8man
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link. It's long and dense (hehe) but full of good info.
Heroin and methamphetamines DO kill more people. Were they legal there might be even more deaths.
WTF Is Wrong With America And Gun Control?
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
- Status
Heroin and methamphetamines DO kill more people. Were they legal there might be even more deaths.
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
Prohibition works?
Think about it for a moment
If it were legal to be a junkie there would be less deaths I'd say
Think about it for a moment
If it were legal to be a junkie there would be less deaths I'd say
8man
Well-Known Member
It's worked well for many things, from Quaaludes to hand grenades. Maybe not so well for other things, though.Prohibition works?
Think about it for a moment
If it were legal to be a junkie there would be less deaths I'd say
There must be a way to compromise on the issue. Neither side gets to "win". Not everything has to be Zero Sum. We will never get rid of all guns. Statistically, suicides make up over 2/3rds of all gun deaths. The gun-type preference of the suicide is the revolver. We will never outlaw the revolver. I read somewhere that 'long guns' account for 4% of gun deaths. People's fears seem to be focused on the rapidity and quantity of shots fired without reloading. Maybe some concessions can be made there. And an age limit sounds good, but that's only because it wouldn't affect me.
But ultimately, a clever crazy will find a way to become infamous.
But ultimately, a clever crazy will find a way to become infamous.
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
Everybody talks about "laws" around here when we are all law breakers
think about it
think about it
8man
Well-Known Member
Considering the potential for harm: I don't think firearm use and cannabis use are comparable.Everybody talks about "laws" around here when we are all law breakers
think about it
florduh
Well-Known Member
Here's a simple solution that neither side will go for: Make it legal to own an AR or similar weapon.... after an extensive training course, background check, mental health screening, and licensing. Just like we do with pilot's licenses.
That sounds way more like a "well regulated militia" than the fucked up free-for-all we have today.
That sounds way more like a "well regulated militia" than the fucked up free-for-all we have today.
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
Make bullet insurance a must to pay damages when sued. We do it for drivers and car owners.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
Teachers Unions are just as strong as the NRA maybe even more.
STRONG WORDS
Teachers union president slams Trump's proposal to arm teachers: 'Would kindergarten teachers be carrying guns in holsters?'
February 22, 2018
iStock.
President Trump's plan to arm teachers to prevent school shootings like the one in Parkland, Florida, has an important opponent: actual teachers.
In a statement Thursday, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said her union's position is firm, even among teachers who are gun owners: "Teachers don't want to be armed, we want to teach. We don't want to be, and would never have the expertise needed to be, sharp shooters; no amount of training can prepare an armed teacher to go up against an AR-15."
She had some practical questions, too:
How would arming teachers even work? Would kindergarten teachers be carrying guns in holsters? Is every classroom now going to have a gun closet? Will it be locked? When you have seconds to act when you hear the code for an active shooter, is a teacher supposed to use those seconds getting her gun instead of getting her students to safety? Anyone who pushes arming teachers doesn't understand teachers and doesn't understand our schools. Adding more guns to schools may create an illusion of safety, but in reality it would make our classrooms less safe. [Randi Weingarten]
Illinois educators call Trump's proposal to arm teachers 'insanity' - Chicago Tribune
2 days ago · Illinois teachers widely disagreed with the idea of arming educators with guns to prevent future ... teachers unions and the Chicago Teachers Union spoke out strongly against Trump's tweets,
New Jersey's Biggest Teachers' Union Opposes Arming Teachers - NBC New York
2 days ago · New Jersey's biggest teacher's union says it's "adamantly opposed" to suggestions that teachers should carry guns as a deterrent to school attacks.
STRONG WORDS
Teachers union president slams Trump's proposal to arm teachers: 'Would kindergarten teachers be carrying guns in holsters?'
February 22, 2018
iStock.
President Trump's plan to arm teachers to prevent school shootings like the one in Parkland, Florida, has an important opponent: actual teachers.
In a statement Thursday, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said her union's position is firm, even among teachers who are gun owners: "Teachers don't want to be armed, we want to teach. We don't want to be, and would never have the expertise needed to be, sharp shooters; no amount of training can prepare an armed teacher to go up against an AR-15."
She had some practical questions, too:
How would arming teachers even work? Would kindergarten teachers be carrying guns in holsters? Is every classroom now going to have a gun closet? Will it be locked? When you have seconds to act when you hear the code for an active shooter, is a teacher supposed to use those seconds getting her gun instead of getting her students to safety? Anyone who pushes arming teachers doesn't understand teachers and doesn't understand our schools. Adding more guns to schools may create an illusion of safety, but in reality it would make our classrooms less safe. [Randi Weingarten]
Illinois educators call Trump's proposal to arm teachers 'insanity' - Chicago Tribune
2 days ago · Illinois teachers widely disagreed with the idea of arming educators with guns to prevent future ... teachers unions and the Chicago Teachers Union spoke out strongly against Trump's tweets,
New Jersey's Biggest Teachers' Union Opposes Arming Teachers - NBC New York
2 days ago · New Jersey's biggest teacher's union says it's "adamantly opposed" to suggestions that teachers should carry guns as a deterrent to school attacks.
