Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can we regulate guns ... ?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 766 of 955 (688125)
01-19-2013 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 755 by foreveryoung
01-19-2013 12:08 AM


Re: How gun laws tyrannize people
Can you purchase any of the guns now mentioned in the executive orders?
Which executive order was that? If he banned a particular weapon I don't see it. Besides that wouldn't be legal.
quote:
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
They knew about what was going on in poland and austria and other occupied countries. They did not know that jews were being forced out of their homes at gunpoint onto trains to be taken to the east to be exterminated in gas chambers. It was only made known to a few people and the top military leaders of the time make absolutely no mention of the gas chambers in any of their memoirs.
Whatever you want to believe? But your argument that armed Jews would have resisted better and would have alarmed the world to action is plain silly. The allies didn't really care that much about the jews. If you want to provide some sort of sources supporting your view, by all mean I will consider it. But as you seem to be counter to all scholarship on the issue, you have a high bar to meet on this.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 755 by foreveryoung, posted 01-19-2013 12:08 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 767 of 955 (688127)
01-19-2013 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 727 by Faith
01-18-2013 5:00 PM


Because whatever I come up with is going to be called unacceptable and it's going to be called "right wing," not because it is but because the idiots and raving lunatics and lying slandering ifdiots here insist it is. That's why. Because you're all a bunch of brainwashed idiots who want to see the nation destroyed -- no you don't want this, it's going to come as a shock to all you idiots too -- and won't listen to anybody who can really see what's really going on. NOTHING will correct your insanity, nothijng.
Yeah!
"Fuck 'em"
that's what I say...
You gotta stop trying to save people. Your not going to change anyone here. They're just making fun of you out on the playground. Don't get yourself so worked up. Disregard 'em.
This place is for laying out your position and supporting it with evidence to be criticized. They were kinda right when they said that this, your own personal wisdom and musings, might be better for your blog instead of here. That is, unless you want the reactions.
To the rest of you jerks, I think the point she's making is that bringing guns to the situation is capable of increasing safety. Presidents' children are protected by armed guards because its effective. I don't think the claim is that if the Pres' kids are protected like that, then all of them should be.
Yeah, yeah, they're highly trained. But it doesn't take a lot of training to remove most of the danger that guns can bring. Gun safety is pretty simple.
Ultimately, its wrong to say that guns always make things worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by Faith, posted 01-18-2013 5:00 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 768 by Theodoric, posted 01-19-2013 11:03 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 769 by Straggler, posted 01-19-2013 11:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 778 by Admin, posted 01-19-2013 5:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 768 of 955 (688130)
01-19-2013 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 767 by New Cat's Eye
01-19-2013 10:34 AM


But it doesn't take a lot of training to remove most of the danger that guns can bring. Gun safety is pretty simple.
Military and police forces world wide would disagree with you. If this is true then military and police forces are wasting billions on firearms training.
Gun safety is is simple. In theory. In application it is highly complex. Gun safety in any stressful situation is very difficult until the actions and movements become second nature. This only happens with a very high degree of training.
A person with a 4 hour course on gun handling and safety is not an expert and is potentially more dangerous than doing nothing. Remember, contrary to earlier assertions, in a lot of states no training is required for concealed carry. None.
Even trained individuals fuck up. I know of a deputy sheriff that shot his pinky off when his backup .380 went off in the dressing room of a clothing store. These things are dangerous in anyone hands. Why would we not regulate something that is dangerous and life threatening.
That you are defending Faith's rants should tell you something about the strength of your arguments.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 767 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2013 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 769 of 955 (688131)
01-19-2013 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 767 by New Cat's Eye
01-19-2013 10:34 AM


