Tragedies continue because liberals lack common sense & don't comprehend security

[Book of Jeremiah]

They don't "lack" common sense. That would suggest they had some to begin with. - Jeremiah

 

[Oldstyle]

Mostly what I'm doing is showing that every pro gun argument is pretty childish at best. I'm also stating that our homicide rate is an embarrassment for the greatest country in the world. Now if your brain has been taken over by the gun companies and the NRA your answer to this problem is more guns and you don't listen to any reason. Based upon your above statement having a law against say high capacity magazines still leaves these law abiding citizens with the means of defense. It does however slow the mass killer. Should be a win/win for all. But no, the pro gun movement just wants to sell more and bigger guns so that is a no go. Just throw more gas on the fire they say. So you want me to just be a gun drone and say guns are great? There are certainly other fronts to this war on homicide, but when even common sense laws are shot down it does irritate me. Is it just coincidence that all these countries with lower homicide rates also have stricter gun laws? Something tells me no.

My pointing out that imposing additional gun control laws won't really address the problem of violence in America is "childish"? Really? That's your "mature" response?

How does passing another law "slow" a mass killer? Do you not grasp the concept that mass killers don't CARE about the rule of law? You've failed to answer my point that the Columbine mass killers were in violation of laws against having cut off shot guns and possessing bombs. Why do you think that making additional gun control laws would have any effect on such people when they've totally ignored the ones you already have in place? Why do you think that eliminating guns wouldn't simply result in homicide by knife or blunt instrument? Should we ban all weapons of any kind? Once again...a wonderful idea at first blush but then the biggest thug on the block can be confident that his fists are once again the ultimate weapon and he has little to fear from those he can physically dominate. That's reality rearing its ugly head. It's why countries that HAVE very strict laws against gun ownership do not always have low rates of violent crime. When you eliminate guns you eliminate the means for weaker members of society to defend themselves. You also take away the threat of that defense...something which you may not want to admit deters crime but DOES deter crime. Which house does a home invasion artist choose as a target...the one with the NRA Member sticker on the front door or the house with peace sign on the front door? Would you REALLY want to put a sign on your front law advertising yourself as a "gun free residence"?

Ok so lets suppose at the time of the Columbine shooting there was a complete ban on guns. Would it have been much more difficult for them to have gotten these guns? Having the shotgun was legal so cutting down the barrel was pretty easy at that point. So if we have very strict gun laws and now when these guys try to illegally buy guns they instead get caught trying to buy and get thrown in jail. That would save lives wouldn't it? It's all of course hypothetical, but why not put as many obstacles in their path as you can? I don't think a country that needs it's citizens to carry guns to be safe is very attractive to most of the US or potential visitors.

I do think you mean well and have maybe just heard too much of the NRA points of view. I do however find many of the pro gun arguments as being childish at best. Addressing the problem of violence is however very serious.

Actually it's you that's coming off as the well meaning but rather naive one in this conversation, Brain. Correct me if I'm wrong but did the complete ban on possessing bombs keep the Columbine killers from having six bombs with them when they went to the high school that day? So if a complete ban on bombs didn't prevent that from happening then why would a complete ban on guns have done any differently? Your problem is you're simply "assuming" that putting more "obstacles" in the path of criminals and sociopaths in the way of more laws is going to stop them and what common sense SHOULD tell you is that people who are willing to break the law to murder are going to snicker at your new gun control laws. The people that you will ultimately disarm will be the law abiding gun owners. THOSE people are the ones that you will force to be just as helpless against the thugs and crazies as you have chosen to be. Why you think their concern over that is "childish" escapes me.

 

[Oldstyle]

What I find ironic is that you put such blind trust in the same government who willingly sold guns to violent drug cartels and then lost track of them to somehow monitor what would quickly become a burgeoning black market for weapons in this country if legal gun sales were banned. Funny how that same government can't keep weapons out of the hands of convicted felons NOW yet you think that they will do better somehow if you allow them a few more gun laws to enforce. I'm sorry, Brain...but you need to start using yours...