Last edited:
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
FYI
new memo: (not to be an ass)
under existing Federal law we are all non compliant
Laws are laws? we are talking laws...
See you can pass anything to make you feel better
but you just want to follow the laws you like
new memo: (not to be an ass)
under existing Federal law we are all non compliant
Laws are laws? we are talking laws...
See you can pass anything to make you feel better
but you just want to follow the laws you like
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Laws are not really designed to have us balance the harms we suppose but the ones we elect supposed. Certainly, there is some level of civil disobedience as a balancing philosophy to those who violate some laws ( http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/1986/01/19 ); but, people still die from accidents caused by speeding.
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
Outrage will occur on this forum when the FEDS decide which Vape
is complient and has their blessing. Baning any and all others
is complient and has their blessing. Baning any and all others
Last edited:
True. At heart, I am a scofflaw. I've ran stop signs, blown off firecrackers, used to drink and drive like crazy. I'm one crazy Mo'Fo. It doesn't mean I wouldn't like fewer innocent people dying from gunshots.
8man
Well-Known Member
Agreed. However, before we can elect harms as supposed we need to come to a consensus based on verifiable fact, not optimistic ideals. The philosophical concept of personal freedom should not trump the hard statistics of firearm harm to form public policy.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
That "consensus" is called the law. Liberty is more than a philosophical concept as we experience levels of it every day. There is no quantifiable way to determine what the best path is unless we get to the individual goals of all the members. If some feel other's goals have no value, there will never be an agreement unless by force or trickery.
8man
Well-Known Member
Consensus can often be called law, but law is seldom consensus. We experience levels of liberty everyday, and the effects of firearm harm as well. One can be measured defined objectively, the other can not. I won't say that the merits of personal freedom should be dismissed but cultural values forming legal doctrine while ignoring hard fact is how we got where we are now.
Last edited:
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
Well said,
I think FEAR is a key work and I don't like LAWS created from "people fear" such as "reefer madness"
I fear most people haven't a clue about the subject in question
I don't like kids being shot up with lead
any more than I like kids shot up with Heroin
Where is the outrage? is it slective?
Heroin just isn't as messy, it just happens
Kids go to morgues quietly, no news cameras
Parents with just as dead kids and alot more of them than the 17 the other day
I agree the heroin problem is worse. Maybe it's just me, but for the last number of years I have been reading about it everywhere: it's tragic. Especially because many came to heroin from oxycotin, etc. Only really just recently it seems like the politicians are taking notice, as if they were beholden due to the fabulous lobbying efforts of the Drug Cos. I don't know. Can't we work on two problems at a time?
It may be a false impression, but it seems like the last number of mass killings have at least one thing in common: the gun type. Many folks would feel better if they were no longer around. Will it change things? No. Kids will just build bombs instead. Then pressure cookers will be outlawed.
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
There is no way to validly claim your position is based on hard facts and mine cultural values. If those hard facts were true, we would find an easy answer when we analyze all the data. There, we find it is clear that banning guns does not directly lead to less violence and crime. You know the data worldwide. While I'm sure we can make a case that if we just pick some data and analyze it for certain facts, things get better with less guns. Just as we can pick other data points and find differently.
As to ignoring hard facts, how about black Americans and firearms? The Democrats were, statistically, right to try to keep firearms out of black hands during the time in and before the civil rights era with gun control attempts. Looking at the data today, and looking at the issue of crime rather than suicide, we can objectively make a case black americans should not possess weapons. So, we then need to balance the civil right of equal protection and the civil right of being able to keep and bear arms. Sure, that balance is racist and, I think, evil; but, if we want to address the majority of the problem...
Unless the data we're talking about is mass killings. Then, we balance things out a bit. However, since mass killings is not, statistically, a big problem--balancing might not be required.
There is no objective way to read the data to come up with the best solution. This is an inherently values-based determination. Just like abortion. Many more die from abortion than are killed or harmed by firearms. Well, unless the data shows no one dies except a few when there is a complication. Even looking at the data requires a value determination.
To save you the time, "Think of the Children!" Then, we shall post how we cannot understand how anyone can even, for a moment, put the life of a child on the same scale of some existential desire for freedom and responsibility. We may then talk of all those who have fought and died for those cultural values. Finally, we can discuss if they are heroes or idiots. We might then look at where we are now. Firearm ownership is up and violent crime is down. Even if we just talk about firearm homicide, that's down too. Some charts almost mirror the rates. Heck, if we look at the data, we should have MORE guns in the U.S.!
For safety.
Depending on how you read and interpret the data.
Last edited:
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
8man
Well-Known Member
You accuse me of being disingenuous.
Then you assume I would cherry pick statistics to bolster my arguments.
Then you cherry pick statistics to bolster your own.
I know you are more thoughtful than this.
Dustydurban
Well-Known Member
I wise man once wrote:
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life
florduh
Well-Known Member
That person was ridiculous, not wise. A "well armed" society leads to kids getting mowed down in school every other week. Societies where the mentally ill can't buy weapons of war don't have this problem, and are plenty polite.
- Status