Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 14:22:35 GMT -5
MP - I am in favor of the Constitution and the language in it says "shall not be infringed" I guess I just trust in the people more than I do the government. And by that I mean a large unyielding bureaucracy that by it's nature rules always strives for what is right for everyone whilst continually trampling the rights and hurting the people for whom it is intended to create a better society. The one fact that nobody on the left, or in the gun control crowd, has reasonably answered yet is this: why are there fewer violent crimes in states that protect the rights of gun owners. Do you have an answer for that? I guess by your first statement you think fully automatic weapons, LAWs rockets and machine guns should be available for anyone who wants them. When you speak about trust, which "people" are you referring to and in what context? Government is made up of people, not my favorite people but those that the majority seemed to like or want in power. Who do you think should be setting law? I think this article presents data counter to your assertion about fewer crimes where there are none or limited controls on gun ownership: 247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/2/The data shows the top 10 states ranked by # of violent gun related crimes to the total population. Interestingly, all have no control on purchasing firearms. By "protect the rights of gun owners" you mean the ability to purchase firearms whenever and wherever one wants with no governmental or other oversight. Can you cite the reference that gave you the basis for your statement. |
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Feb 6, 2014 14:50:25 GMT -5
MP - I am in favor of the Constitution and the language in it says "shall not be infringed" I guess I just trust in the people more than I do the government. And by that I mean a large unyielding bureaucracy that by it's nature rules always strives for what is right for everyone whilst continually trampling the rights and hurting the people for whom it is intended to create a better society. The one fact that nobody on the left, or in the gun control crowd, has reasonably answered yet is this: why are there fewer violent crimes in states that protect the rights of gun owners. Do you have an answer for that? I guess by your first statement you think fully automatic weapons, LAWs rockets and machine guns should be available for anyone who wants them. When you speak about trust, which "people" are you referring to and in what context? Government is made up of people, not my favorite people but those that the majority seemed to like or want in power. Who do you think should be setting law? I think this article presents data counter to your assertion about fewer crimes where there are none or limited controls on gun ownership: 247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/2/The data shows the top 10 states ranked by # of violent gun related crimes to the total population. Interestingly, all have no control on purchasing firearms. By "protect the rights of gun owners" you mean the ability to purchase firearms whenever and wherever one wants with no governmental or other oversight. Can you cite the reference that gave you the basis for your statement. ho hum still recycling you talking points that have already been addressed and or refuted... I have not nor do I know any conservatives who advocate own/possessing explosives as a 2nd amendment issue. Didn't look at your link but as has been proven countless times state data in most if not all those cases are heavily skewed because of the crime in the metropolitan areas where there are usually greater restrictions on owning, possessing carrying firearms. Regarding anyone owning, possessing firearms. Clearly we need to restrict access for those previously convicted of violent crimes and the mentally ill. I admit concern for who and how is labelled mentally unfit - that will be tough to be stringent enough without restrict some people unnecessarily. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 15:01:12 GMT -5
I guess by your first statement you think fully automatic weapons, LAWs rockets and machine guns should be available for anyone who wants them. When you speak about trust, which "people" are you referring to and in what context? Government is made up of people, not my favorite people but those that the majority seemed to like or want in power. Who do you think should be setting law? I think this article presents data counter to your assertion about fewer crimes where there are none or limited controls on gun ownership: 247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/2/The data shows the top 10 states ranked by # of violent gun related crimes to the total population. Interestingly, all have no control on purchasing firearms. By "protect the rights of gun owners" you mean the ability to purchase firearms whenever and wherever one wants with no governmental or other oversight. Can you cite the reference that gave you the basis for your statement. ho hum still recycling you talking points that have already been addressed and or refuted... I have not nor do I know any conservatives who advocate own/possessing explosives as a 2nd amendment issue. Didn't look at your link but as has been proven countless times state data in most if not all those cases are heavily skewed because of the crime in the metropolitan areas where there are usually greater restrictions on owning, possessing carrying firearms. Regarding anyone owning, possessing firearms. Clearly we need to restrict access for those previously convicted of violent crimes and the mentally ill. I admit concern for who and how is labelled mentally unfit - that will be tough to be stringent enough without restrict some people unnecessarily. I didn't ask you what conservatives want, I asked you if your strict read of the Constitution, the shall not infringe clause, would support those weapons. They are man carry and certainly considered arms (they'd be akin to another's comments about colonials owning wheeled cannon). So the data that refutes your broad generalized (and totally unsupported) statement about gun violence related to gun control is SKEWED. A simpler question - What was your statement based on? You heard it on FOX is an acceptable answer, as the cellar dwelling rodent would say - own up, don't be a coward. I really am trying to get to the heart of your claims but the data I find, skewed as it undoubtedly appears to you since it is in total disagreement with your statement, is 180 out of phase. |
