We've got to do something. I don't know how anyone can sit back and say "gun laws are fine". Maybe before- but not anymore. This has gotten out of hand, and the Republican party needs to help out the Dems. No more of this 2nd Amendment bullshit
Not with limited government resources especially when Federal budget has been slashed left and right. It does take away focus from other more important health issues. 1996 when congress denied 3 million funding to gun research, that money was used instead toward research on brain trauma. Had the funding been approved for gun research, CDC would not have been able to advance as they have with the additional funding in research on head injuries, a health issue more prevalent than mass shooting. CDC's request for funding that studies video games and violence was also denied couple of years ago, something I'm sure you would never contest until I just brought it up in context of this topic.
Again the issue isn't whether violence and its effect on public health should be a CDC concern, but by narrowing the focus to guns and crimes they have wandered into DOJ jurisdiction. And there's no denying that CDC is one of anti-gun culture. Mark Rosenberg, the former head of CDC said in a Washington Post interview, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes... Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.”
They are not mutually exclusive, but it's pretty apparent that it isn't gun control you want but abolition of gun rights and gun control is merely a mean to that end.
I don't understand your point about transportation safety. How is that remotely relevant to the topic on hand? Most of that improvement derives from technological advancement, not shifts in public policy much less a stricter legislation governing transportation. If you are making an argument that guns should be regulated like cars then it would result in a lesser strict gun laws since purchase of a car (of any performance specs) requires no background check, using car in a private property does not require registration or license, neither does towing a car on public roads. If guns are regulated like cars in the states, it means you can buy new fully automatic guns without any background checks from a dealer, carry and discharge said guns on private property without license or registration and carry said guns into public also without license or registration.
Has there been a successful hijacking incident since pilots are able to carry their own firearms into the cockpits?
you're the one who's arguing that there is a direct relationship between mass murders (and by extension, school shootings) and mental illness. the Department of Justice has neither the capability nor the jurisdiction to research mental illness. CDC already conducts research into mental illness, extending it to school shootings is hardly a major deviation.
i pointed this out earlier and you said that there are other diseases the CDC can spend money on. Congress denied 3 million funding to gun research, and then had all of it spent on head trauma. was it really impossible to spend 500,000 on gun research? 250,000? there's no reason there should be an outright ban.
i was referring to transportation safety because it's something people go crazy about over statistically minor incidents and then gladly accept restrictions even if it infringes on their rights. as for technological advances, americans send death threats to owners of gun shops who plan to sell guns that will only fire when the owner's fingerprint is detected on the grip. apparently, there's a law that after the first such gun is sold, all guns sold in that state 3 years after that must have optional tech like it (the details escape me). said gun owner later changed his mind.
this is clearly going to extreme lengths to protect gun rights. while the title of this thread is about banning guns, i genuinely believe that much can be done in terms of research, technology and policy to prevent school shootings.
i find it interesting that you brought up cigarettes and the CDC. at one point in time, cigarettes and tobacco was advertised to be beneficial to health.
Pretty simple, make background checks more stringent and a longer waiting period.. There most certainly should be some reforms, but outright banning guns isn't going to work.. Nor is focusing on tragic shooting events like this.. They are sensationalist bullshit and don't really prove anything outside of us being a bunch of reactive morons.. Since 1980 a whooping number of about 400 people have been killed in school shootings.. If we are going to fucking freak out about that we might as well start talking about the transportation kids take to school because they have a greater chance of getting killed in that than ever getting gunned down in school.. Or teen suicides which dwarfs in a year to the number of fatalities school shootings have caused in 30 years..
Mental health needs to be the centerpiece of reform, John Oliver's story on it really shows just how fucked up our system is.. In which suicide dwarfs any kind of number even coming close to school shootings or mass shootings in a year alone.. Yet to this day we still use derogatory words demonizing mental illness while completely ignoring it on doing anything about it.. You want to know why politician's don't focus on it? Because it isn't a fucking wedge issue, and money really can't be made off of it in less we are talking about jailing the mentally ill giving a nice pay check to the private prison industry.