 

[Brain357]

My pointing out that imposing additional gun control laws won't really address the problem of violence in America is "childish"? Really? That's your "mature" response?

How does passing another law "slow" a mass killer? Do you not grasp the concept that mass killers don't CARE about the rule of law? You've failed to answer my point that the Columbine mass killers were in violation of laws against having cut off shot guns and possessing bombs. Why do you think that making additional gun control laws would have any effect on such people when they've totally ignored the ones you already have in place? Why do you think that eliminating guns wouldn't simply result in homicide by knife or blunt instrument? Should we ban all weapons of any kind? Once again...a wonderful idea at first blush but then the biggest thug on the block can be confident that his fists are once again the ultimate weapon and he has little to fear from those he can physically dominate. That's reality rearing its ugly head. It's why countries that HAVE very strict laws against gun ownership do not always have low rates of violent crime. When you eliminate guns you eliminate the means for weaker members of society to defend themselves. You also take away the threat of that defense...something which you may not want to admit deters crime but DOES deter crime. Which house does a home invasion artist choose as a target...the one with the NRA Member sticker on the front door or the house with peace sign on the front door? Would you REALLY want to put a sign on your front law advertising yourself as a "gun free residence"?

Ok so lets suppose at the time of the Columbine shooting there was a complete ban on guns. Would it have been much more difficult for them to have gotten these guns? Having the shotgun was legal so cutting down the barrel was pretty easy at that point. So if we have very strict gun laws and now when these guys try to illegally buy guns they instead get caught trying to buy and get thrown in jail. That would save lives wouldn't it? It's all of course hypothetical, but why not put as many obstacles in their path as you can? I don't think a country that needs it's citizens to carry guns to be safe is very attractive to most of the US or potential visitors.

I do think you mean well and have maybe just heard too much of the NRA points of view. I do however find many of the pro gun arguments as being childish at best. Addressing the problem of violence is however very serious.

Actually it's you that's coming off as the well meaning but rather naive one in this conversation, Brain. Correct me if I'm wrong but did the complete ban on possessing bombs keep the Columbine killers from having six bombs with them when they went to the high school that day? So if a complete ban on bombs didn't prevent that from happening then why would a complete ban on guns have done any differently? Your problem is you're simply "assuming" that putting more "obstacles" in the path of criminals and sociopaths in the way of more laws is going to stop them and what common sense SHOULD tell you is that people who are willing to break the law to murder are going to snicker at your new gun control laws. The people that you will ultimately disarm will be the law abiding gun owners. THOSE people are the ones that you will force to be just as helpless against the thugs and crazies as you have chosen to be. Why you think their concern over that is "childish" escapes me.

Ok, so what if bombs weren't illegal? Do you think they would have had far more dangerous bombs? Would they have been military grade? I think so. They probably had a good chance of blowing themselves up making them at home. Do you prefer they could go to the store and buy more effective ones? I don't think the concern is childish, I think many of the arguments are. For instance I guess we should have no laws just because criminals are going to break them?

 

[Brain357]

What I find ironic is that you put such blind trust in the same government who willingly sold guns to violent drug cartels and then lost track of them to somehow monitor what would quickly become a burgeoning black market for weapons in this country if legal gun sales were banned. Funny how that same government can't keep weapons out of the hands of convicted felons NOW yet you think that they will do better somehow if you allow them a few more gun laws to enforce. I'm sorry, Brain...but you need to start using yours...

So you say we should just ignore that countries with much lower homicide rates have stricter gun control laws? I guess throwing more gas on the fire is using you brain?

 

[Oldstyle]

You keep trying to bring up countries like Canada and Sweden as "examples" of how stricter gun control laws work but the truth is Scandinavian country's like Sweden have a long history of gun ownership as does Canada. What they DON'T have is an urban culture that promotes violence. I know that this will outrage the progressives here but the elephant in the room that nobody will address in this discussion is that the overwhelming number of gun homicides in this country take place in urban counties and are perpetrated by blacks or Hispanics...neither group being big NRA supporters! I believe the percentages of homicides by the people that I've just described account for about 70% of murders in this country. You want to know why Canada has a lower percentage of gun violence then we do? It's because they don't have as much of our wonderful (eye-roll) inner city "thug culture".

