Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 20    Average: 3.1/5]
96 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 5911
Rating: 3.1
Category:
Date: 08/18/13 12:02 PM

96 Responses to CDC Study On Guns Comes Out: Is Ignored [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    Link: CDC Study On Guns Comes Out: Is Ignored - Obama ordered it after Sandy Hook, the results were not what he expected, so the MSM ignored it.
  2. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 12:32 pm
    Yay!

    Round 235 of this debate.

    "mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and "account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths."

    No s.hit.

    "The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy ” from friends, family members, or gang members” well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners."

    No s.hit again. That isn`t the point. More laws don`t necessarily make it harder for a street wise career criminal with connections to get a gun.

    It DOES make it harder for the middle class suburban kids that do mass shootings from getting a hold of guns.

    How many times do we have to say the same thing?
  3. Profile photo of madduck
    madduck Female 50-59
    7421 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    Okay- is having guns a good thing?- No, it means the populace can kill each other far easier than they could without the damn things. That being said- once you have them it is quite hard to see how to get rid of them- given honest people will hand `em in and crooks won`t. Now- fight away..
  4. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    madduck

    "once you have them it is quite hard to see how to get rid of them"

    Agreed. But NOBODY is seriously talking about that. We`re just talking about how to make it harder for new ones to get handed out.
  5. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 12:45 pm
    @HolyGod "It DOES make it harder for the middle class suburban kids that do mass shootings from getting a hold of guns."

    There is zero scientific evidence to support this claim.
  6. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    Well, it worked in Australia. That`s what I know. It works in Germany and in Japan and in China. I know that. So, the question is, is our problem with gun death here in the US severe enough to take that kind of action? It *can* work, but is our situation severe enough?

    Most people will tell you more kids die in pools, in car accidents, etc. I agree, but at least we can have reasonable discussion about those things, about how to make them more safe. And every year, new products, new regulations, new safety mechanisms are introduced in those areas. And those deaths are declining. Yet, talk about *any* kind of gun safety, *any* kind of way to limit gun death and you`re drummed out of town like a gun hater. Like a heretic. Oh well.
  7. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 12:57 pm
    elkingo

    "There is zero scientific evidence to support this claim."

    The aurora shooter bought high capacity magazines legally online. If they weren`t legally available online he would have had to find someplace else to get them.

    The MOMENT his first choice wasn`t available the task became harder. Sometimes it doesn`t take a study. It takes common sense.

    If you can`t walk into a store or shop online to get high capacity magazines then it is harder to get them. Do you not agree?
  8. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 12:58 pm
    Smagboy1

    "more kids die in pools"

    No they don`t. Conservatives trot out all drowning and attribute it to pools the same way the trot out the "clubs, hammers, and blunt objects" fbi category and attribute it to hammers.

    More kids DO NOT drown in pools.
  9. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    If someone is gonna kill someone, they are gonna do it, regardless.

    Guns, or no guns. The "make it harder" argument is stupid, because they will go to every length.
  10. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:03 pm
    @HolyGod -- from the study we are discussing:

    "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws" (Emphasis added.):

    Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,

    Restrictions on firearm acquisition,

    Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,

    Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and

    Zero tolerance for firearms in schools."

    The Aurora shooter would have gotten his clips anywhere he wanted. Online was just most convenient. There is simply no evidence to support your claims, and thanks to Obama, sufficient evidence to refute it.
  11. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:05 pm
    elkingo

    "The Aurora shooter would have gotten his clips anywhere he wanted."

    If they were illegal?
  12. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:06 pm
    auburnjunky

    "If someone is gonna kill someone, they are gonna do it, regardless. "

    ABSOLUTELY.

    But without guns i bet you cut down on innocent bystanders and mass killings don`t you think?
  13. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:08 pm
    @HolyGod -- he committed a mass murder.. you think he was really concerned with the legality of purchasing clips illegally?

  14. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:14 pm
    @HolyGod -- you are also talking about someone who is mentally ill. James Eagan Holmes tried to commit suicide multiple times, and had discussed with his psychiatrist mass homicides before the shooting. You still think he was concerned with the legality of how he purchased his clips?

    I could make a better argument that he sought out the easiest way to purchase clips. Online happened to be the easiest and fastest. Had nothing to do with legality.
  15. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    "But without guns i bet you cut down on innocent bystanders and mass killings don`t you think?"

    The problem with a statement like this is you are disarming people who buy things legally. Criminals who wish to commit crimes such as murder, mass shootings, or otherwise; are going to get their guns regardless of the law.

    I think it makes more sense to arm more people, as it seems like people who can defend themselves would greatly reduce the amount of innocent bystanders, and victims. Plus, I also think shooters would think twice before attacking a group of armed people.
  16. Profile photo of skypirate
    skypirate Male 18-29
    2346 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:38 pm
    "The Aurora shooter would have gotten his clips anywhere he wanted."

