible source. Didn't look at yours because of my respected source and yours doesn't make sense. I've also got many more highly credible sources.
I think we're going round and round and getting nowhere.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I've got my own credible source. Didn't look at yours because of my respected source and yours doesn't make sense. I've also got many more highly credible sources.
I think we're going round and round and getting nowhere.

I've not seen your source. I've shared my sources many times, as they are the governments official numbers for each respective country.

Yeah. If you insist that strict gun control should be enacted yet can't supply actual evidence of gun control cutting violent crime or murder rates then we'll just go round and round.

I've never seen any evidence of gun control which actually did that. Hence strict gun control is just an unnecessary and expensive restriction on our constitutional rights.

 

[Lanny]

I've not seen your source. I've shared my sources many times, as they are the governments official numbers for each respective country.

Yeah. If you insist that strict gun control should be enacted yet can't supply actual evidence of gun control cutting violent crime or murder rates then we'll just go round and round.

I've never seen any evidence of gun control which actually did that. Hence strict gun control is just an unnecessary and expensive restriction on our constitutional rights.

I'd have to dig up my sources and that's just not worth my time. I'm sick and tired of how many times this has gone back and forth and back and forth. And I already shared one of my sources.
Now I'd like to skip to something productive since you are absolutely are not going to change your mind no matter what and I'm sure as hell not going to change mine no matter what.
Let's drop it, okay?

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'd have to dig up my sources and that's just not worth my time. I'm sick and tired of how many times this has gone back and forth and back and forth. And I already shared one of my sources.
Now I'd like to skip to something productive since you are absolutely are not going to change your mind no matter what and I'm sure as hell not going to change mine no matter what.
Let's drop it, okay?

If you aren't interested in the conversation I would suggest not wading into it in the first place.

Otherwise it appears you're questioning the validity of my sources and or my motivation for my statements. That you refuse to share sources makes me question your motives and sources.

I point this out because it is very typical of the "anti gun" people to do what you just have without being able to support the idea that gun control is a net positive.

So it just comes off as more political left vs right BS. Which is frustrating.

I don't think asking people to support why they feel every American should have their rights restricted is asking too much.

I don't mean to offend you, but it is disappointing... And again, it's not just you who does it.

 

[Lanny]

If you aren't interested in the conversation I would suggest not wading into it in the first place.

Otherwise it appears you're questioning the validity of my sources and or my motivation for my statements. That you refuse to share sources makes me question your motives and sources.

I point this out because it is very typical of the "anti gun" people to do what you just have without being able to support the idea that gun control is a net positive.

So it just comes off as more political left vs right BS. Which is frustrating.

I don't think asking people to support why they feel every American should have their rights restricted is asking too much.

I don't mean to offend you, but it is disappointing... And again, it's not just you who does it.

This is a mere blip in an ocean of good will. Also, i rewpond positively to whatever posts I agree with no matter who they come from. And before anyone asks it, yes, even Maris. You? I like about 99.999 . . .% of your posts.