 

[Oldstyle]

Ok so lets suppose at the time of the Columbine shooting there was a complete ban on guns. Would it have been much more difficult for them to have gotten these guns? Having the shotgun was legal so cutting down the barrel was pretty easy at that point. So if we have very strict gun laws and now when these guys try to illegally buy guns they instead get caught trying to buy and get thrown in jail. That would save lives wouldn't it? It's all of course hypothetical, but why not put as many obstacles in their path as you can? I don't think a country that needs it's citizens to carry guns to be safe is very attractive to most of the US or potential visitors.

I do think you mean well and have maybe just heard too much of the NRA points of view. I do however find many of the pro gun arguments as being childish at best. Addressing the problem of violence is however very serious.

Actually it's you that's coming off as the well meaning but rather naive one in this conversation, Brain. Correct me if I'm wrong but did the complete ban on possessing bombs keep the Columbine killers from having six bombs with them when they went to the high school that day? So if a complete ban on bombs didn't prevent that from happening then why would a complete ban on guns have done any differently? Your problem is you're simply "assuming" that putting more "obstacles" in the path of criminals and sociopaths in the way of more laws is going to stop them and what common sense SHOULD tell you is that people who are willing to break the law to murder are going to snicker at your new gun control laws. The people that you will ultimately disarm will be the law abiding gun owners. THOSE people are the ones that you will force to be just as helpless against the thugs and crazies as you have chosen to be. Why you think their concern over that is "childish" escapes me.

Ok, so what if bombs weren't illegal? Do you think they would have had far more dangerous bombs? Would they have been military grade? I think so. They probably had a good chance of blowing themselves up making them at home. Do you prefer they could go to the store and buy more effective ones? I don't think the concern is childish, I think many of the arguments are. For instance I guess we should have no laws just because criminals are going to break them?

Your so called "logic" is completely inconsistent here, Brain. You call for a ban on guns saying that will prevent violence but when I point out that a complete ban on bombs didn't keep the Columbine killers from building a small arsenal of bombs your response is that we should be grateful they didn't buy more effective ones at a store?

As for what laws we should have? The litmus test for effective laws is whether they can be enforced. If we passed a law tomorrow that from now on all cars can only go a maximum speed of 20 mph because going faster endangers lives I believe that the public would refuse to comply DESPITE the fact that going that slow WOULD save tens of thousands of lives. Why? Because it would be a stupid law. A better approach would be to make the cars we drive more able to survive a high speed crash. That's what you're essentially asking for with your ban on guns. Instead of fixing the root problems of violence in this country you think that taking guns away from law abiding citizens and leaving them defenseless is a solution and quite frankly it's not.

 

[Brain357]

You keep trying to bring up countries like Canada and Sweden as "examples" of how stricter gun control laws work but the truth is Scandinavian country's like Sweden have a long history of gun ownership as does Canada. What they DON'T have is an urban culture that promotes violence. I know that this will outrage the progressives here but the elephant in the room that nobody will address in this discussion is that the overwhelming number of gun homicides in this country take place in urban counties and are perpetrated by blacks or Hispanics...neither group being big NRA supporters! I believe the percentages of homicides by the people that I've just described account for about 70% of murders in this country. You want to know why Canada has a lower percentage of gun violence then we do? It's because they don't have as much of our wonderful (eye-roll) inner city "thug culture".

This should definitely be one front in our fight. We need to figure out why gangs are so popular. Absolutely. Legalizing marijuana might effect the homicide rate. I would guess prohibition only increased the homicide rate. So legalizing marijuana would take it out of the gangs hands and we could use tax money for more policing? I don't know any violent smokers so it might help in that way also. Sadly most the smokers I know aren't exactly the most successful either. So would it have a bad effect on society? Doesn't seem like it is that hard to get now if you do want to use it, so perhaps it won't even increase the number of those using. Just take it away from the gangs.