    If they were illegal?

    eh, 5 years or so from now that will be an irreverent question. just goto staples and use their 3d printer and print them out. also, did that dude have pipe bombs?
  17. Profile photo of Magentab0b
    Magentab0b Female 30-39
    1467 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    I don`t trust the average bystander to know when to properly use deadly force. So honestly I don`t want guns in the hands of the general populace. I believe our culture should have an acceptable middle ground for protection with guns as a last resort. So make them harder to get, make it only people who pass a pysch test can get em. And stop glorifying guns and violence in the media, more sex please.
  18. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:08 pm
    Read The 123 Page Study Here!
    It`s linked in the article, but easy to overlook.

    @HolyGod: Mass shootings and gun deaths of ALL KINDS have dropped since 2000 as opposed to 2010. Yet gun ownership is WAY UP in the USA.
    AND the places with the most anti-gun laws are the WORST for gun crime.

    "It DOES make it harder for the middle class suburban kids that do mass shootings from getting a hold of guns." - @HolyGod
    #1 NO! No it does not!
    #2 THEY aren`t the ones shooting & murdering with guns. Urban coloured folks ARE.

    Stop perpetuating the MYTH and look for solutions that work in the real world. K?

    HOW many TIMES so we conservatives HAVE to SAY the SAME THING???

  19. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    elkingo

    "he committed a mass murder.. you think he was really concerned with the legality of purchasing clips illegally?"

    "You still think he was concerned with the legality of how he purchased his clips?"

    "I could make a better argument that he sought out the easiest way to purchase clips. Online happened to be the easiest and fastest. Had nothing to do with legality."

    OF COURSE he wouldn`t care about purchasing them illegally. But what made you think he could?

    I can tell you right now that if I want to purchase a high capacity magazine I would go online first, go to a gun store, or go to a gun show.

    If none of those options were available because high capacity magazines were illegal I wouldn`t have the SLIGHTEST idea where or how to get them.

    There is nothing to indicate he would know how either, and even if he ultimately did it would be HARDER. Which is ALL I SAID.
  20. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    did that dude have pipe bombs?
    @skypirate: The Aurora shooter rigged his apartment with several bombs, and (iirc) he had some pipe-bombs in his car? NOTE: he was NOT wearing "body armour" and that`s a fact!

    Well, it worked in Australia.
    @SmagBoy1: No it has not. Their "gun crime" rate is the same as before. Their homicide & suicide rates are unchanged (just fewer guns used) so HOW can you draw that conclusion?

    @HolyGod: #1 his high-capacity magazine jammed.
    #2 He`s literally the ONLY shooter in the past decade to use a magazine bigger than 20 rounds. (In the USA)

    If they were illegal?
    Then he`d buy "black market" ones. Or make them himself. Your "point" is MOOT...

    But without guns i bet you cut down on innocent bystanders and mass killings don`t you think?
    So: Universal Confiscation is the ONLY ANSWER eh?
  21. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:27 pm
    No, 5Cats. Australia`s gun crime rate is not anywhere near what it was. And how many mass shootings have their been? Absolutely zero. I`m not even going to discuss those statistics because they`re indisputable, as are Japan`s, Germany`s, England`s, etc. Which, I think proves that if you`re going to kill someone you have a helluva lot harder time doing it when you can`t easily get your hands on guns.

    As for communities here where the gun laws are the toughest having the highest crime, that`s silly. You can`t put a no peeing sign in the shallow end of a pool and a "pee freely" sign in the deep end and expect piss to stay out of the shallow end.
  22. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm
    Smagboy

    "You can`t put a no peeing sign in the shallow end of a pool and a "pee freely" sign in the deep end and expect piss to stay out of the shallow end."

    Lovely. Where did you get that? I`m going to steal it shamelessly.
  23. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    Here we go again. HG tucks his balls away and starts to think emotionally instead of logically.

    Mass shootings are irrelevant. If you truly cared about saving LIVES you wouldn`t waste time on that subject. Everybody knows that mass shootings account for an insignificant number of deaths.

    There are only 2 conclusions as to why you would waste time on legislating rules which take away rights of gun owners.

    1) you believe that a life taken in a mass shooting is more tragic than thousands of lives taken one at a time.

    or

    2) You have ulterior motives. You plan to start with these emotionally fueled laws and use them as a stepping stone to take away more rights.

    O.K....there may be a 3rd.

    3) There is NO LOGIC INVOLVED. You are acting on emotion ALONE.

    If this weren`t true, you would focus on laws that would actually save lives.
  24. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:41 pm

    Smag - You can`t fairly compare Australias ban in this particular discussion. They have far less guns to begin with.