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 6, 2014 17:50:42 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2014 18:33:34 GMT -5
Interesting story, thank you for linking it to us. It does not tie more or less gun control to violent crimes however. That was nolesaint's pitch that violent gun related crimes were higher where gun controls were tighter on a state by state basis. Possibly the NPR story shows the drop due to tighter gun control. |
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Feb 6, 2014 21:31:56 GMT -5
MP - not interested in spoon feeding you the multitude of studies that have proven the points time and again. Cellar, Glen and several others have posted data, stories, attributions in this and the other 'political' discussions recently and for the most part all any of you can do is attack the messengers (poster and information source), recycle your talking points, make accusations like the second amendment covering explosives (rockets) and ask us to provide data to support our position. Well if you care at all you'll truly take in what has already been shared and maybe even do a little research on your own... For instance could you possibly do your own google search of: Study gun regulations impact on violence Where you could easily find something like this: |
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,047
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Feb 6, 2014 22:43:39 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 6:29:04 GMT -5
MP - not interested in spoon feeding you the multitude of studies that have proven the points time and again. Cellar, Glen and several others have posted data, stories, attributions in this and the other 'political' discussions recently and for the most part all any of you can do is attack the messengers (poster and information source), recycle your talking points, make accusations like the second amendment covering explosives (rockets) and ask us to provide data to support our position. Well if you care at all you'll truly take in what has already been shared and maybe even do a little research on your own... For instance could you possibly do your own google search of: Study gun regulations impact on violence Where you could easily find something like this: Wow! What an impact the law change in Florida had, on the US too! Amazing! They should have included the birth of George Zimmerman as well, LOL. Graph was very informative - wonder why the milestones relating to tighter gun laws weren't superimposed on that chart. Many jump to the conclusion that gun control laws (background checks, no psychological issues, gun safety/shooting classes) would reduce the number of guns and that any reduction in violent crime is due totally to the fear that victims might carry or have a gun in the glove box, night stand or taped to the tv remote. Tighter gun control laws would limit easy availability of guns for those that can't pass muster and are more likely to commit crimes. |
|
nolesaint
Team Captain
Posts: 1,894
Dislikes:
|
Post by nolesaint on Feb 7, 2014 7:43:29 GMT -5
Good observation which I am sure has validity. On the broader issues we've discussed in this and the other recent threads on this board I am confident that both sides could find a way to kill the other with a death by a thousand paper cuts. For me here is the bottom line: almost everywhere you look in the US where you have less government you more self reliant people and lower violent crime rates. Where you have more government the opposite is true. For the FL example you gave a minute ago I can respond with MI/Detroit. Somebody for government control comes back with another example and our side will easily have one to rebut it. In the end as much as Saintsfan is clearly a big Lib in denial he is on the right path overall. We do need safety nets, we do need a modicum of oversight/control of business, basic worker & environmental safety & prevent price abuse or other predatory business practices. It is easy to say just go to Walmart instead of Target or Price Chopper instead of Hannaford. But what about gas prices or some other commodity that we really can't exist in today's world without - we need to prevent collusion. But to strangle business, entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors, etc with absolute overkill of regulations (costs) and taxes is to kill what makes this country great - The American Dream. |
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886 
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Feb 7, 2014 8:32:35 GMT -5
Gun control debate!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 8:59:27 GMT -5
th24 - are you a professional videographer?
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 8, 2014 16:52:59 GMT -5
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,348
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Mar 29, 2014 0:07:14 GMT -5
|
|