But with all that said I don't think you can completely overlook the effect that gun laws might have. It should be one front in the war if you will.

 

[Brain357]

Actually it's you that's coming off as the well meaning but rather naive one in this conversation, Brain. Correct me if I'm wrong but did the complete ban on possessing bombs keep the Columbine killers from having six bombs with them when they went to the high school that day? So if a complete ban on bombs didn't prevent that from happening then why would a complete ban on guns have done any differently? Your problem is you're simply "assuming" that putting more "obstacles" in the path of criminals and sociopaths in the way of more laws is going to stop them and what common sense SHOULD tell you is that people who are willing to break the law to murder are going to snicker at your new gun control laws. The people that you will ultimately disarm will be the law abiding gun owners. THOSE people are the ones that you will force to be just as helpless against the thugs and crazies as you have chosen to be. Why you think their concern over that is "childish" escapes me.

Ok, so what if bombs weren't illegal? Do you think they would have had far more dangerous bombs? Would they have been military grade? I think so. They probably had a good chance of blowing themselves up making them at home. Do you prefer they could go to the store and buy more effective ones? I don't think the concern is childish, I think many of the arguments are. For instance I guess we should have no laws just because criminals are going to break them?

Your so called "logic" is completely inconsistent here, Brain. You call for a ban on guns saying that will prevent violence but when I point out that a complete ban on bombs didn't keep the Columbine killers from building a small arsenal of bombs your response is that we should be grateful they didn't buy more effective ones at a store?

As for what laws we should have? The litmus test for effective laws is whether they can be enforced. If we passed a law tomorrow that from now on all cars can only go a maximum speed of 20 mph because going faster endangers lives I believe that the public would refuse to comply DESPITE the fact that going that slow WOULD save tens of thousands of lives. Why? Because it would be a stupid law. A better approach would be to make the cars we drive more able to survive a high speed crash. That's what you're essentially asking for with your ban on guns. Instead of fixing the root problems of violence in this country you think that taking guns away from law abiding citizens and leaving them defenseless is a solution and quite frankly it's not.

I'm not saying it will completely fix the problem. I'm saying there is a chance to save lives and it might lower the problem. I'm saying that bombs being illegal helps because otherwise they would have much more dangerous bombs. I guess you think they should have been able to go buy a rocket launcher too? I think the machine gun ban works. As bad as some shootings are they would be much worse with machine guns. Do you not agree?

 

[Oldstyle]

What I find ironic is that you put such blind trust in the same government who willingly sold guns to violent drug cartels and then lost track of them to somehow monitor what would quickly become a burgeoning black market for weapons in this country if legal gun sales were banned. Funny how that same government can't keep weapons out of the hands of convicted felons NOW yet you think that they will do better somehow if you allow them a few more gun laws to enforce. I'm sorry, Brain...but you need to start using yours...

So you say we should just ignore that countries with much lower homicide rates have stricter gun control laws? I guess throwing more gas on the fire is using you brain?

No, I think we should be intelligent enough to look at WHY those countries have lower homicide rates and learn from that. We should also look at the US as a whole and have an honest discussion about why certain areas are producing such out of control levels of violence while other areas have little or none. We should also be looking at the chickens that appear to be coming home to roost with our over dependence on drugs to treat the ills of our children. Is it guns that have created the Adam Lanza's of our country or is it the use of drugs to "treat" things like ADD when we don't REALLY know the long term side effects of what we're prescribing for our kids?

 

[Brain357]

What I find ironic is that you put such blind trust in the same government who willingly sold guns to violent drug cartels and then lost track of them to somehow monitor what would quickly become a burgeoning black market for weapons in this country if legal gun sales were banned. Funny how that same government can't keep weapons out of the hands of convicted felons NOW yet you think that they will do better somehow if you allow them a few more gun laws to enforce. I'm sorry, Brain...but you need to start using yours...