    And

    Most importantly, the aussie authorities went door to door and forcibly took away firearms. There is NO SUCH DATABASE IN AMERICA. The government does not know who owns guns and where they are. Also, Americans will not put up with cops invading every home in America to steal our guns and violate the 2nd amendment. There would be alot of dead cops.
  25. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm
    turdburglar, why won`t gun owners discuss safety regulations (e.g. required liability insurance for gun owners, max clip size, non-easy conversion of semi-autos to autos--and please don`t pretend it`s not easy as hell). What about tech that recognizing the owner and won`t fire otherwise? What about auto locks if the weapon hasn`t been used in ten minutes, etc.

    I`m not saying that any of those are good, but the gun lobby won`t even allow ANY safety to be discussed. It`s like the ultimate emotional response. What I do know, and it`s not emotional, is that people die by guns every day and many in the gun culture think it`s acceptable death and don`t even want to *discuss* even safety mechanisms (not even laws!) that might help. That`s unconscionable IMHO.
  26. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:43 pm
    @turdburglar -- I don`t always agree with you, but you make a fine point here. Emotion plays no part in logical thinking.
  27. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:44 pm
    @HolyGod: not sure where I heard that, but, please, by all means, use it freely! :-)
  28. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:47 pm
    Smagboy

    "Australia`s gun crime rate is not anywhere near what it was. And how many mass shootings have their been? Absolutely zero. I`m not even going to discuss those statistics because they`re indisputable"

    Well I know that and YOU know that, but we`re not functionally retarded. Uh oh please don`t tell sarah palin I said "retarded".

    Here is a relevant chart from a national study:
    tinyurl.com/lya2cec

    Full report:
    tinyurl.com/8uosnkx
  29. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:51 pm
    Turdburglar

    "you believe that a life taken in a mass shooting is more tragic than thousands of lives taken one at a time."

    Yes. I do. For the most part.

    An INNOCENT life is more valuable than one that isn`t. If you are a drug dealer and you get shot by another drug dealer then I don`t find it as tragic as a kindergartener getting killed.

    EVERYONE in a mass shooting is innocent. Most other people who are murdered did something to get murdered.

    Those kinds of murders don`t scare me, affect me, or affect my family. SO no, I don`t worry about them at all.

    I don`t see what "balls" has to do with it.
  30. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 2:56 pm
    turdbirglar

    "Mass shootings are irrelevant... Everybody knows that mass shootings account for an insignificant number of deaths."

    I don`t think you`d find them "irrelevant" if someone you cared about was killed.

    Of course they are statistically irrelevant. So what?

    In phoenix, two or three kids drown every year in pools. Is that STATISTICALLY relevant in a town of almost 4 million? No. Not at all.

    So does that mean we shouldn`t do everything we can to try to prevent those two or three deaths next year?

    There are commercials and ads and billboards and PSAs and events to prevent drowning deaths every year. Would you tell those people they are wasting time and money on an insignificant problem? Would you tell the parents of the kid that drowned?
  31. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    HG - Don`t bother with the "you would care if it was your family in a mass shooting" bit. Nobody cares about my family specifically, let-alone wants to legislate based on them.

    EVERYTHING YOU RESPONDED WITH PROVED MY POINT ABOUT YOUR EMOTIONAL DECISION MAKING.

    Sure kids drown in pools. Raising awareness is one thing. Making laws and taking rights is completely different. THERE IS NO AMENDMENT CONCERNING SWIMMING POOLS.

    The simple fact that you admit that a life taken in a mass shooting is more tragic than a life taken one at a time is PATHETIC. That is why I say you have tucked away your balls. There is no logic there. To assume that everyone in a mass shooting is innocent and the guy at the gas station shot for the money in the register is somehow guilty is amazingly retarded!!!!

    Comparing some billboards and psa`s to a nation wide ban which violates the 2nd amendment is amazingly retarded!
  32. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 3:45 pm

    HG - I respect your logic on other topics. For some reason you abondon logic with gun control.
  33. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Smag - Your questions about the pro-gun side are legitimate questions.

    Firstly, the technology for a weapon recognizing it`s owner is not reliable enough, which is the exact reason police have not used it. They would have the most intrest in keeping their issued weapons from being used against them. Also, it would violate a citizen/firearm dealers rights to sell or transfer weapons without having to report to the federal government.

    Most of the suggestions you propose would create limitations and violate on the 2nd amendment.

    BY FAR, the biggest reason the NRA and pro-gun side do not entertain these "compromises" is very simple. There is no trust in the government.
    Any right taken away is NEVER given back. Each regulation passed is simply used as a stepping stone to more restrictions. It is the gods honest truth, that is how the government works, by taking rights a little at a time. There is no trust.
  34. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 3:59 pm

    Smag - I would also like to point out that you did not even bother to respond to my comment about your Aussie - American comparison. Am I to assume that you can`t refute the fact that a Aussie style ban and seizure would not be possible in America, and therefore has no legitimate comparison to American gun control in the way you propose?
  35. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 4:05 pm
    Turdburglar

    "Making laws and taking rights is completely different."

    They did make laws. All new pool builds in az have to have a pool fence. It cut drowning deaths in half.

