Here it comes - gun control!!!

Doer said:

"crux of his argument" is that government should not be able. Should not??? Do I have to explain everything. What kind of argument is it about what the govt should or should not do? We have the Supreme Court for that.

We have established???? Come on, drop the insults, you may make more sense. You don't know us well enough to wave the hands and try to demean someone's character. You mean he might not give a shit about you and your sillyness. That's probably correct. He may be a loving and caring person for all you know. You are just taking a stoner forum, personally. Please make a note of it.

And my observation is that dumb-dumb people are pretty sweet natured and do care about others.

Click to expand...

Huh! I could have sworn that the supreme court was 1 of 3 branches of *government* known as the judicial branch .... but I could be wrong.

Doer said:

We only know what you provide. BTW, it is a contraction. YOU'RE. Just a typo I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Great catch, but I was quoting him. Give that another read and it may make more sense to you the second time around.

st0wandgrow said:

Huh! I could have sworn that the supreme court was 1 of 3 branches of *government* known as the judicial branch .... but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

As I said you can drop the sarcasm and we can have much better discussion. The Supeme Court is the final arbiter of what the govt can and cannot do.

Mhy point is Realism. Nothing is about Should. Only about Can. What can you do? What can the govt do about that? That is it, for me. Simple. Actual. No Theory or Ideology about should would could. That's all I was pointing out.

It will help if we stick to the reality of what is and what can be done. What we hope "should be," is not a crux of anything but a personal opinion, only.

Carry on. I salute your passion.

Doer said:

As I said you can drop the sarcasm and we can have much better discussion. The Supeme Court is the final arbiter of what the govt can and cannot do.

Mhy point is Realism. Nothing is about Should. Only about Can. What can you do? What can the govt do about that? That is it, for me. Simple. Actual. No Theory or Ideology about should would could. That's all I was pointing out.

It will help if we stick to the reality of what is and what can be done. What we hope "should be," is not a crux of anything but a personal opinion, only.

Carry on. I salute your passion.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. You're right, we can have a discussion without the insults. I apologize for that.

luckybleu said:

dr of ass crack ,hillbillies come to you to get their anal warts treated?

Click to expand...

Wow, that was such a well reasoned argument I doubt anyone could come up with something better.

There is definitely an issue with SOMETHING in the USA. The murders from firearms per capita is much higher in the USA than other countries. Even when you consider that the USA has more guns per capita, about x2 more than the next closest developed country, the murders per capita due to firearms are vastly, vastly more than x2 the next closest country.

I'm not saying that guns should be banned (I own many guns ), but people need to take a realistic approach to changing SOMETHING to do with the way guns are procured, owned, and stored. The constitution made sense (and still does to a point) but it was written hundreds of years ago. Laws need to be changed to ensure that the public remains safe, because obviously there is SOMETHING wrong with the current way that gun ownership is being looked at.

I keep trigger locks on all my guns to ensure they're safe. I store ammo separately from my guns and rifles, and make sure they're stored unloaded.

It seems like people who are extremely 'pro-gun' can't take even the slightest criticism to how gun ownership is approached or they fall into a slippery slope argument and refuse to even consider amendments. There is a middle ground that could let gun owners keep their firearms, but also make sure that people who own guns are responsible, AND trained in the usage, storage, and safety of their firearms.

This clearly isn't a black and white issue, personal liberty as well as personal protection are at stake, but if both sides dig in with both feet no progress can be made. One thing anyone, regardless of left/right leaning should be able to agree upon is that obviously progress NEEDS to be made so the total number of firearms related fatalities in the USA can be reduced to a number that is more consistent with other industrialized nations. Denying a problem exists is blatant ignorance, and blaming the problem on any one type of firearm is equally ignorant.

I guess the real question is;

"What is the real reason people in the USA are more prone to shooting one another than anywhere else in the world?"

Mis-communication? Belief that violence should be used to solve problems? Influx of easily accessible weapons? Readily available semi/fully automatic weapons? Lax storage laws? Lax laws regarding gun trades and obtaining firearms? The list could be endless...

I'm pretty certain that more guns isn't the answer, USA already has the most guns of any nation, so perhaps something else should at least be considered...

EDIT: Some of my stats are off, I remember I was comparing USA to Canada for guns per capita to homicides via guns per capita. I'll do my best to find the report! Regardless, the disparity between the USA and other developed nations regarding gun violence is staggering.

st0wandgrow said:

More long winded bullshit from the good Dr. You seem to know a lot about me having never met me. Do you normally make stuff up about people you haven't met, or only when you have nothing else to pull out of your ass?