Banning guns at the moment is impossible which is why I suggest that we encourage minorities (specifically Muslims, blacks, and latinos) to arm themselves with AR15s (provided they have their licenses and other legal requirements to carry them).
Why would it work? Because 'murikkka is racist as **** and a black guy carrying an AR-15 will definitely encourage greater gun control measures. Just ask Reagan and the NRA when he was the governator of California when the Black Panthers were packing heat.
If there was a mass confiscation, a lot of people (and I mean a **** ton) would not take it well, no doubt believing the government was trying to take their guns in an attempt to disarm the public from reacting violently against future totalitarian actions by the government. And rightfully so. That is what the second amendment is all about anyway, as a bulwark against totalitarian government, just like the first amendment. Government is necessary, but more and more people don't trust those who run it, as well as those who own it. They've proven to be liars and con-artists, on both sides of the corrupted isle, and use whatever means necessary to get ahead. If the government really tried to move to confiscate all guns in some massive move, it would not end well, and they know that, which is why they go for the sneaky 'lets take advantage of horrible tragedies' method. Americans collectively are easy to manipulate and control, so they use tactics in accord with that fact.
Not with limited government resources especially when Federal budget has been slashed left and right. It does take away focus from other more important health issues. 1996 when congress denied 3 million funding to gun research, that money was used instead toward research on brain trauma. Had the funding been approved for gun research, CDC would not have been able to advance as they have with the additional funding in research on head injuries, a health issue more prevalent than mass shooting. CDC's request for funding that studies video games and violence was also denied couple of years ago, something I'm sure you would never contest until I just brought it up in context of this topic.
Again the issue isn't whether violence and its effect on public health should be a CDC concern, but by narrowing the focus to guns and crimes they have wandered into DOJ jurisdiction. And there's no denying that CDC is one of anti-gun culture. Mark Rosenberg, the former head of CDC said in a Washington Post interview, “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like we did with cigarettes... Now it is dirty, deadly and banned.”
They are not mutually exclusive, but it's pretty apparent that it isn't gun control you want but abolition of gun rights and gun control is merely a mean to that end.
I don't understand your point about transportation safety. How is that remotely relevant to the topic on hand? Most of that improvement derives from technological advancement, not shifts in public policy much less a stricter legislation governing transportation. If you are making an argument that guns should be regulated like cars then it would result in a lesser strict gun laws since purchase of a car (of any performance specs) requires no background check, using car in a private property does not require registration or license, neither does towing a car on public roads. If guns are regulated like cars in the states, it means you can buy new fully automatic guns without any background checks from a dealer, carry and discharge said guns on private property without license or registration and carry said guns into public also without license or registration.
Has there been a successful hijacking incident since pilots are able to carry their own firearms into the cockpits?
you're the one who's arguing that there is a direct relationship between mass murders (and by extension, school shootings) and mental illness. the Department of Justice has neither the capability nor the jurisdiction to research mental illness. CDC already conducts research into mental illness, extending it to school shootings is hardly a major deviation.
i pointed this out earlier and you said that there are other diseases the CDC can spend money on. Congress denied 3 million funding to gun research, and then had all of it spent on head trauma. was it really impossible to spend 500,000 on gun research? 250,000? there's no reason there should be an outright ban.
i was referring to transportation safety because it's something people go crazy about over statistically minor incidents and then gladly accept restrictions even if it infringes on their rights. as for technological advances, americans send death threats to owners of gun shops who plan to sell guns that will only fire when the owner's fingerprint is detected on the grip. apparently, there's a law that after the first such gun is sold, all guns sold in that state 3 years after that must have optional tech like it (the details escape me). said gun owner later changed his mind.
this is clearly going to extreme lengths to protect gun rights. while the title of this thread is about banning guns, i genuinely believe that much can be done in terms of research, technology and policy to prevent school shootings.
i find it interesting that you brought up cigarettes and the CDC. at one point in time, cigarettes and tobacco was advertised to be beneficial to health.