CS writes:
Ultimately, its wrong to say that guns always make things worse.
Nobody has said "guns always make things worse".
What is being said is that situations where guns are genuinely needed are very few and far between. And that even in situations here guns might be needed if they are in the wrong hands they are likely to do more harm than good.
The idea that deadly weapons being readily available to civilians, who are themselves members of an imperfect society in which violence is inevitably an issue, will do anything other than exacerbate the situation is obviously silly. And unsurprisingly the evidence tells us exactly that.
So what do we do in reponse to that evidence?
Well whatever the answer to that question may or may not be it is obvious to most people around the world that a situation where the sort of guns used in recent massacres are so available and so much a part of everyday life that you can purchase them at the local supermarket is entirely bonkers and that anybody sane would seek to change that situation.
Events have somewhat overtaken the question originally posed in this thread. The question now is how far Obama can take the measures he has put forward, how strong the opposition to those measures will be and whether or not this opposition has a rational evidence based case or not.
Personally in the coming weeks I expect to see a lot of frothing at the mouth and hysterical talk of tyrannical government seeking to remove people's guns as some sort of first step to imposing a new world order.
Oh wait. I've just read Faiths posts. It seems my own predictions have also been overtaken by events......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 767 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2013 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 782 by Faith, posted 01-19-2013 7:52 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 880 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-23-2013 12:59 PM Straggler has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 770 of 955 (688132)
01-19-2013 11:33 AM


America's safest branch of JC Penney ...

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 771 of 955 (688134)
01-19-2013 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 718 by Faith
01-18-2013 4:44 PM


Armed Guards did not work ... even in the best scenario for them
Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan - Wikipedia
quote:
The Reagan assassination attempt occurred on Monday, March 30, 1981, just 69 days into the presidency of Ronald Reagan. While leaving a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C., President Reagan and three others were shot and wounded by John Hinckley, Jr.
Reagan suffered a punctured lung and heavy internal bleeding, but prompt medical attention allowed him to recover quickly. ...
Ultimately nobody was killed in the attack, though Press Secretary James Brady was left paralyzed ....
On March 21, 1981, Ronald Reagan, the new President of the United States, visited Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. with his wife Nancy for a fundraising event. He recalled, "I looked up at the presidential box above the stage where Abe Lincoln had been sitting the night he was shot and felt a curious sensation... I thought that even with all the Secret Service protection we now had, it was probably still possible for someone who had enough determination to get close enough to a president to shoot him."[10][11]
After the shooting, Alfred Antenucci, a Cleveland, Ohio, labor official who stood by Hinckley, was the first to respond.[17] He saw the gun and hit Hinckley in the head, pulling the shooter down to the ground.[25] Within two seconds agent Dennis McCarthy (no relation to agent Timothy McCarthy) dove onto the shooter as others threw him to the ground; intent on protecting Hinckley to avoid what happened to Lee Harvey Oswald,[6]:84 McCarthy had to "strike two citizens" to force them to release him.[17] Agent Robert Wanko (misidentified as "Steve Wanko" in a newspaper report) took an Uzi from a briefcase to cover the President's evacuation and to deter a potential group attack.[26]
Sixteen minutes after the assassination attempt, the ATF found that the gun had been purchased at Rocky's Pawn Shop in Dallas, Texas.[27] It had been loaded with six "Devastator"-brand cartridges which contained small aluminum and lead azide explosive charges designed to explode on contact; the bullet that hit Brady likely exploded in his skull. On April 2
Now I would argue that the Secret Service would be comprised of the best trained armed guards in the nation.
The FACT that they - and DC Police - basically surrounded the president before during and after the shooting did not prevent this shooting.
The FACT that they did NOT shoot back (guns were drawn but not used) is likely due to their training in assessing the situation and the crowd of people that could have been hit. Instead they moved quickly to get the president away, while shielding him with their bodies.
The FACT that Hinckley's weapon was a Rhm RG-14 .22 cal. pistol ...
... meant that only six shots could be (and were) made ... probably saving many lives\injuries compared to the use of an semi-automatic weapon with large interchangeable clip\magazines of ammunition.
The FACT that "Devastator" charges designed to explode on contact were used means that the ammunition was purchased with the prior intent to increase the likelihood of killing a living target (but should not -imho- be legitimate hunting ammunition - ergo most likely a person was the intended target ... ), should have:
  • been a signal of intent to kill OR
  • been a banned type of ammunition
Other things to note:
  • Reagan endorsed the Brady Bill
  • John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln with a single shot Deringer pistol.