"you think YOUR so superior"

Slow down, gather your thoughts, and keep your diatribes to a paragraph or less and you might catch those.

Click to expand...

short and vacant soundbites are the medium of the fool and the liar.

the truth usually requires explanation to dimwits who dont know their asses from a hole in the ground.

the moronic drivel spewed by a thousand nitwits like you has gifted me with the ability to deduce who and what you are from your comments. who you are is a junior grade dullard with an illformed opinion and more feelings than brains
what you are is a slow witted lefty who will most likely blather on for weeks about how guns are bad before finally shooting yourself in the mensroom outside Richard Mellon Scaithe's offices in new york with an UNREGISTERED .45 and a half empty bottle of jack Daniels as your courage juice. Steve Kangas hasnt left us, he still resides in the hearts and minds of every lefty who dares to believe his special-snowflakeness renders the pistol he intends to use to murder a political opponent into the hand of righteous judgement.

yes, youre so special that only you can see that guns are bad mmm-kay, everyone else over the last 200 years just doesnt have your insight.

NoDrama said:

I see you have put up yet another strawman argument combined with some Ad hominem. Hey you're doing great so far. You will be able to debate 3rd graders in only a week or two.

The government purchased 1.6 Billion hollow Point Rounds for the DHS, what do you suppose they got those for? I mean Hollow points are banned by the Geneva convention so that cannot be used anywhere in war. Why would the DHS need that much ammo?

I am careless? Why is that?

Click to expand...

becuz ammo does in fact go bad after a time and may need to be replaced. ammo does have a reliability rating and shelf life. all manufacturers have them whether they let the public know about them or not. ever shoot a bunch of military surplus ammo and have some that just sisnt fire or were duds? the dhs department of homeland security regulates the ammo that goes to our fish and game and border protection officers. ie border patrol, customs not to mention other departments that u dont even realize they are in charge of. they need ammo too. and at about 50+ rounds per officer with full magazines. they would need a shit ton alone just at the border crossing in san diego not to mention all the agents all over the lower continental united states. also the department of homeland security says go fuck ur geniva convention. becuz they are not considered a military entity. therefor they are not war capable. so hallow points are perfectly acceptable in this situation.

It's all good fellas, the NRA just had a press conference. They solved the whole problem, their solution:

1. Armed guards at all schools
2. A national mental health database. Don't need a database for guns, but we need one fir the mentally ill and handicapped.


Pure comedy genius that Lapeirre is

Beefbisquit said:

There is definitely an issue with SOMETHING in the USA. The murders from firearms per capita is much higher in the USA than other countries. Even when you consider that the USA has more guns per capita, about x3 more than the next closest country, the murders per capita due to firearms are vastly, vastly more than x3 the next closest country.

I'm not saying that guns should be banned (I own many guns ), but people need to take a realistic approach to changing SOMETHING to do with the way guns are procured, owned, and stored. The constitution made sense (and still does to a point) but it was written hundreds of years ago. Laws need to be changed to ensure that the public remains safe, because obviously there is SOMETHING wrong with the current way that gun ownership is being looked at.

I keep trigger locks on all my guns to ensure they're safe. I store ammo separately from my guns and rifles, and make sure they're stored unloaded.

It seems like people who are extremely 'pro-gun' can't take even the slightest criticism to how gun ownership is approached or they fall into a slippery slope argument and refuse to even consider amendments. There is a middle ground that could let gun owners keep their firearms, but also make sure that people who own guns are responsible, AND trained in the usage, storage, and safety of their firearms.

This clearly isn't a black and white issue, personal liberty as well as personal protection are at stake, but if both sides dig in with both feet no progress can be made. One thing anyone, regardless of left/right leaning should be able to agree upon is that obviously progress NEEDS to be made so the total number of firearms related fatalities in the USA can be reduced to a number that is more consistent with other industrialized nations. Denying a problem exists is blatant ignorance, and blaming the problem on any one type of firearm is equally ignorant.

I guess the real question is;

"What is the real reason people in the USA are more prone to shooting one another than anywhere else in the world?"

Mis-communication? Belief that violence should be used to solve problems? Influx of easily accessible weapons? Readily available semi/fully automatic weapons? Lax storage laws? Lax laws regarding gun trades and obtaining firearms? The list could be endless...

I'm pretty certain that more guns isn't the answer, USA already has the most guns of any nation, so perhaps something else should at least be considered...

Click to expand...

Amen! Well put!