    "the guy at the gas station shot for the money in the register is somehow guilty"

    Of course he is innocent. That is why I said "most". I didn`t speak in absolutes. But clerks shot at the register is a tiny percentage of gun death just like mass shootings are.

    "Comparing some billboards and psa`s to a nation wide ban which violates the 2nd amendment is amazingly retarded!"

    What nationwide ban? On high capacity magazines? You think that violates the second amendment?

  36. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    turdburglar

    "Any right taken away is NEVER given back."

    You mean like prohibition?
  37. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 4:08 pm
    turdburglar, I don`t know what you want me to say about Australia? If course it wouldn`t work if you say it wouldn`t. ;-) No, seriously, the fact is that no one thought it would work in Australia, either. And lots of politicians were voted out of office over it. You`ll find the laws have resounding support now, though. So, sure, you`re right, if no one (our lawmakers) won`t vote for it, it`ll never happen here. But that`s no different than gay marriage or equal rights or anti-discrimination laws, right?

    I`m not talking about banning guns, though. I`m really not. I`m just talking about reasonable safety. And the reason current tech doesn`t work is because there`s no desire for it to. No market for it. Why? Well, because no one in the industry or buying public believes it`s necessary. So, ergo, it doesn`t work. If you had enough people who wanted it? It`d be working in short order.
  38. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm
    "What nationwide ban? On high capacity magazines? You think that violates the second amendment? "

    Why, yes. Yes it does. Considering what the intent of the 2nd amendment was: supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

    When the government has bigger/better weapons, and so do criminals, then yes, limiting what we as law abiding citizens can purchase in this field is an infringement on our rights.
  39. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    HG - Prohibition, really. Grasping at straws there. Find the one horrible exception to the rule. You do remember what had to happen before they lifted prohibition? That`s weak.

    I don`t agree with the pool fence laws, but it doesn`t matter because there is nothing in the bill of rights about swimming pools. That`s retarded.

    Yes, I do think the majority, including hi cap mags, violates the 2nd amendment.

    Your arguments are weak. The examples you bring are not relevant.
  40. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    smag - you changed what I said. I didn`t say it wouldn`t work because "I say so".

    I didn`t say it wouldn`t work because of the politicians.

    And most certainly, I never ever ever mentioned gay marriage, discrimination, or equal rights. That is outright crap, and a complete change of topic. What I wrote is clear as day....just scroll down.

    It won`t work because there is no way of knowing where the guns are.
    It won`t work because there are way way way more guns in America.
    It won`t work because it violates the 2nd amendment.
    It won`t work because Americans won`t allow cops to illegally search our house and illegal seize our possessions, which violates multiple amendments.

    It won`t work because this is America. Stop trying to change what I said, when my comments are written in black and white, in front of your face.
  41. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 7:02 pm
    Turdburglar

    "Your arguments are weak. The examples you bring are not relevant."

    Not relevant?

    You said: "Any right taken away is NEVER given back." Notice the emphasis on NEVER? I simply gave you an example of a right that was taken away and then given back. How is directly and irrefutably proving your statement wrong NOT relevant in a debate?
  42. Profile photo of HolyGod
    HolyGod Male 30-39
    6190 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 7:05 pm
    elkingo

    "When the government has bigger/better weapons, and so do criminals, then yes, limiting what we as law abiding citizens can purchase in this field is an infringement on our rights."

    So then in your opinion limiting my ability to own intercontinental ballistic missiles infringes on my 2nd amendment rights?
  43. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm
    HolyGod, I thought we were talking about GUN rights.. what type of gun can you get that fires an ICBM?

    So, you are now arguing that because there are WMD that we should forget about owning similar guns to that of the military? I fail to see your logic.
  44. Profile photo of Andrew155
    Andrew155 Male 18-29
    2579 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm
    I`m tired of gun arguments. LISTEN:

    There are countries with lots of guns that have BOTH high and low crime.

    There are countries with few guns that have BOTH high and low crime.


    Lots of guns, high crime: America. (though relative to the high crime in other nations I list, it`s still low)

    Lots of guns, low crime: Switzerland, Serbia (many don`t know, but Serbia has a murder rate the same as Holland or Sweden and one of the highest concentrations of weapons in the world). Technically, Scandinavia also falls in this category, as their concentration of guns is around 30 per 100 people.

    Few guns, high crime: Mexico. Brazil. Russia. Most of the 3rd world.
    Few guns, low crime: Japan. China. Australia.


    In other words, use more dynamic analysis in the damn gun control debate.
  45. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 8:36 pm
    "Australia ...how many mass shootings have their been? Absolutely zero."
    @SmagBoy1: this is absolutely... IRRELEVANT!

    Educate Yourself

    Statistically? There are FEW mass gun killings in Australia before the 1997 "gun laws" and guess what? NO DECREASE in overall violence and suicide! Yes the use of guns is lower, but VIOLENT CRIME is higher! While the rest of the civilized world has seen it drop (WITHOUT less guns, in fact 50% MORE guns in the USA...)