So you say we should just ignore that countries with much lower homicide rates have stricter gun control laws? I guess throwing more gas on the fire is using you brain?

No, I think we should be intelligent enough to look at WHY those countries have lower homicide rates and learn from that. We should also look at the US as a whole and have an honest discussion about why certain areas are producing such out of control levels of violence while other areas have little or none. We should also be looking at the chickens that appear to be coming home to roost with our over dependence on drugs to treat the ills of our children. Is it guns that have created the Adam Lanza's of our country or is it the use of drugs to "treat" things like ADD when we don't REALLY know the long term side effects of what we're prescribing for our kids?

Well then we really agree on quite a bit. I just hate seeing the door completely closed on any front to this war. And I think for many the gun law door is closed.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ok, so what if bombs weren't illegal? Do you think they would have had far more dangerous bombs? Would they have been military grade? I think so. They probably had a good chance of blowing themselves up making them at home. Do you prefer they could go to the store and buy more effective ones? I don't think the concern is childish, I think many of the arguments are. For instance I guess we should have no laws just because criminals are going to break them?

Your so called "logic" is completely inconsistent here, Brain. You call for a ban on guns saying that will prevent violence but when I point out that a complete ban on bombs didn't keep the Columbine killers from building a small arsenal of bombs your response is that we should be grateful they didn't buy more effective ones at a store?

As for what laws we should have? The litmus test for effective laws is whether they can be enforced. If we passed a law tomorrow that from now on all cars can only go a maximum speed of 20 mph because going faster endangers lives I believe that the public would refuse to comply DESPITE the fact that going that slow WOULD save tens of thousands of lives. Why? Because it would be a stupid law. A better approach would be to make the cars we drive more able to survive a high speed crash. That's what you're essentially asking for with your ban on guns. Instead of fixing the root problems of violence in this country you think that taking guns away from law abiding citizens and leaving them defenseless is a solution and quite frankly it's not.

I'm not saying it will completely fix the problem. I'm saying there is a chance to save lives and it might lower the problem. I'm saying that bombs being illegal helps because otherwise they would have much more dangerous bombs. I guess you think they should have been able to go buy a rocket launcher too? I think the machine gun ban works. As bad as some shootings are they would be much worse with machine guns. Do you not agree?

Of course they would be worse. My problem isn't with having laws against private citizens owning automatic weapons, rocket launchers or tanks...my problem is with the ultimate goal of gun control activists and that's the removal of all guns from the hands of private citizens. Do you not agree that for many on the far left that they won't really be happy until they take away the right to bear arms?

 

[Oldstyle]

So you say we should just ignore that countries with much lower homicide rates have stricter gun control laws? I guess throwing more gas on the fire is using you brain?

No, I think we should be intelligent enough to look at WHY those countries have lower homicide rates and learn from that. We should also look at the US as a whole and have an honest discussion about why certain areas are producing such out of control levels of violence while other areas have little or none. We should also be looking at the chickens that appear to be coming home to roost with our over dependence on drugs to treat the ills of our children. Is it guns that have created the Adam Lanza's of our country or is it the use of drugs to "treat" things like ADD when we don't REALLY know the long term side effects of what we're prescribing for our kids?

Well then we really agree on quite a bit. I just hate seeing the door completely closed on any front to this war. And I think for many the gun law door is closed.

When you try to break a door down with a battering ram...one shouldn't be shocked that the inhabitants of the house start barricading said door.

Would you agree with me that the Obama Administration is trying very hard to use a tragedy to push for something that they've wanted for long before the shootings in Conn. took place? They aren't pushing an investigation into the dangers of prescribed drugs even though almost all of these killers seem to be on one form of prescribed drug or another. So are we REALLY concerned with fixing the root of the problem...or are we trying to legislate an "agenda"?