CONCLUSIONS

  1. this is probably the best type of scenario for armed guards, several highly trained professional armed guards were present,
  2. they did not prevent, stop or reduce the shooting,
  3. they did not shoot back,
  4. the amount of damage was limited by the capacity of the weapon, both in number of bullets that could be fired and in the ability to reload (much slower without a clip),
  5. restricting weapons to similar capacity for number of bullets that can be loaded and the manner in which they are loaded (ie - banning clips) would similarly restrict the amount of damage that can be inflicted,
  6. the damage done was augmented by the ammunition being explosive,
  7. the damage would have been reduced if explosive ammunition were not used,
  8. such ammunition serves no rational civilian purpose and should be banned,
  9. such restrictions (ammo capacity and type of ammo) won't eliminate shootings, but they will reduce the potential numbers of victims of mass shooting, and
  10. having armed guards to prevent shootings is a false concept, it does not prevent (and may not even stop or reduce) a shooting incident.
In addition I would note that armed guards do not treat the cause of shootings, advocating armed guards allows people to ignore treating the causes of shooting (they have "done something"), and that having armed citizens with less training and disciple that the Secret Service and Police is likely to result in more people shooting more people, rather than less.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : correction per Theodoric,
Edited by RAZD, : splg
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 718 by Faith, posted 01-18-2013 4:44 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 772 by Theodoric, posted 01-19-2013 12:27 PM RAZD has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 772 of 955 (688137)
01-19-2013 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 771 by RAZD
01-19-2013 12:04 PM


Re: Armed Guards did not work ... even in the best scenario for them
one minor quibble
John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln with a six-shot pistol
It was a single shot Deringer pistol.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 771 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2013 12:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 773 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2013 1:27 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 773 of 955 (688141)
01-19-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 772 by Theodoric
01-19-2013 12:27 PM


Re: Armed Guards did not work ... even in the best scenario for them
John Wilkes Booth killed President Lincoln with a six-shot pistol
It was a single shot Deringer pistol.
Thanks. My mistake. Me fix.
He had the pistols and rifle when cornered in a barn.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 772 by Theodoric, posted 01-19-2013 12:27 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 774 of 955 (688142)
01-19-2013 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by Faith
01-17-2013 10:32 PM


Re: ban ammunition clips\magazines
I said we COULD legislate standards of qualification, but that it makes no sense to restrict the gun rights of millions of good citizens.
What about those restrictions that good citizens support ... realizing that your definition of "good" may be different from mine ... where "good citizens" -imho- are those concerned with the overall good for society, which includes appropriate restrictions on all kinds of behavior.
No we do not ban GUNS, period, RAZD. Wasn't I clear about that? gthe kinds of guns "crazies" use aren't all that different from the kind needed by ordinary citizens. But I have no problem with banning machine guns and other such weapons. But they are ALREADY banned.
If you have no problem with banning of certain kinds of weapons, then the issue is what constitutes weapons that should be banned ... such as assault type weapons that can load lots of ammunition, fire it at a fast rate, are are easy to reload with interchangeable clips of ammunition.
You ARE being irrational and silly. TWO incidents where guards were present but not available proves absolutely NOTHING. And again I'm for concealed carry more than I am for visible armed guards.
See Message 771
The Secret Service has concealed carry permission, that didn't help.
Nor would "concealed carry" have helped -- after all that is what Hinckley used, correct? So concealed carry enabled him to bring the weapon, correct?
de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
If you believe something when the evidence says otherwise ...
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by Faith, posted 01-17-2013 10:32 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 775 of 955 (688143)
01-19-2013 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 694 by Faith
01-17-2013 11:55 PM


