Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 Gerry1of1
Male, 50-59, Western US
 26253 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:56:44 PM
We can fill prisons with joe average smoking pot, but THIS guy gets paroled? |
|
 OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8949 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 8:19:15 PM
Whose bright idea was it to let him out of prison after he murdered his grandmother with a hammer? What are the odds of his lawyer being a Democrat? |
|
 WeePee
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
610 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:48:44 PM
great idea to arm firemen, because bullets don't misfire at all due to high heat. the lack of common sense on this site never ceases to amaze me. |
|
 jinxjinx34
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
135 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:47:19 PM
@HumanAction- Many states with loose gun control also have higher than average crime rates- S. Carolina was number 1 in 2006. Arizona, Alaska, ect. This can be used easily for both sides. What is the major difference in gun laws between strict and lenient states anyway? How much less is the crime rate? Does it justify the gun murder and gun crime rate? I do not believe most are looking for a ban on private gun ownership, just a critical look at the laws concerning them. |
|
 TheeAJ123
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
110 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:42:44 PM
The guy should have been fried in 1980 when he killed his grandmother with a "Hammer", not a "Bushmaster ASSAULT weapon" but a hammer.So Who is to blame?
|
|
scapegoat7
Male, 18-29, Western US
200 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:30:11 PM
Preventing future massacre's |
|
Runemang
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
613 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:29:12 PM
Caption says it very well. |
|
scapegoat7
Male, 18-29, Western US
200 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:21:21 PM
A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers. Just about everyone around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away — and (forcibly) treated.
Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a 2011 University of California at Berkeley study found that states with strong civil-commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate. |
|
scapegoat7
Male, 18-29, Western US
200 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:21:00 PM
Mental Health is the real issue.
Charles Krauthammer, pundit and former practicing psychiatrist, wrote recently in the Washington Post:
Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people — often right out of the emergency room — as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.
Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution? Poverty has declined since the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on. |
|
 HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1211 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 7:00:55 PM
To those in a well regulated militia only? I'm for that.
The Supreme Court cases United States v. Emerson, District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. Chicago all uphold the notion that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals - not a collective as you suggest.
To quote Justice Scalia:
"Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention 'the people,' the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset."
Furthermore:
"Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to 'keep and bear Arms' in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as 'the people'." |
|
 MrPeabody
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
1502 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:47:33 PM
To expand on my comment below, militia is not the same as the people in the 2nd amendment, they in fact are two different entities. Why would you need an amendment to the constitution to guarantee that a militia would have arms? A militia without arms is just a group of people. |
|
 CynicalGamer
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
178 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:42:29 PM
Saw this on Dvorak News Blog:
Per the Daily Mail:
Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries. The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiraling violence.
In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute. According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000. The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than Franceâ& |
|
MrPeabody
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
1502 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:38:59 PM
@LillianDulci
"To those in a well regulated militia only?"
The 2nd Amendment is an amendment to the Original constitution. Most people tend to read past the part where it says "being necessary to the security of a free State"
So what does this mean? Let's try looking at the opposite of what it means:
An unregulated militia jeopardizes the security of a free state
Well then, just how do you regulate a militia and ensure a free state?
we could try this solution:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." |
|
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
1211 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:34:14 PM
What "evidence" can you cite to substantiate that?
Many "shall issue" states with loose gun-control laws have homicide rates under 1.5/100k (Iowa, Utah, Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota). This rate is less than many European countries and other states with stricter laws. This PROVES (by contradiction) that loose gun laws alone do not CAUSE homicide rates to increase.
Now, is there a correlation? Well yea, duh. Let's say a country bans baseball bats. Do you think that their baseball bat crime rate will decrease? Obviously.