    Lies is all you can tell us.

    FURTHERMORE: Why are you changing the subject? Hummm? This is NOT about other countries.
    HEY! Lets talk about the crime rates in Andorra! HOLY DRAT are they low! WOW!
  46. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    the Aussie Authorities went door to door and forcibly took away firearms.
    @turdy makes a valid point: Do YOU @SmagBoy1 advocate door-to-door warrantless searches in the USA?
    I KNOW that @HolyGod does, he said so explicitly!

    why won`t gun owners discuss safety regulations
    THEY DO! Those things YOU list are STUPID! They are even COUNTER productive: they`ll make matters WORSE! Not better. Kill, not save lives.
    Idiot: Pro-Gun people DO TALK about safety a LOT! Only the gun-grabbers NEVER listen!

    In phoenix, two or three kids drown every year in pools. Is that STATISTICALLY relevant...
    @HolyGod: How about Chicago vs Dallas? Washington DC vs Minneapolis? The highest gun crime exists... in high anti-gun law areas! Admit it!
  47. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 8:48 pm
    @Andrew155 makes an EXCELLENT point!
    Mexico: tougher Gun Laws than the USA... HORRIFIC gun crime rate!
    Please to explain Ok thx.

    I`m not talking about banning guns, though. I`m really not.
    Liar. Sorry, but it`s true!

    You mean like prohibition?

    Oh @HolyGod! Your FAIL is EPIC!

    Unless... of course... you can point to the US Constitution where it says "You have the RIGHT to drink alcohol"...

    FAIL! LMAO! Oh it must BURN to be so FULL of FAIL! You do understand the difference? No? Didn`t think so...
  48. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 8:52 pm
    So, you are now arguing that because there are WMD...
    @elkingo: Nice to see you around!

    YES! Because `mustard gas` exists? WE MUST BAN MUSTARD! Especially "Grey Poupon"!!!

    I simply gave you an example of a right that was taken away and then given back.
    No @HolyGod: NO YOU DID NOT! Idiot. Freaking fool! Please STFU, ok?

    Unless you can cite the US Constitution... U R WRANG!
  49. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 8:59 pm
    Hint #1: Mustard Gas is NOT made of mustard...

    Wiki Says: Mustard Gas

    Hint #2: Drinking alcohol is NOT mentioned in the US Constitution. Bearing arms (owning guns) is! One is NOT a "right" while the other? IS A RIGHT!

    "How is directly and irrefutably proving your statement wrong NOT relevant in a debate?"
    LOLZ! Oh You So Funny!

    "my ability to own intercontinental ballistic missiles infringes on my 2nd amendment rights?"
    #1 A missile is not "arms" it`s "ordinance"...
    #2 You CAN OWN an ICBM! Just not a nuclear warhead... seriously, you DON`T know this?
    WHAT do you think those "private space rockets" ARE? The un-manned ones I mean.
  50. Profile photo of whodat6484
    whodat6484 Male 30-39
    3907 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    Why is the CDC doing a study on guns?
  51. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 9:19 pm
    Hint: Rocket and Missile are often used interchangeably. Their definitions often get "fuzzy".

    >>A "missile" may not self-contain all the needed materials for powered flight (motion).
    >>A "rocket" is purely self-contained.

    Example: A "jet engine" requires OUTSIDE AIR to function!
    A "rocket motor" has self-contained air (oxygen usually) for it`s combustion chamber.

    A "missile" literally means ANY object launched by a human.

    ICBM = Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. ANY object able to escape the atmosphere and travel from one continent to another QUALIFIES.
    Weapons are a completely different subject!

    Really? @HolyGod! Really! You cannot tell the difference between a pistol and a Nuclear Weapon?
  52. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 9:24 pm
    Why is the CDC doing a study on guns?
    @WhoDat: Because Obama told them to. Specifically, them.
    Also: "Guns" fall under "health" for some reason...

    Anyhow? The CDC "Kicked The Can" down to the
    ...subcontracted out to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council

    Because... politics!
  53. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 9:30 pm
    @HolyGod and @SmagBoy1:

    Lawful US Citizens can LEGALLY own the following:

    ICBMs
    TANKS
    Bazookas
    PRGs
    Machine Guns

    REALY machine guns! Full automatic fire ONLY! NOT "semi-automatic" weapons... ffs!

    So how many of -these- have been used in mass murders in the past 50 years?

    NONE!

    (One guy famously STOLE a tank and went on a rampage, but he was the only one killed, iirc!)
    (Hint: he stole it!)
  54. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 10:05 pm
    5Cats: Actually, sub-machine guns and full-auto rifles have been used in gang/drug related incidents here in America. They weren`t labeled "mass murders", because they were mostly drive-by incidents.

    And owning or building an ICBM would definitely get you detained and questioned by the FBI.