 

[Brain357]

Your so called "logic" is completely inconsistent here, Brain. You call for a ban on guns saying that will prevent violence but when I point out that a complete ban on bombs didn't keep the Columbine killers from building a small arsenal of bombs your response is that we should be grateful they didn't buy more effective ones at a store?

As for what laws we should have? The litmus test for effective laws is whether they can be enforced. If we passed a law tomorrow that from now on all cars can only go a maximum speed of 20 mph because going faster endangers lives I believe that the public would refuse to comply DESPITE the fact that going that slow WOULD save tens of thousands of lives. Why? Because it would be a stupid law. A better approach would be to make the cars we drive more able to survive a high speed crash. That's what you're essentially asking for with your ban on guns. Instead of fixing the root problems of violence in this country you think that taking guns away from law abiding citizens and leaving them defenseless is a solution and quite frankly it's not.

I'm not saying it will completely fix the problem. I'm saying there is a chance to save lives and it might lower the problem. I'm saying that bombs being illegal helps because otherwise they would have much more dangerous bombs. I guess you think they should have been able to go buy a rocket launcher too? I think the machine gun ban works. As bad as some shootings are they would be much worse with machine guns. Do you not agree?

Of course they would be worse. My problem isn't with having laws against private citizens owning automatic weapons, rocket launchers or tanks...my problem is with the ultimate goal of gun control activists and that's the removal of all guns from the hands of private citizens. Do you not agree that for many on the far left that they won't really be happy until they take away the right to bear arms?

I will only say that my intention is that I want what will ultimately make this the safest country in the world. If we have guns or not I don't really care. If someone could guarantee to you that the violent crime rate would go down to say .5 if everyone gave up their guns, would you? I would. It of course can't be guaranteed, but my point is I would do what will save lives. I think there are a lot of arguments that are not good or truthful completely closing the door on what might be an important front in the war. Is taking gun info from the NRA a good idea? It certainly is imortant to them that guns be popular and I believe they get a lot of money from gun corporations. And as you probably know corporations don't have feeling, no heart, no soul... They care about making money. Corporations are great when I'm buying a big tv for cheap. Not so good when they are poluting or providing unsafe products. I don't think we should rely on information from the drug companies, do you?

 

[Brain357]

No, I think we should be intelligent enough to look at WHY those countries have lower homicide rates and learn from that. We should also look at the US as a whole and have an honest discussion about why certain areas are producing such out of control levels of violence while other areas have little or none. We should also be looking at the chickens that appear to be coming home to roost with our over dependence on drugs to treat the ills of our children. Is it guns that have created the Adam Lanza's of our country or is it the use of drugs to "treat" things like ADD when we don't REALLY know the long term side effects of what we're prescribing for our kids?

Well then we really agree on quite a bit. I just hate seeing the door completely closed on any front to this war. And I think for many the gun law door is closed.

When you try to break a door down with a battering ram...one shouldn't be shocked that the inhabitants of the house start barricading said door.

Would you agree with me that the Obama Administration is trying very hard to use a tragedy to push for something that they've wanted for long before the shootings in Conn. took place? They aren't pushing an investigation into the dangers of prescribed drugs even though almost all of these killers seem to be on one form of prescribed drug or another. So are we REALLY concerned with fixing the root of the problem...or are we trying to legislate an "agenda"?

I will agree that I'm extremely disappointed that they appear to not be working on any of the other fronts. I hope that they are, but it certainly appears they are sold on the guns laws only which I view as a mistake. Certainly gun laws are part of a Democratic agenda. But I also feel it would be a mistake to completely ignore tragedies. I think that many of them do believe the gun laws are the fix and they are sincere in wanting to save lives. Just as I feel many pro gunner have the right intentions. I don't think you close the door on either sides ideas.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm not saying it will completely fix the problem. I'm saying there is a chance to save lives and it might lower the problem. I'm saying that bombs being illegal helps because otherwise they would have much more dangerous bombs. I guess you think they should have been able to go buy a rocket launcher too? I think the machine gun ban works. As bad as some shootings are they would be much worse with machine guns. Do you not agree?

