It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[CrusaderFrank]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

 

[Ernie S.]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

PLEASE turn your rep back on!

 

[Goodoledays]

Looks like Lakhota is making an ash of himself. Again.

What can you expect when one has been brainwashed by their nitwit leader.

 

[Stephanie]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

PLEASE turn your rep back on!

He's a chicken shit troll..they post crap and call others here names

He should be reprimanded for it, makes this board look bad

 

[nodoginnafight]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

When it comes to the Constitution there is no such thing as "Compromise" and "Consensus".

Sure there is. Even the original Constitution was built on compromise and consensus.

Agreed.
So get your two-thirds together and start compromising.

 

[DiamondDave]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

I do not compromise on constitutional rights.. even if the consensus wants to do away with them with the sweep of a legislative or executive pen... You wanna change it.. get the amendment done in the proper way... Good luck though, it ain't gonna happen

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no compromise with criminals.

 

[nitroz]

Tobacco was not protected by the 2nd amendment of the constitution.

 

[tresbigdog]

By Dennis A. Henigan

The American people can overcome the gun lobby, but only if we confront, and expose, three myths that have long dominated the gun debate and given the politicians a ready excuse for inaction.

First, we must not let the opponents of reform get away with the empty bromide that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Does any rational person really believe that the Sandy Hook killer could have murdered twenty-seven people in minutes with a knife or a baseball bat? Guns enable people to kill, more effectively and efficiently than any other widely available weapon.

Second, we must challenge the idea that no law can prevent violent people from getting guns. This canard is refuted by the experience of every other western industrialized nation. Their violent crime rates are comparable to ours. But their homicide rates are exponentially lower because their strong gun laws make it harder for violent individuals to get guns.

Third, we must not accept the notion that our Constitution condemns us to the continued slaughter of our children. It is true that the Supreme Court has expanded gun rights in recent years; it is equally true that the Court has insisted that the right allows for reasonable restrictions. In his opinion in the Heller Second Amendment case, Justice Scalia listed restrictions on "dangerous and unusual weapons" among the kinds of gun laws that are still "presumptively lawful." Assault weapons that fire scores of rounds without reloading surely are "dangerous and unusual."

The tobacco control movement overcame some equally powerful mythology to fundamentally alter American attitudes toward tobacco products. The tobacco industry's effort to sow confusion and uncertainty about the link between smoking and disease eventually was exposed as a fraud. The entrenched view that smoking was simply a bad habit that individuals can choose to break was destroyed by evidence that the tobacco companies knew that nicotine was powerfully addictive and engineered their cigarettes to ensure that people got hooked and stayed hooked. The assumption that smoking harms only the smoker was contradicted by the overwhelming evidence of the danger of second-hand smoke.

Once these myths were exposed, attitudes changed, policies changed and we started saving countless lives. Since youth smoking peaked in the mid-1990s, smoking rates have fallen by about three-fourths among 8th graders, two-thirds among 10th graders and half among 12th graders. A sea change has occurred on the tobacco issue.

Similarly fundamental change can come to the gun issue as well. The myths about gun control, however, still have a hold on too many of our political leaders and their constituents. We will hear them repeated again and again in the coming weeks of intense debate. Every time we hear them, we must respond and we must persuade.

There is too much at stake to be silent.

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco
There is one for firearms

the Constitution was also created with the intent on making changes to it as we as a society progress (or in some cases, regress) Guns in the 1700s were nowhere near as deadly as they are now

Nobody is saying you cant have guns, just certain ones

 

[Duped]

A strong malitia means arms eqilibrium!

 

[syrenn]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

PLEASE turn your rep back on!

He's a chicken shit troll..they post crap and call others here names

He should be reprimanded for it, makes this board look bad

Its a lunatic hypocrite.

It wants to post its drivil... but yet whines about others. It wants to flame....but not take flames...

its rather funny.

 

[Stephanie]

Comrade Lakhota would be the first in line to get his brown shit and jack boots for the Government..

and he claims to be a Indian...they FOUGHT for their freedoms to the death

 

[mikegriffith1]

Mexico has very rigid gun laws, including a ban on assault rifles. We all know how easy it is for criminals in Mexico to obtain rifles of all kinds.

The Soviet Union, with one of the most massive police states in history, could not keep criminals from getting guns. So the only people who were defenseless were ordinary citizens.

Why should we deny law-abiding citizens the right to own guns for self-defense because of the actions of a tiny, tiny minority of people?

And how about the fact that the Oregon mall shooter stopped shooting, fled, and then shot himself when he saw that one of the mall patrons was pointing a gun at him? That's why he only managed to kill a few people in a crowded mall.

If one of the adults at Sandy Hook had had a handgun on them, we might be talking about how fortunate it was that someone was armed and that the killer was gunned down so quickly.

 

[FA_Q2]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

We will see what the NRA is made of today

Will they compromise to show they are willing to work to develop meaningful legislation or go back to their "never give an inch"?

