TakeAStepBack
Gold Member
- Mar 29, 2011
- 13,935
- 1,742
- 245
^ You're a full blown retard. Seek help.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So, now that we've learned all Sniperfire and the little gun guy have to offer, let's see what brought all their bullshit to the thread:
The scariest thing to me is the hate and fear mongering by stupid people like Stephanie and the other stupid people join with her in voting. Not only should some gun control be on the agenda of all elected officials in Congress but those who fail to do so and actually take money and direction from the NRA violate the very essence of their duty to provide for the "common Defense and the general Welfare" of our people (Section 8, Clause 1 or Article I).
^ You're a full blown retard. Seek help.
If the NRA and the gun nuts had made some reasonable suggestions to keep the weapons of war out of the hands of the crazies, perhaps the rest of the citizens would be interested in their view points. However, the standard idiocy of more guns is all that we have heard from them. So now you people are going to see more gun control. Too bad. Many here predicted that, and the onus is on you.
The President has said that he will support gun reform if it is what the American people want.
Were not going to get this done unless the American people decide its important and so this is not going to be a matter of me spending political capital. One of the things that you learn having now been in this office for four years. The old adage of Abraham Lincolns, with public opinion there is nothing you cant do and without public opinion there is very little you can get done in this town. ~ Barack Obama
I'm torn on this issue.
The fact that so many anti-gun control people are so obviously stupid and vulgar makes me hate to be associated by agreement.
But when I read the Second Amendment, it's pretty clear and straightforward to me. The Constitution protects the right of private citizens to have guns. Now, does it protect their right to own automatic or even semi-automatic weapons with high capacity clips? Of course not.
Look at the murder rates in countries that aggressively regulate gun ownership. It's clear - those laws work to reduce violence and save lives. Any suggestion to the contrary is just as ignorant as the vulgarites and cutesy emoticons some posters fall back on when their intelligence fails them.
But the Constitution IS the Constitution and if you want to change it, there is a path. I cannot advocate an end run around the Constitution just because that path is a difficult one.
The President has said that he will support gun reform if it is what the American people want.
Were not going to get this done unless the American people decide its important and so this is not going to be a matter of me spending political capital. One of the things that you learn having now been in this office for four years. The old adage of Abraham Lincolns, with public opinion there is nothing you cant do and without public opinion there is very little you can get done in this town. ~ Barack Obama
The 2nd amendment in the constitution does not secure the inalienable right of the people to bear arms. What it does is tell encroaching bureaucrats and their crybaby, whining supporters, what they CAN NOT do with the rights of the people.
This has already been pointed out.
The second amendment does not secure inaienable rights. It does shackle the government in what it can infringe upon the people's natural, inalienable right. In the case of arms, the constitution is explicit. The right shall not be infringed. So the gun grabbers and control freaks have to try to argue this one through a backdoor. As usual. As usual, their argument fucking sucks. So they should also STFU about it and go back to chanting nonsense about the 99%.
I'm torn on this issue.
The fact that so many anti-gun control people are so obviously stupid and vulgar makes me hate to be associated by agreement.
But when I read the Second Amendment, it's pretty clear and straightforward to me. The Constitution protects the right of private citizens to have guns. Now, does it protect their right to own automatic or even semi-automatic weapons with high capacity clips? Of course not.
Look at the murder rates in countries that aggressively regulate gun ownership. It's clear - those laws work to reduce violence and save lives. Any suggestion to the contrary is just as ignorant as the vulgarites and cutesy emoticons some posters fall back on when their intelligence fails them.
But the Constitution IS the Constitution and if you want to change it, there is a path. I cannot advocate an end run around the Constitution just because that path is a difficult one.
A very sensible response, I knew what might come along, and one worthy of debate.
I can only speak for myself, and framed by that, I don't want to change the Second Amendment. That said, the Second is not without ambiguity and some firearm controls are necessary, though I recognize not sufficient to prevent events such as Sandy Hook.
Gun owners need to be held accountable for the illicit use of the gun(s) they own. They need to carry insurance to provide compensation to victims of any harm caused by the gun(s) they own and let the insurance industry determine the rate for each firearm insured.
Guns need to be safely secured; only licensed dealers should be legally able to buy, sell or broker the sale of firearms and all who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control any firearm should be licensed by the State; such a state license could be suspended or revoked for cause; all licenses should be renewed every five years.
Anyone who sells, buys or brokers a transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed person shall have his license to do business revoked and his license to own, possess, etc suspended or revoked.
Any person convicted of driving while intoxicated, or detained civilly as a danger to themselves or others, on probation or convicted of a felony and on parole should have their license suspended; upon a hearing by a trier of fact, said suspension could be vacated, extended or revoked (for life); upon revocation all firearms would be taken and either sold to licensed dealers or destroyed.
Look at the murder rates in countries that aggressively regulate gun ownership. It's clear - those laws work to reduce violence and save lives. Any suggestion to the contrary is just as ignorant as the vulgarites and cutesy emoticons some posters fall back on when their intelligence fails them.
As I posted earlier to another party...there is a difference between control and reform. Something will happen but it won't change a thing.
We need to reform the laws to regain control of an out-of-control situation. Unless of course mass murder of innocent citizens going to the mall, going to a movie and going to their first grade class you accept as the new normal. Do you?
I find your attitude equally noxious as those depicted in this quote I read on a match book decades ago: "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength"
Of course it has been shown time and time again that gun control laws like the ones that Obama is asking for simply do not work. The data has been given to you and others right here in this forum and it has been ignored.
You can continue to demand that we do something BUT every damn suggestion that is being put fourth accomplishes nothing yet limits freedom. After all that, you have the gall to call others morons...
I don't mind real solutions but gun control simply is not one of them. It has been tried a thousand times and proven to be an utter failure.
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.
* 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]
*sigh*
I see I need to post the relevent information yet again so that you can all ignore it and slink away. Gun control does not work:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 variety 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 many you can 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.
*sigh*
I see I need to post the relevent information yet again so that you can all ignore it and slink away. Gun control does not work:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 variety 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 many you can 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.
I've read the data and all the evidence suggests that Mark Twain was correct ("There are liars, damn liars and statiistics) and that this quote remains an accurate depiction of the gun huggers: "The idea that no solution exists never occurs to them and in this lies their strength"
I pointed out some ideas (licensing, state controls) which simply are ignored by the gun huggers; I don't expect them to agree because like you your mind isn't open to any new ideas. The fact is the deaths of 20 very young children trumps your statistics; some form of gun control or reform is on the radar of even some Republicans and rigid support for the NRA position is on the wane.
So, my post was the trolling one? I think you do not understand what it means to be a troll. For a good reference, see your own post. I am sure that, because my post was such a troll and a plug for the NRA - an entity for which I care nothing about and do not support - you have ample data to back your assertion up...ahhh, someone trots out some jiggered B.S. on behalf of the NRA ... again.
ZZZzzzzzz
this man hates us and our rights..what a horrible President..you people better get prepared