    The point is not everyone can own the items you just listed. They take federal licenses and permits, which come with extensive background checks and then on top of that many states don`t allow them at all.

    I`m with you on gun rights, but don`t exaggerate. Most US citizens cannot legally own those for various reasons.
  55. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 10:33 pm
    I hear you @CrakrJak! But I`ve made these many points before, so I`m just summarizing for the "unthinking ones".

    Own an ICBM = perfectly legal. Owning a "warhead" is another matter. Any of the "private space rockets" qualify as an ICBM... technically! You COULD put a teeny-tiny bomb in them if you wanted to...

    Gangs often use modified civilian guns. Those are a different category (and are already illegal).

    "Not everyone can own" but law-abiding US citizens CAN OWN and that`s my point, eh? Of course not all of them! But making it ILLEGAL for ALL law-abiding US citizens stops... ZERO CRIMES! HOORAY!
    (To own a tank, for example).

    My point (which ELUDES the gun-grabbers) is that there ARE ALREADY PLENTY of laws! And they work pretty darn good!
    More laws DOES NOT make anyone "safer".
    Period.
  56. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    31783 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 10:36 pm
    More LEGAL guns = LESS crime.

    More ILLGAL guns = more crime.

    It`s a fact!

    More cars = more car accident deaths.
    Fewer cars = fewer car accident deaths.

    Wait... what? BAN CARS!

    More churches in a town = more crime!
    It`s a fact!
    (NOT "per capita" of course, it`s a trick! ;-))
  57. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15844 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 10:53 pm
    Here`s the takeaway quote:

    "If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country." These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report`s findings.
    Here`s another:

    "Don`t bother me with facts. I have a constitution to destroy here!"
    -Barack Hussein Obama
  58. Profile photo of turdburglar
    turdburglar Male 30-39
    4717 posts
    August 18, 2013 at 11:02 pm

    HG -

    Yes, your example was weak. You have one horrible, irrelivant example where a law was taken back. I said law, not right. See, I can be picky and focus on one word you said, while ignoring the entire example. Just like you ignored the fact that the bill of rights says nothing about the right to drink. Ignore the INSANE AMOUNT OF VIOLENCE it took to reverse that law. Remember the fact that the reversal had nothing to do with the violence, but with the revenue lost by the govt.

    Suppose I said " rights taken away are almost, hardly never ever given back". If you are going to be picky, don`t focus on the word never, try focusing on the word RIGHTS...As in "unalienable".

    Yes...without a doubt, your example comparing the old as fudge law banning alchol, is weak and irrelivant.

    Come back to logic land. I usually respect your logical responses to other issues, when it comes to gun control, you speak from fear, emotion, and nons
  59. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 4:00 am
    OldOllie: I do believe the violence statistics will drop here soon, especially for Illinois as we just passed a CCW permit law and DC is already seeing a precipitous drop in the crime rate due to CCW.

    As for California, I believe the "Left Coast" has been a lost cause for decades now because of the idiocy of the Hollywood elites.

    But the most dangerous state still appears to be Nevada with #1 rankings in both robbery and vehicle theft.
  60. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 6:19 am
    Lots of guns, low crime: Switzerland,
    Actually Switzerland has the highest homicide rate by gun in all of Europe.

    It won`t work because it violates the 2nd amendment.
    Didn`t seem to matter much when they took that right away from the mentally ill. Don`t kid yourself, your rights are not absolute.
  61. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 6:22 am
    "You mean like prohibition?"

    You mean where the government was totally ineffective at prohibiting something that people could easily make in their own house and finally relented because no one took it seriously?
  62. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 6:37 am
    @patchgrabber:

    "Actually Switzerland has the highest homicide rate by gun in all of Europe."

    Yes, but it has low overall crime which is the point, just because people chose to use the most convenient tool when committing a murder does not mean that the murder would not have taken place without that tool, another tool would then be used in its place because it would then be the most convenient.

    "Didn`t seem to matter much when they took that right away from the mentally ill. Don`t kid yourself, your rights are not absolute."

    Although I see your point, the rights of the many always take precedence over the rights of the few when safety is concerned, the right of everyone in the nation, not simply those who already own a gun, to guard against the government or intruders has long been upheld and none of the founding amendments in the Bill of Rights have ever been overturned.
  63. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 6:46 am
    the rights of the many always take precedence over the rights of the few when safety is concerned
    This could easily be an argument to tighten gun laws and take away this right for other people. Those who use the 2nd Amendment argument don`t realize it is a pathetic argument, considering how that right is denied to several groups, a denial which has no basis in your Constitution yet is never challenged and is just accepted by the majority without any outrage on either side.
  64. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 6:56 am
    (cont)

    The severely mentally ill have many of their rights curtailed because they are seen as a potential threat yet still citizenry with an illness, hence the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment.

