Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Obama 'backs assault weapons ban'

assault weapons ban barack obama

  • Please log in to reply
439 replies to this topic

#121    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 13,353 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:07 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 27 December 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

I would not say that, the inconsequential neglect of arms is what causes it.  If the gun owner were to held liable for all damages his gun causes unless he shows that he did what he could to protect it from the wrong hands I wager that half of the gun violence would dissipate.

It is not the right to bear arms that is the problem here but that people need to grow up and realize that with the right comes an obligation.
I agree (again) that responsibility should be taken.  I was always taught that I owned that bullet and it's consequences no matter where it went or what I "intended".  No excuses.  But to make such rules ironclad in today's society would require someone to "manage" the information.  Millions of guns are sold between individuals weekly in the US.  Who keeps the data from those sales?  That's quite a data base.  The IRS would want a peek, I'm sure.  The DEA as well as FBI couldn't be faulted for wanting access - you know - just to keep us safe.  And ultimately the only answer the gun control types have for our concerns of confiscation is:  the government wouldn't do THAT.  Really?  And if they decided to...then what?

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#122    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:14 PM

Want to have some fun and watch that border get broken into pieces.... :gun:


#123    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,209 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:18 PM

View Postand then, on 27 December 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

I agree (again) that responsibility should be taken.  I was always taught that I owned that bullet and it's consequences no matter where it went or what I "intended".  No excuses.  But to make such rules ironclad in today's society would require someone to "manage" the information.  Millions of guns are sold between individuals weekly in the US.  Who keeps the data from those sales?  That's quite a data base.  The IRS would want a peek, I'm sure.  The DEA as well as FBI couldn't be faulted for wanting access - you know - just to keep us safe.  And ultimately the only answer the gun control types have for our concerns of confiscation is:  the government wouldn't do THAT.  Really?  And if they decided to...then what?

Somebody has to manage the information, and in lack of somebody better it should be a federal agency. If it  exists or a new one with a very small scope is matter of debate. In any case, all law enforcement has to be able to access that data or it would just create another toothless paper tiger, as so many in the past.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#124    AsteroidX

AsteroidX

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,570 posts
  • Joined:16 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

  • it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Posted 27 December 2012 - 03:22 PM

Quote

Somebody has to manage the information, and in lack of somebody better it should be a federal agency. If it  exists or a new one with a very small scope is matter of debate. In any case, all law enforcement has to be able to access that data or it would just create another toothless paper tiger, as so many in the past.

You think the Fed is best able to deal with this. What have they done in the past. There track record exactly aint sparkling.


#125    Hawkin

Hawkin

    LiverEatenJohnson

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,541 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • Some say he is dead.
    Some say he will never be.

Posted 31 December 2012 - 08:32 PM

Good Point

Attached Files


Edited by Mag357, 31 December 2012 - 08:45 PM.

It's good to have some skepticism so you won't be gullible & naïve. But to much of it can make you arrogant & egotistical.

#126    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 January 2013 - 12:02 AM

View PostMaizer, on 26 December 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

The problem is simple. Mental disease and easy access to deadly weapons cause massacres. While both are hard to control, the removing guns is much much easier considering ANYONE is a bad day away from a shooting spree. The question is is it too late to remove guns. I figure we give it a try before arming kids.
ANYONE except the police?   Except the military?   Now the issue is about age and "arming kids".   Are we dizzy yet?   How about parental responsibility not coming from Washington DC too?  

The problem is not simple.  Would you disarm Syrian rebels too because they're a day away from shooting someone?   Don't put everyone behind a gun into the same mal-painted box.  You'd have our women disarmed in the streets and at the mercy of every rapist alive, armed or not.   Pathetic!

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#127    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    Is not a number!

  • Member
  • 9,879 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 01 January 2013 - 05:36 AM

View PostYamato, on 01 January 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

You'd have our women disarmed in the streets and at the mercy of every rapist alive, armed or not.   Pathetic!
Because Australia and the UK are a paradise for rapists....


#128    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,412 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 January 2013 - 10:43 AM

View PostWearer of Hats, on 01 January 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

Because Australia and the UK are a paradise for rapists....
No, because the United States isn't a paradise for murder.

I'm all for breaking out the statistics on this stuff.  If you want to compare violent crimes across the board, including burglary, then put it up.  All these suggestions are made around here about countries without putting out the data.  I've shown that the US isn't anywhere close to the top of the list in murders and will probably need to repeat doing that several times before we're all on the same page.