Of course they would be worse. My problem isn't with having laws against private citizens owning automatic weapons, rocket launchers or tanks...my problem is with the ultimate goal of gun control activists and that's the removal of all guns from the hands of private citizens. Do you not agree that for many on the far left that they won't really be happy until they take away the right to bear arms?

I will only say that my intention is that I want what will ultimately make this the safest country in the world. If we have guns or not I don't really care. If someone could guarantee to you that the violent crime rate would go down to say .5 if everyone gave up their guns, would you? I would. It of course can't be guaranteed, but my point is I would do what will save lives. I think there are a lot of arguments that are not good or truthful completely closing the door on what might be an important front in the war. Is taking gun info from the NRA a good idea? It certainly is imortant to them that guns be popular and I believe they get a lot of money from gun corporations. And as you probably know corporations don't have feeling, no heart, no soul... They care about making money. Corporations are great when I'm buying a big tv for cheap. Not so good when they are poluting or providing unsafe products. I don't think we should rely on information from the drug companies, do you?

With all due respect, Brain...I would NOT give up my ability to defend myself to make the overall violent crime rate go down by .5! I'm sorry but in my opinion to do so is to play the lottery with my safety and the safety of my loved ones...something that I view as irresponsible.

Would you agree to drive 20 mph from now on to save lives from car crashes? I think the case could be made that far more lives would be saved doing THAT then would be saved by more gun control laws.

And spare me the naive generalizations about corporations. They are as varied in their outlook as most individuals are. This notion that corporations are inherently "evil" is silly.

 

[Oldstyle]

Well then we really agree on quite a bit. I just hate seeing the door completely closed on any front to this war. And I think for many the gun law door is closed.

When you try to break a door down with a battering ram...one shouldn't be shocked that the inhabitants of the house start barricading said door.

Would you agree with me that the Obama Administration is trying very hard to use a tragedy to push for something that they've wanted for long before the shootings in Conn. took place? They aren't pushing an investigation into the dangers of prescribed drugs even though almost all of these killers seem to be on one form of prescribed drug or another. So are we REALLY concerned with fixing the root of the problem...or are we trying to legislate an "agenda"?

I will agree that I'm extremely disappointed that they appear to not be working on any of the other fronts. I hope that they are, but it certainly appears they are sold on the guns laws only which I view as a mistake. Certainly gun laws are part of a Democratic agenda. But I also feel it would be a mistake to completely ignore tragedies. I think that many of them do believe the gun laws are the fix and they are sincere in wanting to save lives. Just as I feel many pro gunner have the right intentions. I don't think you close the door on either sides ideas.

Then I would suggest that you check yourself and desist from calling those with genuine misgivings about the wisdom of imposing laws "childish". Quite frankly, it's insulting.

 

[Brain357]

Of course they would be worse. My problem isn't with having laws against private citizens owning automatic weapons, rocket launchers or tanks...my problem is with the ultimate goal of gun control activists and that's the removal of all guns from the hands of private citizens. Do you not agree that for many on the far left that they won't really be happy until they take away the right to bear arms?

I will only say that my intention is that I want what will ultimately make this the safest country in the world. If we have guns or not I don't really care. If someone could guarantee to you that the violent crime rate would go down to say .5 if everyone gave up their guns, would you? I would. It of course can't be guaranteed, but my point is I would do what will save lives. I think there are a lot of arguments that are not good or truthful completely closing the door on what might be an important front in the war. Is taking gun info from the NRA a good idea? It certainly is imortant to them that guns be popular and I believe they get a lot of money from gun corporations. And as you probably know corporations don't have feeling, no heart, no soul... They care about making money. Corporations are great when I'm buying a big tv for cheap. Not so good when they are poluting or providing unsafe products. I don't think we should rely on information from the drug companies, do you?

With all due respect, Brain...I would NOT give up my ability to defend myself to make the overall violent crime rate go down by .5! I'm sorry but in my opinion to do so is to play the lottery with my safety and the safety of my loved ones...something that I view as irresponsible.