What about the relationship between mass murders and mental illness? How does that tie back to guns or video games?
We are going around in circle; neither of us is making any new points. Again your lack of knowledge on congressional funding process is the cause for point of contention here. It isn't a negotiation; congress and agencies are not going to haggle back and forward about how much money certain programs should get. It's either approved or not because congress aren't the experts in how adjusted funding amounts would impact the established goals of the program. Again ban is an inaccurate term.
Statistically speaking, there's nothing less minor or less significant than school shootings. It's less than tenth of 1% of all murders in America. You are several hundred times more likely to be killed in a car accident or any transportation related accidents than in a school shooting.
As for technology advances, unlike what you are implying, gun owners are not anti-tech by any means or even against hi tech products meant to control access to the guns. In fact there are plenty of safes out there that employ "smart" technology to limit access to guns. But the problem with a "smart" gun such as one that utilize fingerprints is it's inherent unreliability (what if you were wearing gloves or the battery ran low?). Those guns didn't sell not because of death threats but it's because people don't really trust them. Once smart gun technology improves and police and military deem them reliable enough to field and adopt them however, I'd see any resistance from the civilian gun owners dissolving. So far though, technology isn't there.
I don't doubt that's what you "genuinely" believe, I just question whether your beliefs aligns with reality.
If you think that guns are inherently harmful to health like cigarettes or other tobacco products then you should advocate for government to be the first to disarm as an example.
Citizens can't justify owning handguns and assault rifles, but hunting rifles and shotguns are a necessity for controlling wild life populations and feeding people. There should be a clear distinction between different guns instead of lumping them all in together.
Get rid of the former, and leave the latter alone. You can't go on a massive killing spree with hunting rifles and stock shotguns. Problem solved.
Citizens can't justify owning handguns and assault rifles, but hunting rifles and shotguns are a necessity for controlling wild life populations and feeding people. There should be a clear distinction between different guns instead of lumping them all in together.
Get rid of the former, and leave the latter alone. You can't go on a massive killing spree with hunting rifles and stock shotguns. Problem solved.
Self defense easily justifies handguns. And when was the last time someone committed a crime with a legally owned assault rifle?
Which one of these would you be OK with, out of curiosity?
@bmanva said:
@Bigboi500 said:
Citizens can't justify owning handguns and assault rifles, but hunting rifles and shotguns are a necessity for controlling wild life populations and feeding people. There should be a clear distinction between different guns instead of lumping them all in together.
Get rid of the former, and leave the latter alone. You can't go on a massive killing spree with hunting rifles and stock shotguns. Problem solved.
Self defense easily justifies handguns. And when was the last time someone committed a crime with a legally owned assault rifle?
You can protect your home with a shotgun. Hundreds of thousands of people die on the street every year in the US because of hand guns and assault rifles. They're only good for killing other people, thus only law enforcement officials and military should have them.
@Bigboi500: You realize there's a need for self defense outside one's home too right? Like you stated people die on the street. Also 2/3 of your "hundreds of thousands of people" are victims of themselves, suicides, which you can commit with both shotguns and rifles. And vast majority of the gun homicides are done with illegal weapons, which aren't affected by law governing what guns people can own legally. So only police and soldiers should have the right to defend themselves?
@Bigboi500: You realize there's a need for self defense outside one's home too right? Like you stated people die on the street. Also 2/3 of your "hundreds of thousands of people" are victims of themselves, suicides, which you can commit with both shotguns and rifles. And vast majority of the gun homicides are done with illegal weapons, which aren't affected by law governing what guns people can own legally. So only police and soldiers should have the right to defend themselves?
This isn't suggesting we ban said things but the idea that if guns were banned, that we would some how have a massive black market is incorrect.. You can get a gun illegally right now easily because guns are in mass circulation... And you could at very least make a argument that less firearms would mean less accidental deaths from firearms..