So then, what are progun advocates suggesting? Loose gun control laws inversely correlate with TOTAL CRIME rates (not just firearm-related crime, because that is a useless statistic as shown above). |
|
jinxjinx34
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
135 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:14:32 PM
@randomxnp- What "evidence" can you cite to substantiate that? I can point to the fact that the countries with the strictest gun laws have substantially less gun violence. What do you have that suggests the opposite? |
|
 RobSwindol
Male, 30-39, Southern US
2055 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:47:10 PM
Wow. One day this site posts videos regarding the irresponsible things the media does that influences people to go on shooting sprees and the next day they ignore these same warnings of irresponsibility and post the exact information that the experts say shouldn't be released to the public!!!
|
|
 markust123
Male, 40-49, Western US
3783 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:37:06 PM
I'm not going to get in a partisan fight @randomxnp. It is clear that that is all you want. |
|
 dbss
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
29 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:33:08 PM
The guy wanted to kill people, he chose a gun to do it. He was not allowed by law to own a gun, but he found a way to get one anyway. Laws and bans do not stop criminals. Just like getting behind the wheel drunk doesn't stop most people either, or doing drugs. If you want to do it, you will find a way. drat blaming guns, and the NRA. Blame the guy who shot the firemen. |
|
 LillianDulci
Female, 18-29, Eastern US
2696 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:30:58 PM
"Yes. You need to implement the 2nd Amendment, which openly assumes the right to bear arms (not own, not use, not keep in a safe, but bear) and demands that this right not be infringed."
To those in a well regulated militia only? I'm for that. |
|
 VikingGuy
Male, 18-29, Europe
2388 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:29:59 PM
why don't we just make murder in general illegal? oh, wait a minute....already is. |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
831 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:23:37 PM
" Can we agree that the status quo gun control is not working?"
Yes. You need to implement the 2nd Amendment, which openly assumes the right to bear arms (not own, not use, not keep in a safe, but bear) and demands that this right not be infringed. |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
831 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:21:42 PM
Markust
It was a knee-jerk reaction! He blunders in with no thought to reality, reacting with emotion rather than rational thinking. That is knee-jerk.
As for "partisan BS" are you denying that the US DOJ was complicit in killing over 200 Mexicans and 2 US citizens by illegally supplying guns to Mexican criminals?
Perhaps you are denying that Obama is complicit? Given that he has personally obstructed the investigation, so is openly complicit as accessory after the fact to this crime, and given that if he did not know before about such a horrifying crime, with potentially grave diplomatic consequences then he is incompetent in his job, that is quite a thought. He is responsible for his government.
Of course it is known that people close to Obama, within the WH knew at the time. They are people who should have told Obama. They are people who should be sacked if they did not tell him. They have not been sacked. Hmmmmmm, so either Obama k |
|
randomxnp
Male, 30-39, Europe
831 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 5:11:26 PM
jinx
"Less guns WILL equal less gun violence."
That is simply utter bullpoo.
The evidence suggests that the opposite is the case of course (the increase in ownership and carrying of guns in the US is correlated with a reduction in gun violence, and in all violent crime; across the US low legal gun ownership correlates with high gun crime) however even with actual evidence I would not state that gun crime will rise if gun laws become stricter; I think it would be the case, and I have evidence on my side, but no-one can be certain. |
|
jinxjinx34
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
135 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 4:42:31 PM
To all of those who are riding the assumption that stricter gun control will do no good in the fight against gun violence and will simply arm criminals. There have been 62 mass shootings in the U.S. since 1982. 49 of them were carried out with LEGALLY obtained firearms.12 with illegally obtained guns. 1 undetermined. Where are the facts you guys are using to perpetuate this position? Less guns WILL equal less gun violence. Making it harder to obtain guns will equal less guns. It is a very simple idea and the right place to start to tackle this issue. Mental healthcare and education are the other things that we need to look at. |
|
jinxjinx34
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
135 Posts
|
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 4:27:50 PM
@Nerd_Rage- First, what would you propose is the solution? Can we agree that the status quo gun control is not working? Please provide some facts to support your hypothesis that the media is to blame for gun violence. Also, why do countries with stricter gun laws invariably have LESS gun violence? Is this due to better media coverage? As for your analogies, we are not discussing knives. The issue is guns. But since you brought it up-2007 there were 10,086 gun murders in the U.S. to 1,796 cutting/stabbing deaths. You say we should simply "raise awareness of the possible violence..."- But do we ignore the realized violence? This isn't an imaginary or "possible" problem. It is real and unfortunately it IS news. |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next >
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}