Dr Kynes said:

short and vacant soundbites are the medium of the fool and the liar.

the truth usually requires explanation to dimwits who dont know their asses from a hole in the ground.

the moronic drivel spewed by a thousand nitwits like you has gifted me with the ability to deduce who and what you are from your comments. who you are is a junior grade dullard with an illformed opinion and more feelings than brains
what you are is a slow witted lefty who will most likely blather on for weeks about how guns are bad before finally shooting yourself in the mensroom outside Richard Mellon Scaithe's offices in new york with an UNREGISTERED .45 and a half empty bottle of jack Daniels as your courage juice. Steve Kangas hasnt left us, he still resides in the hearts and minds of every lefty who dares to believe his special-snowflakeness renders the pistol he intends to use to murder a political opponent into the hand of righteous judgement.

yes, youre so special that only you can see that guns are bad mmm-kay, everyone else over the last 200 years just doesnt have your insight.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to play nice, so I'll let this one go, but I do have to applaud your cyber-psychic abilities. I'm almost as impressed with you as you are with yourself!

I'd appreciate you not disclosing my address, though.

give the people who own the weapons that are used the same as the people who use them, and i know no asshole jack off will touch my weapons

Beefbisquit said:

There is definitely an issue with SOMETHING in the USA. The murders from firearms per capita is much higher in the USA than other countries. Even when you consider that the USA has more guns per capita, about x3 more than the next closest country, the murders per capita due to firearms are vastly, vastly more than x3 the next closest country.

Click to expand...

LOL where do you get your info?

The USA is not even in the top 10 per capita death rate by guns, not even in the top 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Take out the suicides, the war casualties ( oh yes, soldiers being shot is part of the firearms death statistics too now), the accidents and just leave murder by gun and you have a very small number of deaths by gun murder per capita.

robert 14617 said:

give the people who own the weapons that are used the same as the people who use them, and i know no asshole jack off will touch my weapons

Click to expand...

i like where this guy is going

wheels619 said:

becuz ammo does in fact go bad after a time and may need to be replaced. ammo does have a reliability rating and shelf life. all manufacturers have them whether they let the public know about them or not. ever shoot a bunch of military surplus ammo and have some that just sisnt fire or were duds? the dhs department of homeland security regulates the ammo that goes to our fish and game and border protection officers. ie border patrol, customs not to mention other departments that u dont even realize they are in charge of. they need ammo too. and at about 50+ rounds per officer with full magazines. they would need a shit ton alone just at the border crossing in san diego not to mention all the agents all over the lower continental united states. also the department of homeland security says go fuck ur geniva convention. becuz they are not considered a military entity. therefor they are not war capable. so hallow points are perfectly acceptable in this situation.

Click to expand...

Modern ammo keeps for 50-100 years or more if properly stored.

if your gun kills someone you are liable

robert 14617 said:

if your gun kills someone you are liable

Click to expand...

Really? even if that someone stole them from you or otherwise obtained them illegally?

NoDrama said:

LOL where do you get your info?

The USA is not even in the top 10 per capita death rate by guns, not even in the top 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Take out the suicides, the war casualties ( oh yes, soldiers being shot is part of the firearms death statistics too now), the accidents and just leave murder by gun and you have a very small number of deaths by gun murder per capita.

Click to expand...

Developed countries, compare apples with apples, not Apples with Somali Pirates.


"Adjusting for population, the U.S. death rate by firearms -- which includes homicides, suicide and accidents -- was 10.2 per 100,000 people in 2009. The closest developed country was Finland, with a firearms death rate of 4.47 per 100,000 people in 2008, less than half that of the U.S. rate. In Canada, the rate was 2.5 per 100,000 people in 2009. In the United Kingdom, the 2011 rate was 0.25 per 100,000 people."

Why is the USA such an statistical outlier if guns aren't contributing to the problem?

"the estimated number of guns held by US civilians in 2009 is 270 million -- 88.9 firearms per 100 people. The country with the second-most guns is India, with an estimated 46 million guns in private hands -- or about four firearms for every 100 people."

Clearly, there is some sort of correlation between these figures. To ignore it is blatantly ignorant, but the instant anyone brings up these facts, some people fly off the handle and deny, deny, deny. Well denial doesn't change facts.

Clearly, bisquit, comparing a country of 5 Million to a country of 314 Million is apples to apples. Finland and America are absolutely comparable countries demographically.

Did you know that a large portion of the "deaths by firearms" aren't homicides and suicides? They're people who are murderers, burglars, petty thieves who did not choose their victim wisely. People like Alex Delasnueces who tried robbing a patient's plants. His death by firearm is a "violent firearm death" in the reports and the stats (inflating the numbers) even though Delasnueces committed the violent act and his threatening advance into a private home initiated the use of a firearm.

There's a lot of misinformation out there, and the government loves to use statistics to convince the public there is a problem and officials must take action.