@Bigboi500: You realize there's a need for self defense outside one's home too right? Like you stated people die on the street. Also 2/3 of your "hundreds of thousands of people" are victims of themselves, suicides, which you can commit with both shotguns and rifles. And vast majority of the gun homicides are done with illegal weapons, which aren't affected by law governing what guns people can own legally. So only police and soldiers should have the right to defend themselves?
This isn't suggesting we ban said things but the idea that if guns were banned, that we would some how have a massive black market is incorrect.. You can get a gun illegally right now easily because guns are in mass circulation... And you could at very least make a argument that less firearms would mean less accidental deaths from firearms..
Why is it incorrect? You're simply making that claim without any evidence to support it. Rise of illegal enterprise is exactly what happened during the prohibition. Like alcohol, just because the law declare guns illegal doesn't change people perception of them. And it's especially difficult for Americans to accept if the government retain its arsenals. Saying less guns would mean less death from negligent discharge is akin to arguing we should ban cars so there are less road fatalities or eliminate sports to reduce sport related injuries and deaths; the more sensible solution to reducing accident is increased training and awareness of the users, not the elimination of tools or activities.
@bmanva: "Statistically speaking, there's nothing less minor or less significant than school shootings. It's less than tenth of 1% of all murders in America. You are several hundred times more likely to be killed in a car accident or any transportation related accidents than in a school shooting."
So?!
That is a moot point, and a bit of a heartless statement to say that children/student deaths are less significant because its not happening often enough for you to give a shit, no number children/students deaths while at school is acceptable.
The number of students killed on school grounds in US way out weighs any other countries student deaths. So there is a problem worth at least discussing.
So by your logic US should not worry about terrorism and concentrate more on gun homicides, gun homicides in the US are a far greater risk to American lives than terrorist, as a hell of a lot more people die from gun violence in US at the hands of their own countrymen than from terrorist.
Banning guns now could be especially problematic as well.
None whatsoever...
Guns should be banned. simple as that.
Agreed. It's so strange how different the general stance is on gun ownership between the United States and Canada. I live in Canada (really close to the US border) and it just sounds stupid to let everybody own guns so freely. Guns are dangerous and were designed for the sole purpose of killing.
Banning guns now could be especially problematic as well.
None whatsoever...
Guns should be banned. simple as that.
Agreed. It's so strange how different the general stance is on gun ownership between the United States and Canada. I live in Canada (really close to the US border) and it just sounds stupid to let everybody own guns so freely. Guns are dangerous and were designed for the sole purpose of killing.
Yeah , i believe you don't need a gun in any society ... hell even those who have gun can't do shit when push comes to shove ... it's not a toy , you need some training.
@bmanva: "Statistically speaking, there's nothing less minor or less significant than school shootings. It's less than tenth of 1% of all murders in America. You are several hundred times more likely to be killed in a car accident or any transportation related accidents than in a school shooting."
So?!
That is a moot point, and a bit of a heartless statement to say that children/student deaths are less significant because its not happening often enough for you to give a shit, no number children/students deaths while at school is acceptable.
The number of students killed on school grounds in US way out weighs any other countries student deaths. So there is a problem worth at least discussing.
So by your logic US should not worry about terrorism and concentrate more on gun homicides, gun homicides in the US are a far greater risk to American lives than terrorist, as a hell of a lot more people die from gun violence in US at the hands of their own countrymen than from terrorist.
Hence the "statistically speaking"? And you've taken the discussion out of context. If you are going to jump into someone else's conversation, then you should at least have the courtesy to read and understand the entirety of the discussion and include the post I was replying to earlier.
The whole context is about whether CDC should invest the effort in school shooting instead of much larger health issues facing American children today. CDC at its core is a health organization, it should be devoted on overall health not be involved in partisan battle on social issues. You don't see CDC recommending bans on pools and house hold cleaning liquids despite the fact that those things kill several times more children annually than school shootings.