    Their rights are laid out via the

    Americans with Disabilities Act
    Fair Housing Amendments Act
    Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

    "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose ... the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are reasonable exercises of governmental authority." -Justice Scalia (in the DC v. Heller decision)
  65. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 7:19 am
    "This could easily be an argument to tighten gun laws and take away this right for other people."

    True, which is why it`s the founders said "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" but that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes."

    It is the publics duty to protect their own rights, not the governments duty. The people decide how far their rights extend via their ability to vote, protest, organise, sue, and even make war if necessary.

    The 2nd amendment is a safety valve for the people to overthrow their government, and protect themselves and their property. Should they decide to give away that right freely, that is also their right, they have only themselves to blame.
  66. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 7:19 am
    The people decide how far their rights extend via their ability to vote, protest, organise, sue, and even make war if necessary.
    In theory, however you yourself demonstrated that in practice it is interpretations by the SCOTUS that actually determine how far those rights go, and they are not elected.
  67. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 7:24 am
    Dang, did I miss the party?

    @patch

    considering how that right is denied to several groups
    They get away with it because the Constitution doesn`t actually apply to all US citizens - just members of the "political community" (aka voters). Because of this, they can deny groups like children, felons, and the mentally ill from buying firearms on the basis that the Constitution doesn`t apply to them. Looking back, that`s also how they withheld rights from African Americans.

    Lately though, it seems like you are right: they simply don`t care what the laws/rules are. If they want to do something, they`ll do it - supposed "rights" be damned.
  68. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 7:29 am
    @HA: The mentally ill can`t vote in the US?
  69. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 7:38 am
    @patch: Most states have some restrictions on voting for the mentally ill. If states can prevent it, then it must not be a federally protected right.

    Scary thought that being labeled "mentally ill" could take away your rights, isn`t it?
  70. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 7:42 am
    "In theory, however you yourself demonstrated that in practice it is interpretations by the SCOTUS... not elected."

    Yes, but we are a Democratic Republic not a Democracy. We control those who represent us, they have the power to represent us by choosing the SCOTUS Judges. Yet the public still has the control over the the matter, maybe not in the short term, but definitely in the long term. Hence the founders saying government should not change for "transient" purposes, if the people will it for enough time the laws will change.

    Hence:
    the Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.

    Lochner v. New York and Adkins v. Children`s Hospital

    Adler v. Board of Education and Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York

    Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas

    Pace v. Alabama and Loving v. Virginia



    I could go on if you want, but you get the point.
  71. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 7:45 am
    Scary thought that being labeled "mentally ill" could take away your rights, isn`t it?
    With the inherent ambiguity of the definition and extent of "mentally ill" I would most certainly agree. All adults in Canada have the right to vote, even prisoners.
  72. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 7:52 am
    Yet the public still has the control over the the matter, maybe not in the short term, but definitely in the long term
    A long-term motivated electorate is a rare thing, especially considering the length of a SCOTUS term of office.
  73. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:01 am
    The mentally ill are prevented from voting only if they cannot indicate, with or without help, "specific desire to participate in the voting process."

    A.K.A someone can`t bring in a bunch of people who are so far gone they don`t know what voting is and fill out their ballots for them.

    A politician in Main tried to extend it to anyone considered "insane" but I don`t think he won. The mentally ill are allowed to vote.
  74. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:05 am
    @richanddead

    Different states have different laws on it. Federal law allows states to disenfranchise convicted criminals and those with "mental incapacity."

    I`m not saying that everyone who is mentally ill can`t vote, but the right to vote for the mentally ill is not federally guaranteed.

    I`ll see if I can find some of the specific laws, but I know I`ve read estimated awhile ago saying that up to 1 million people could be turned away from the voting booths due to "mental incapacity."
  75. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:07 am
    "A long-term motivated electorate is a rare thing, especially considering the length of a SCOTUS term of office."

    Very true, and a nation is even a longer-term thing, our laws were not made to change and should not change quickly. But only after much debate and a consensus of the majority is reached for the future.
  76. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:11 am
    @HumanAction: Yea please do, I got the quote from the American Bar Association. But they might be considering a change I`m not aware of.
  77. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:16 am
    @richanddead

    Here`s a good link with a simple breakdown: NAMI

    This one reinforces it and gives the specific statutes. I checked a couple of the statues listed and the ones I checked are correct: Bazelon

    Kentucky, for instance, has this gem in the books:

    "`Idiots` and `insane` persons shall not have the right to vote."