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela

#129    Drayno

Drayno

    Reverend Dudemeister

  • Member
  • 3,679 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:29 AM

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

I'd say that quote is pretty clear.

"One leader, one people, signifies one master and millions of slaves." - Camus

#130    Likely Guy

Likely Guy

    Undecided, mostly.

  • Member
  • 4,202 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Likely, Canada

  • I might have been born yesterday but, I've been up all night.

Posted 03 January 2013 - 08:49 AM

I didn't say it first, SpiritWriter did. But I'll reiterate it, "I have a solution for all the world but nobody wants to listen to me."


#131    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,928 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 03 January 2013 - 09:08 AM

View PostYamato, on 01 January 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

No, because the United States isn't a paradise for murder.

I'm all for breaking out the statistics on this stuff.  If you want to compare violent crimes across the board, including burglary, then put it up.  All these suggestions are made around here about countries without putting out the data.  I've shown that the US isn't anywhere close to the top of the list in murders and will probably need to repeat doing that several times before we're all on the same page.

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate
Of comparibly sophisticated countries American is definately top of the list.
You have not made your point in meaningful ways other than comparing America to the likes of Russia and Jamaica. Campared to the UK, America has 4x the homicide rate.

And America is marginally higher in terms of rape than the UK, which disproves the point that gun ownership is a discouragement to rape.

Robbery is fractionally higher in the UK than it is in America.

http://www.civitas.o...oecdjan2012.pdf


You have failed to make your point that guns make you safer and prevent crime.




Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 January 2013 - 09:17 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#132    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,387 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 03 January 2013 - 05:46 PM

But the point is that all of this talk about "assault weapons" is meaningless given how few are killed by them on an annual basis.  Even the government's own numbers showed that the 1994 AWB had zero impact on the rate of violent crime.  Which makes perfect sense given how few long guns in general are used in the commission of a crime on an annual basis (more folks are beaten to death annually for example) Violent crime has been on the decrease in the US for decades at the same time that private gun ownership has skyrocketed.  So if guns were the causal factor so many claim, it truly would be the Wild West one very street corner in the US.  Even mass shootings like we saw in CT happen quite infrequently in the United States.  Here are a couple of interesting comparisons:

"Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.

Which is to say that mass shootings are incredibly rare and don’t kill a lot of people when they do happen.

It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn’t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what’s important, almost anything would be more pressing.) The problem is not hard to understand though, and rests in a psychological concept known as the “logical fallacy of misleading vividness”.

The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent – positively or negatively – that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that they’re about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport.

This is what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch.

However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction."

This is cut from a fantastic blog entry by a self-proclaimed Leftist gun enthusiast.  It's long, but I highly recommend it for anyone interested in a less emotionally driven discussion of gun control and the "assault weapons" ban.

http://kontradiction...l-ill-tell-you/

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#133    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,463 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 03 January 2013 - 07:11 PM

why do ppl keep bringing irrelevant UK, and Australia into this??
we are talking about  USA. or at least should be.

Edited by aztek, 03 January 2013 - 07:12 PM.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#134    aztek

aztek

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,463 posts
  • Joined:12 Nov 2006

Posted 03 January 2013 - 07:17 PM

there was about 85000rapes in usa (only reported ones).
about 16000 in uk, and and about 18000 in australia, in 2010 alone.

i personally don't care about uk and aust. but if we could drop numbers in USA by arming females, even by few it is worth it. hey it could be anyones wife\daughter\sister...
and if Australians and Brits like their women be raped at present rate, it is their businesses.

RESIDENT TROLL.

#135    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,928 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 03 January 2013 - 07:22 PM

View Postaztek, on 03 January 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

there was about 85000rapes in usa (only reported ones).
about 16000 in uk, and and about 18000 in australia, in 2010 alone.

i personally don't care about uk and aust. but if we could drop numbers in USA by arming females, even by few it is worth it. hey it could be anyones wife\daughter\sister...
and if Australians and Brits like their women be raped at present rate, it is their businesses.

Statistically on a per capita basis Americans having guns has had no effect on the Rape rate - that is the point of comparing with a comparable gunless country like the UK. You may not care - but it is highly relevant to a discussion of do do guns make Americans safer - NO THEY DO NOT according to the evidence, they make you more likely to die from a gunshot wound.

Deny the evidence as much as you like, it seems to be the Republican way.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 January 2013 - 07:23 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users