No, by my logic, agencies should "worry" about their missions; violent crimes and homicides are under DOJ's jurisdiction not HHS'. Also to put everything into perspective, school shooting is only faction of 1% of all gun homicide, and gun homicide is only 1/3 of all gun deaths. So yeah, school shooting is insignificant.
Agreed. It's so strange how different the general stance is on gun ownership between the United States and Canada. I live in Canada (really close to the US border) and it just sounds stupid to let everybody own guns so freely. Guns are dangerous and were designed for the sole purpose of killing.
If guns are so dangerous, why aren't there proportionally more death where there are concentration of guns, i.e. shooting competitions, gun range, gun shows etc? No, the primary factor for concentration of violence (gun related or otherwise) is people.
Cigarettes and cars aren't designed for killing, yet they are more effective at killing people than guns.
First of all, no, they don't. Second of all, some of the individuals committing act of terrorism on behalf of Islamic fundamentalism are black and white. Third of all, Muslim = race of "brown people" is your assertion, none of the evidence you provided associate Islam with races. So you are the only one here perpetuating racism and stereotypes.
Gun Grab agenda, government shut down/collapse of the US dollar imminent... some Zionist goon Bernie Sanderstien running for president and gaining popularity/pathetic, the scene is basically the Jew funded Bolshevik Revolution all over again, Jews genocidally slaughtered upwards of 40-60 million innocent Russian citizens, sure they first took away their guns. Most of these fake incidents never actually show evidence, just hearsay nonsense. Notice that in most of these gun grab staged events the year 2015 technologies all fail to appear and we're reverted back to morse code, and sketch artist news from the likes of the year 1780, nothing works, the security camera are missing, the cellphones everybody had low batteries and we have no footage of the shooter, the shooting, the bodies, the blood etc, nothing... we get a few still shots of some actors and a preplanned new conference of some halfwit morons claiming it's all wrapped up and solved and how the victims "loved Jewsus, rainbows, lollipops, Coca Cola and are all happier to be dead, IF NOT FOR THESE EVIL GUNS, little Julie's dying wish was to FREE THE WORLD OF EVIL GUNS" etc.
Don't buy into the Zionist shilldom. Vote for anybody but Bernie Bolshevik Sanderstien.
Hey, I got a call from the mental ward. They've been wondering where you wandered off to.
First of all, no, they don't. Second of all, some of the individuals committing act of terrorism on behalf of Islamic fundamentalism are black and white. Third of all, Muslim = race of "brown people" is your assertion, none of the evidence you provided associate Islam with races. So you are the only one here perpetuating racism and stereotypes.
So they hate Muslims and are ready to commit violent acts against them because they believe that Muslims are setting up training camps within the U.S. to kill Americans. That's probably worse, but....
Actually they are not. Pro gun or second amendment rights advocates support gun rights regardless of race, sex, religion or orientation. Racist groups only wants gun rights to be exclusive to white people.
Speaking of racism and gun control: MLK’s Arsenal & The Racist Roots of Gun Control in the U.S.
Actually they are not. Pro gun or second amendment rights advocates support gun rights regardless of race, sex, religion or orientation. Racist groups only wants gun rights to be exclusive to white people.
Speaking of racism and gun control: MLK’s Arsenal & The Racist Roots of Gun Control in the U.S.
I just gave solid sources showing the NRA is racist, if you're just going to ignore them, there's no point in debating with you.
First of all, no, they don't. Second of all, some of the individuals committing act of terrorism on behalf of Islamic fundamentalism are black and white. Third of all, Muslim = race of "brown people" is your assertion, none of the evidence you provided associate Islam with races. So you are the only one here perpetuating racism and stereotypes.
So they hate Muslims and are ready to commit violent acts against them because they believe that Muslims are setting up training camps within the U.S. to kill Americans. That's probably worse, but....
Certain groups are totally racist
Except none of the links you post are evidence of racism. No where does NRA promote violence against a particular group of Americans nor do they believe that all Muslims are terrorists wanting to kill Americans.
Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
Actually they are not. Pro gun or second amendment rights advocates support gun rights regardless of race, sex, religion or orientation. Racist groups only wants gun rights to be exclusive to white people.
Speaking of racism and gun control: MLK’s Arsenal & The Racist Roots of Gun Control in the U.S.
I just gave solid sources showing the NRA is racist, if you're just going to ignore them, there's no point in debating with you.
No you haven't. How is the NRA being racist? Your logic is solid as someone claiming the government is racist cause the Washington monument looks like a klansman.
Actually they are not. Pro gun or second amendment rights advocates support gun rights regardless of race, sex, religion or orientation. Racist groups only wants gun rights to be exclusive to white people.
Speaking of racism and gun control: MLK’s Arsenal & The Racist Roots of Gun Control in the U.S.
I just gave solid sources showing the NRA is racist, if you're just going to ignore them, there's no point in debating with you.
No you haven't. How is the NRA being racist? Your logic is solid as someone claiming the government is racist cause the Washington monument looks like a klansman.
So racist...
Also, your source was a pro gun website...come on kid, you should know better than that. You can't site sources that are blatantly politicized.
Actually they are not. Pro gun or second amendment rights advocates support gun rights regardless of race, sex, religion or orientation. Racist groups only wants gun rights to be exclusive to white people.
Speaking of racism and gun control: MLK’s Arsenal & The Racist Roots of Gun Control in the U.S.
I just gave solid sources showing the NRA is racist, if you're just going to ignore them, there's no point in debating with you.
No you haven't. How is the NRA being racist? Your logic is solid as someone claiming the government is racist cause the Washington monument looks like a klansman.
So racist...
Also, your source was a pro gun website...come on kid, you should know better than that. You can't site sources that are blatantly politicized.
K, I'll site more sources.....
source
source
source
Examiner is a pro gun website now? lol
Nice for you to cite O Malley. He's another liberal hypocrite as well.
O’MALLEY BOOED FOR SAYING ‘WHITE LIVES MATTER, ALL LIVES MATTER,’ APOLOGIZES
As Baltimore mayor, critics say, O’Malley’s police tactics sowed distrust
Baltimore Cop, Activist Slams O’Malley’s Civil Rights Record
There's nothing about NRA being racist in the Forbes blog. And the range banning Hindu men has no affliation with NRA so that's irrelevant. Again where's the evidence in support of your accusation?
Actually they are not. Pro gun or second amendment rights advocates support gun rights regardless of race, sex, religion or orientation. Racist groups only wants gun rights to be exclusive to white people.
Speaking of racism and gun control: MLK’s Arsenal & The Racist Roots of Gun Control in the U.S.
I just gave solid sources showing the NRA is racist, if you're just going to ignore them, there's no point in debating with you.
No you haven't. How is the NRA being racist? Your logic is solid as someone claiming the government is racist cause the Washington monument looks like a klansman.
So racist...
Also, your source was a pro gun website...come on kid, you should know better than that. You can't site sources that are blatantly politicized.
K, I'll site more sources.....
source
source
source
Examiner is a pro gun website now? lol
Nice for you to cite O Malley. He's another liberal hypocrite as well.
O’MALLEY BOOED FOR SAYING ‘WHITE LIVES MATTER, ALL LIVES MATTER,’ APOLOGIZES
As Baltimore mayor, critics say, O’Malley’s police tactics sowed distrust
Baltimore Cop, Activist Slams O’Malley’s Civil Rights Record
There's nothing about NRA being racist in the Forbes blog. And the range banning Hindu men has no affliation with NRA so that's irrelevant. Again where's the evidence in support of your accusation?
You cited a site called. "Jews for the preservation of firearms" bit biased.
none of those sites have anything to the NRA being or not being racist.
This is how Free Wood Post describe themselves. "Free Wood Post is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within FreeWoodPost.com are fiction, and presumably fake news."
Log in to comment