My guess is they double down on stupid and pretend this is the same country it was a week ago

I guess I'll repost this again for the slow people on this thread. It is you (and those like you) that are doubling down on stupid because in order to reach your conclusion you have to ignore essentially every single piece of data available to you. Even with mounting evidence, you continue to demand more laws when they have been proven to be completely false. If you have real evidence then post it. Not op-ed pieces, not pointless opinions from others demanding gun control but actual source data that shows gun laws as effective in some way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly I am going to have to remake this argument in a few places so I am going to rework another post I did in one of these other threads.

All over the place on this board I am seeing people demanding gun control and making a wide veriety of claims about what we need or do not need but one thing is utterly lacking IN EVERY FUCKING THREAD: facts. I can count the number of facts used in the 10+ threads calling for gun reforms on one hand. Get educated, we have passed laws already and we have metrics to gauge their effectiveness.

First, common misinformation techniques must be addressed because you still find all kinds of false claims about higher 'death' rates with lax gin laws that are outright false. The metric we need to be looking at is homicides. Lots of people like to use 'gun' deaths but that is a rather useless term because you are not really measuring anything. That term is not fully defined and it is not as easily tracked and compared with different years as a solid statistic. I also hope that we can agree that what instrument kills the victim is irrelevant. If gun deaths are cut by 25% but knife deaths increase the same number by 50% we have not made progress. Rather, we regressed and are worse off. The real relevant information here is how many people are killed overall and whether or not stricter gun laws results in fewer deaths or crimes. That is what the gun control advocates are claiming.


Another common misinformation tactic is to compare US deaths to those on other countries. comparing international numbers is also utterly meaningless. Why, you ask. Well, that's simple. Scientific data requires that we control for other variables. Comparing US to Brittan is meaningless because there are thousands of variables that make a huge difference. Not only the proliferation of guns that already exists and the current gun laws but also things as basic as culture, diversity, population density, police forces and a host of other things would need to be accounted for. That is utterly impossible. Mexico and Switzerland can be used on the other side of the argument of Brittan and in the end we have learned nothing by doing this. How do we overcome this? Also, simple. You compare the crime rates before and after gun legislation has passed. We can do that here and in Brittan.
Gun Control - Just Facts

Here we see a rather large spike directly after gun laws are strengthened and no real increase after they are removed. Washington apparently did not get the memo that homicides were supposed to decrease after they passed their law.

Here we have Chicago where there is no discernable difference before and after the ban. Again, we are not seeing any real positive effects here. As a matter of fact, the rate has worsened as compared to the overall rate in the country even though it has slightly decreased. Form the caption:

Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.

Then we can use this same tactic in measuring the effectiveness in Britton. Lets actually look at the real numbers over there as well:

Oops, even in Brittan, when we account for other factors by using their OWN crime rates, we find that gun laws have NOT reduced the homicides they have suffered. Seems we are developing a pattern here. At least Chicago seen some reduction though it was far less than the national average decrease.


Then, you could always argue, what happens when we relax gun laws. If the gun 'grabbers' were correct, crimes rate would skyrocket (or at least go up). Does that happen:

Guess not. The homicide rate in Florida fell rather rapidly and faster than the national average. In Texas we get a similar result:

Then there are other statistics that do matter very much like the following:

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

Clearly, claiming that gun control leads to better outcomes is blatantly false. Look at the data, it is conclusive that gun laws most certainly do not have any positive impact on homicides or any other meaningful metric. If you have information that states otherwise then please post it. I have yet to see some solid statistical evidence that points to gun control as being a competent way of reducing deaths. I hope I have not wasted my time getting this information. Try reading it, it will enlighten you.

 

[Duped]

Lets ban clueless morons instead!

 

[bripat9643]

Forget all the Ideas, Arguement and Debate.
Lets just ban the damn assult weapons and be done with it.

In other words, don't think. Just do what you say.

You're a perfect lemming for the totalitarian state.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Forget all the Ideas, Arguement and Debate.
Lets just ban the damn assult weapons and be done with it.

How about we ban all video games?

kindergarten killer online games
http://www.flasharcadegamessite.com/kindergarten-killer-online-game.html

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Children play these games it's time to ban them all

Free Games on The Tech Herald - Play Online Games for Free - Kindergarten Killer

 

[bripat9643]

More: Dennis A. Henigan: It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns

There isn't a Constitution right to Tobacco
There is one for firearms

the Constitution was also created with the intent on making changes to it as we as a society progress (or in some cases, regress) Guns in the 1700s were nowhere near as deadly as they are now

The amendment process is the way you make changes to the Constitution. You don't do it simply by ignoring what it says.

Nobody is saying you cant have guns, just certain ones

What part of "shall no be infringed" don't you understand?

 

[candycorn]

Hardcore NRA wingnuts need to be thinking about two words: "Compromise" and "Consensus"...

When it comes to the Constitution there is no such thing as "Compromise" and "Consensus".

Sure there is. Even the original Constitution was built on compromise and consensus.

There are recognized limits on free speech--the first amendment isn't seen as absolute.