Would you agree to drive 20 mph from now on to save lives from car crashes? I think the case could be made that far more lives would be saved doing THAT then would be saved by more gun control laws.

And spare me the naive generalizations about corporations. They are as varied in their outlook as most individuals are. This notion that corporations are inherently "evil" is silly.

I ment go down to .5. So from 4.8 to .5. I don't know if that changes your answer or not, but my answer remains the same.

If the law was 20 mph I would do that. I have never gotten a speeding ticket. Would I agree it is a great idea? Probably not. I think there is a big difference between accidental deaths and homicides.

 

[Brain357]

When you try to break a door down with a battering ram...one shouldn't be shocked that the inhabitants of the house start barricading said door.

Would you agree with me that the Obama Administration is trying very hard to use a tragedy to push for something that they've wanted for long before the shootings in Conn. took place? They aren't pushing an investigation into the dangers of prescribed drugs even though almost all of these killers seem to be on one form of prescribed drug or another. So are we REALLY concerned with fixing the root of the problem...or are we trying to legislate an "agenda"?

I will agree that I'm extremely disappointed that they appear to not be working on any of the other fronts. I hope that they are, but it certainly appears they are sold on the guns laws only which I view as a mistake. Certainly gun laws are part of a Democratic agenda. But I also feel it would be a mistake to completely ignore tragedies. I think that many of them do believe the gun laws are the fix and they are sincere in wanting to save lives. Just as I feel many pro gunner have the right intentions. I don't think you close the door on either sides ideas.

Then I would suggest that you check yourself and desist from calling those with genuine misgivings about the wisdom of imposing laws "childish". Quite frankly, it's insulting.

I don't feel I have called any good arguments childish. I do however find some of them quite insulting. But I will try to be alert to it in the future. You should be aware that some of the arguments I have heard have been essentially just name calling. I don't have any respect for that and in fact find it childish. I think if you look at all my posts you'll find I tend to be one of the most calm headed and respectful in the conversation.

 

[Oldstyle]

I will only say that my intention is that I want what will ultimately make this the safest country in the world. If we have guns or not I don't really care. If someone could guarantee to you that the violent crime rate would go down to say .5 if everyone gave up their guns, would you? I would. It of course can't be guaranteed, but my point is I would do what will save lives. I think there are a lot of arguments that are not good or truthful completely closing the door on what might be an important front in the war. Is taking gun info from the NRA a good idea? It certainly is imortant to them that guns be popular and I believe they get a lot of money from gun corporations. And as you probably know corporations don't have feeling, no heart, no soul... They care about making money. Corporations are great when I'm buying a big tv for cheap. Not so good when they are poluting or providing unsafe products. I don't think we should rely on information from the drug companies, do you?

With all due respect, Brain...I would NOT give up my ability to defend myself to make the overall violent crime rate go down by .5! I'm sorry but in my opinion to do so is to play the lottery with my safety and the safety of my loved ones...something that I view as irresponsible.

Would you agree to drive 20 mph from now on to save lives from car crashes? I think the case could be made that far more lives would be saved doing THAT then would be saved by more gun control laws.

And spare me the naive generalizations about corporations. They are as varied in their outlook as most individuals are. This notion that corporations are inherently "evil" is silly.

I ment go down to .5. So from 4.8 to .5. I don't know if that changes your answer or not, but my answer remains the same.

If the law was 20 mph I would do that. I have never gotten a speeding ticket. Would I agree it is a great idea? Probably not. I think there is a big difference between accidental deaths and homicides.

So you want to take away my ability to protect myself and my loved ones on some pie in the sky reduction of the homicide rate from 4.8 to .5? I find you rather naive, Brain. No disrespect but that's the way you're coming across here...

I think you're very aware that with the level of violence prevalent in American society that your .5 number is almost laughably out of reach unless you make sweeping changes to the urban landscape that nobody on the Left is even contemplating let alone pursuing.