|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 25, 2020 4:56:44 GMT -8
No, you object to any attempts to solve the problem if it doesn't solve the problem completely.
I would.
Simple perhaps. Effective no. There is no evidence the death penalty is a deterrent to gun violence. Texas executes people on a regular basis yet they don't seem to run out of people to execute.
I don't believe the government should have the power to kill its citizens.
Why wouldn't it solve the problem? Kinda hard to shoot fifty people if you have no bullets.
I see. You don't like the idea because it's...immature? I really don't know what to say to that.
BTW, ammunition is not part of a firearm, and I'm not pretending. You'll also find no Constitutional protections for your box of bullets. There's also the popint that while we have ~350 million non-persishable firearms in this country, there's a limited supply of ammo and that stuff gets used up pretty fast.
I see you're argument is getting more intelligent by the minute. Do let me know when you sober up.
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 25, 2020 5:07:17 GMT -8
So what you're saying is that since we're so violent we need to have more guns in our society? Your statement seems to be an argument for fewer guns.
I have a couple questions...
1. If the violence is a side-effect of liberty why don't other countries have the same problem? What liberty do we have that they don't have? Aside from gun ownership that is.
2. Why would mixing of ethnic groups be a problem?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 25, 2020 7:31:56 GMT -8
You limit everyone who doesn’t agree with you to being “...naive or purposely disingenuous” No, I do not. I used that term specifically to refer to those who would insist there is no correlation between the number of guns and the number of gun deaths. No, I do not. I specifically used the term "per capita", not per citizen. There are an estimated 393 million firearms in the United States, and 328 million people (not just citizens). That's 120 guns for every 100 people. Just how many guns do we need for "protection"? The next highest civilized country is Canada with 30 guns per 100 people, which is understandable, given that the vast majority of the country is untamed wilderness. That makes no logical sense. If a person doesn't own a gun, it's virtually impossible for him to commit a gun homicide or gun suicide. It's one of the issues, and that's why it's one of the factors in my "simplified" equation. I guess I'll have to wait for an answer to my question, why is there such a lack of respect for human life in this country, or such a willingness to solve problems by killing, that doesn't exist elsewhere? Of course they would, but it would be a lot more difficult and dangerous, wouldn't it? Not going to argue Inter-linear with you. It’s a waste of time since your mind is already made up about your righteousness and I won’t change it. Two points, however: - It is not impossible for someone who doesn’t own a gun to commit a gun death: I hope you will see a difference between owning a firearm and possessing a firearm. Many of the homicides are committed by those possessing a gun that they do not own. Sandy Hook, for example, the kid stole guns from his mother. He used them, but did not own them.
- I do not believe there is a greater lust for killing here than elsewhere. There might be more people shot and killed here because there are more guns readily available, but I cannot rationally believe the U.S.A. Has more per capita killing than, for example, some middle eastern country who’s main religion devalues human life so ... ahem ... religiously. If you have some stats to back that statement up, I want to review them.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,819
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 25, 2020 9:31:27 GMT -8
It’s a waste of time since your mind is already made up about your righteousness and I won’t change it. Two points, however: Dude, do you think maybe it's time to take a look in the mirror. Read some of your posts in the abortion thread. You're right. That's why I specifically said the USA has more gun deaths per capita than any non-third world country. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 25, 2020 9:38:16 GMT -8
It’s a waste of time since your mind is already made up about your righteousness and I won’t change it. Two points, however: Dude, do you think maybe it's time to take a look in the mirror. Read some of your posts in the abortion thread. You're right. That's why I specifically said the USA has more gun deaths per capita than any non-third world country. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateI will not apologize for stating my opinion on abortion or any other topic. That you cannot seem to grasp those posts in the abortion thread are my opinions, despite me repeating “in my opinion” is not my responsibility. Further, as I’ve said many, many times, at least once to you, specifically, all you have to do to change my mind is disprove either one of the two scientific facts about a fertilized egg. I get you’re frustrated that you cannot disprove either of them, but that, also, is not my concern. one last thing: The aged old redirection gambit, “I know you are but what am I?” never worked over at TOB when they tried it, and it is similarly non sequitur here. You might even believe I am guilty as well, but that doesn’t mean you are not. 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,819
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 25, 2020 9:49:57 GMT -8
They are not half the problem, which is easily proved. Guns, by themselves, without a person to pull the trigger, have killed exactly zero people in their existence. RSM, I'm not inclined to quibble over whether the contribution is 50%, or 25%, or 75%. But I don't think you can deny that if, instead of 390 million firearms in this country, we had 390 thousand, or just 390, that the number of gun deaths would not be much lower. Alcohol, opiods and illegal drugs also do not cause addiction without a person to inject them or slug them down, but it is certainly the ready and ubiquitous availability of guns, alcohol and drugs and contributes to the problem. Bingo! Thank you! That's exactly the point I've been trying to get across for 15 years. There is something effing wrong with us that is sadly unique. And arming more people is not the answer to a national violent nature.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,910
|
Post by Bick on Feb 25, 2020 10:02:03 GMT -8
When you consider this country was founded by virtue of a violent revolution, and had acted as the world's police ever since, it shouldn't be much of a surprise it's part of the American psyche.