    To me, that amount of subjectivity means that the right to vote for the mentally ill is not guaranteed.
  78. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:19 am
    @r&d: I`m interested to learn more about voting rights for the disabled in my own country now. All I can seem to find is that the mentally ill can vote, but ones that might be further along on the spectrum of mental illness, so much so that they might not be able to vote without assistance, doesn`t seem to come up anywhere...
  79. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:25 am
    @HA: that link is actually more scary than I thought. While I understand expert testimony in court contains mental health experts, the wording of "mentally incompetent," "incapacitated," "unsound mind," and especially your spotlight on Kentucky, reeks of DSM I era thinking to me.
  80. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:28 am
    Thinking even more about it, I`m dumbfounded at how hard/lengthy it is to update laws. To have something like "idiots" in the law is so beyond the pale so as to be ridiculous and offensive.
  81. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:45 am
    @patchgrabber and @HA: I researching it now, and I concede to @HA that those are indeed state laws. But there appears to be discrepancies between state and federal laws about it, seems like a potential SCOTUS case. Also "idiot" is a antiquated term not a derogatory one here, and although Mississippi is the only one that contains it in its voting laws 9 states have it in their Constitutions. Still researching...
  82. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:46 am
    Also "idiot" is a antiquated term not a derogatory one here
    I understand this, however the antiquated nature of the term is what would make it derogatory. I don`t imagine calling black people "boy" or "I am a racist!" or whatever would be acceptable in law now, even if it was the norm of the day.
  83. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:47 am
    Huh, I wondered what it would censor me to if I wrote "n*gger."
  84. Profile photo of HumanAction
    HumanAction Male 18-29
    2357 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:50 am
    Yea, I doubt that the laws are used really to prevent people from voting anymore. That being said, that there are laws in the books like this make me nervous.

    What`s to prevent them from saying libertarians or constitutionalists are idiots? Ha.
  85. Profile photo of patchgrabber
    patchgrabber Male 30-39
    5812 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 8:52 am
    What`s to prevent them from saying libertarians or constitutionalists are idiots? Ha.
    I`d say you`re more likely to be branded a terrorist. You hear that buzzing sound? That`s an Obamadrone coming for you. ;-)
  86. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 9:17 am
    On the mentally disable not voting side:

    Sates are allowed to disenfranchise the mentally ill via, 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(3)(B) (2000). That allows states to determine "voter eligibility requirements" and "provide that the name of a registrant may not be removed from the official list of eligible voters except-... (B) as provided by State law, by reason of criminal conviction or mental incapacity."
  87. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 9:18 am

    On the to vote side:

    The Help America Vote Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15482
    Says that even if an individual is not eligible to vote they may still cast a "provisional ballot" so long as they are register.


    The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 says "Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."

    And one of the strongest of all, there was a Supreme Court decision on this. DOE v. ROWE(2001)
    the court found that the State of Maine`s disenfranchisement of those persons under guardianship by reason of mental illness is unconstitutional. Yet I can`t find the Majority opinion anywhere.


    I`m still looking though.
  88. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 9:25 am
    "I understand this, however the antiquated nature of the term is what would make it derogatory. I don`t imagine calling black people "boy" or "I am a racist!" or whatever would be acceptable in law now, even if it was the norm of the day."

    No, "boy" is dismissive of being considered a man, but you can find "negro" in several places although that is appearing to be more antiquated. Idiot used to be a legal term that gained a bad reputation, much like "retarded" has, and "special" will.
  89. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 9:30 am
    here is what the american bar association says on it and they talk about the term "Idiot" on page 933 but really discusses it on 935.

    link

    And here is DOE v. ROWE (2001), that said disenfranchisement of those persons under guardianship by reason of mental illness is unconstitutional.

    link
  90. Profile photo of richanddead
    richanddead Male 18-29
    3318 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 9:48 am
    As far as I can find everything is based on how "mental illness" or like term, is detailed and defined. If a definition is made specific enough it is viewed under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(3)(B) (2000) as a "mental incapacity."

    But if it is anyway generalised it curves more to being unconstitutional.

    Yet ironically "mental incapacity" in 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-6(a)(3)(B) (2000) is not defined at all. So theoretically from what I`ve found, you could say a person had a mental illness if you described any particular personality trait in enough detail and labeled it a definition of mental incapacity.



    "What`s to prevent them from saying libertarians or constitutionalists are idiots? Ha."

    That may be more unsettling than you think.
  91. Profile photo of onoffonoffon
    onoffonoffon Male 30-39
    2314 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 11:18 am
    The facts are irrelevant because he could have been trayvon.
  92. Profile photo of McGovern1981
    McGovern1981 Male 30-39
    14273 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 11:35 am


    Cover up the truth no one needs to see that....yep no agenda there.......
  93. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 2:59 pm
    patchgrabber - the term `idiot` used to mean someone with an IQ of 20 or lower. The term is still used sometimes in Kentucky, although the more PC terminology is "Profound mental retardation".

    The law isn`t derogatory, since the term is still used in mental health at times.

    In KY, I practice psychology, btw.
  94. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    Btw -- someone with an IQ of 20 cannot think much more than eat, poop, pee, sleep, repeat.
  95. Profile photo of elkingo
    elkingo Male 30-39
    5387 posts
    August 19, 2013 at 3:03 pm
    "What`s to prevent them from saying libertarians or constitutionalists are idiots? Ha."

    Standardized IQ tests that have been around since 1916 when the first test was published.

Leave a Reply