The world is a violent place. We can be the hammer, or the nail. We choose... I choose... The hammer.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,819
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 25, 2020 11:17:04 GMT -8
OK, guys. I told myself a long time ago that when my head started to hurt from banging it against a wall, I would stop banging it. I think I've reached that point. Maybe if we gave every person in America 20 guns rather than just 1.2, we'd feel safer at night.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,910
|
Post by Bick on Feb 25, 2020 12:30:24 GMT -8
OK, guys. I told myself a long time ago that when my head started to hurt from banging it against a wall, I would stop banging it. I think I've reached that point. Maybe if we gave every person in America 20 guns rather than just 1.2, we'd feel safer at night. I think the average NRA member has 4-5. Choose 1 of these scenarios, or offer another alternative that would have you feel safer about being protecting your new granddaughter... Outlaw the manufacture of any more guns? What if it were illegal to own ANY assault looking WEAPON? Background checks for gun ownership? Increase the # of trained people with CCW permits?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Feb 25, 2020 13:28:09 GMT -8
OK, guys. I told myself a long time ago that when my head started to hurt from banging it against a wall, I would stop banging it. I think I've reached that point. Maybe if we gave every person in America 20 guns rather than just 1.2, we'd feel safer at night. wow... hyperbole much?
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,910
|
Post by Bick on Feb 25, 2020 20:53:58 GMT -8
Wow... 150 million have died here because of gun violence since 2007?
I guess we really DO have a problem with violence. 🙄
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 25, 2020 23:42:33 GMT -8
No, you object to any attempts to solve the problem if it doesn't solve the problem completely. Simple perhaps. Effective no. There is no evidence the death penalty is a deterrent to gun violence. Texas executes people on a regular basis yet they don't seem to run out of people to execute. Why wouldn't it solve the problem? Kinda hard to shoot fifty people if you have no bullets. . Just like a liberal, choosing solutions that only kinda solve the problem. You are contradicting yourself. First you claim I object to solutions that don't solve the problem completely, then you claim that my proposed solution doesn't solve the problem completely. If your first claim is true, then your second claim must be false. If your second claim is true, then your first claim must be false. Putting a convicted criminal to death is 100% effective in stopping him from committing another crime. If you don't have the intestinal fortitude to do what needs to be done to punish & eliminate criminals, no problem, just step aside and let those of us who do get the job done. You can put on an apron and hang out in the kitchen with the womenfolk and other cowards Bullet control won't work for the same reason gun control won't work, those who commit crimes using bullets will not follow the laws to control them. You are once again trying to restrict the rights of people who did not commit a crime and ignoring the logic that criminals don't follow laws. Your thought process is truly immature, no different than the solution one would get from a 5 year old child.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 26, 2020 0:01:11 GMT -8
So what you're saying is that since we're so violent we need to have more guns in our society? Your statement seems to be an argument for fewer guns. I have a couple questions... 1. If the violence is a side-effect of liberty why don't other countries have the same problem? What liberty do we have that they don't have? Aside from gun ownership that is. 2. Why would mixing of ethnic groups be a problem? I'm not saying that, that is what you have concluded. Please stop attributing your thoughts as being my statements. I don't know if liberty leads to increased violence, I was throwing out possibilities. Liberty & freedom are a double edged sword, people can use it for nefarious things. There are plenty of liberties that we have in the US that other countries prohibit, such as free speech. I'm not going to make a full list, if you are that interested, google it. The point is we have more liberty & freedom here than anywhere else and there are some people who use that freedom to step upon others. I never wrote that mixing of ethnicities is a problem, rather that that could be an explanation of why our country is inherently more violent than other countries. It is human nature to look at "outsiders" with distrust. In the past, when limited travel ability led to countries being more homogeneous, people would look at neighboring countries as the enemy. There would be violence, but it wouldn't be citizen against citizen, rather it would be nation against nation. Now in the US, you have the Muslim living down the street from the Jew, the Pakistanis are neighbors with the family who moved here from India and the Englishman and Irishmen see each other daily at the coffee shop. Distrust that used to be across borders is now more easily carried inside the border between citizens and could lead to violence that used to be categorized as war. Not a proven reason, just a theory.
|
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by RSM789 on Feb 26, 2020 0:15:22 GMT -8
And arming more people is not the answer to a national violent nature. Actually, it is the only logical answer. Not allowing law abiding citizens to arm themselves in a nation with a national violent nature would be a cruel joke. I would say the flaw in your argument is you are taking the fact that we have a higher percentage of violent people in our society and concluding that means no one in our society can be trusted with a firearm. Criminals will always have firearms and other weapons to do harm. Authoritarian governments will always have weapons to try to control their citizens. The only chance a law abiding citizen has to not be a victim in those scenarios is to be able to legally arm himself in a way to deter those threats.
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Feb 26, 2020 5:10:18 GMT -8
Just because it's the only answer you can understand or agree with doesn't mean it's the only logical answer.
Are you saying that the founding fathers knew of this violent nature and allowed us to be armed because of it?
I would say you're completely wrong. I would say that his argument is that we should have fewer guns because you can't trust EVERYONE with a firearm, not that you can't trust anyone.
But only in this country do we encourage the ownership of such weapons to an unhealthy degree.
If we lived in an authoritarian regime you might have an argument...since we don't, you don't.
Right...your rifle really deters the government from bringing their tanks, jets, and drones to your neighborhood. Your arguments are silly.
|
|