registration and reality testing
Sorry, we need some other provision than registration. ...
The good citizen gun people I talk to are in favor of registration.
... Funny how the boogymen such as Hitler and others have a way of making use of registration records when they want to round people up. ...
Funny how you have not supported this assertion and repeat it after being shown that it was essential fantasy.
Tell me Faith ... if the government was intent on rounding up people ...
  • what would be their purpose?
  • why would they only be interested in gun owners?
  • if not interested only in gun owners, then what would they need gun registration for?
  • what prevents them from rounding you up without this information?
Note that criminals with guns can't prevent police from rounding them up.
... No sane person assumes that it can't happen again. ...
par•a•noi•a -n (Collins English Dictionary, 2009)
1. a form of schizophrenia characterized by a slowly progressive deterioration of the personality, involving delusions and often hallucinations
2. a mental disorder characterized by any of several types of delusions, in which the personality otherwise remains relatively intact
3. informal intense fear or suspicion, esp when unfounded
No paranoid person is sane.
Perhaps part of the testing for ability to safely carry a weapon should be a determination of how much a persons beliefs are founded in reality.
Irrational beliefs, such as in government conspiracies, should indicate unstable mentality.
It was the whole reason for the Second Amendment in the first place.
Nope, based on actual founder information it was added specifically to get the southern states into the union, by allowing them to keep and kill slaves, hunting slaves with their all white militias. See Message 676.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 694 by Faith, posted 01-17-2013 11:55 PM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 776 of 955 (688144)
01-19-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 696 by Faith
01-18-2013 12:02 AM


Re: guns are still part of the problem
What deceit. It's never been TRIED. You have TWO incidents where guards didn't work but no others where guards even existed that I've heard reported. ...
Really? ... two cases where it HAS actually been tried, yes, AND there are other instances where there were plenty of armed guards, such as Fort Hood military base. Also see Message 771.
Oh look --- that's FOUR documented incidents ... want me to find more? Or will you rationally concede that armed guards have not worked?
... ONE incident in Oregon where a person had a gun and believes he succeeded in scaring the perp into suicide. Otherwise UNARMED PEOPLE in all the cases. Stop playing games.
One anecdotal incident that could have just been suicide to begin with ... or prevented some other way ... still a zero in substantiated objective evidence.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 696 by Faith, posted 01-18-2013 12:02 AM Faith has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 777 of 955 (688148)
01-19-2013 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 758 by ICANT
01-19-2013 1:44 AM


social needs
And I have done that since I received my first gun at age 7, 66 years ago.
Good, so you know that some individual things need to be given up for the sake of that society -- driving laws regulate how we can drive within society, for instance.
Likewise we - as a society - expect that guns be used for the good of that society, some for hunting and some for defense, and that they be organized, trained and disciplined according to those uses: hunters by licensing and regulation of weapons appropriate for hunting; defense by militias or armies, trained, armed and disciplined according to an overall structure of organization, the government of that society.
Please source where I made such a claim.
Go back and look at your claim, and let me know what you were referring to ... it seemed to me that you were citing gun defense against home invasion with intent to kill you with guns, and I'm just asking for what percent of home invasions (an already minuscule percent of overall population imho) were actully for that singular intent and not simply to take a possession or two.
Without a distinction between those groups your statistics are meaningless to me.
And yes the life of my wife and myself is worth much more to me than a persons life ...
While that person probably believes just the opposite ...
You believe that you are better, more valuable, than other people within society that you fantasize about rather than actually talk to, meet, and know ....
... that has just broke into my house to do either of us harm. ...
Again, what is your justification for believing that the purpose of breaking into your house is to do you personal harm. Do you have enemies?
Seems to me it is paranoia more than an actual concern.
... If someone was to break into my house which would be a pretty big job in itself I would not think they were entering for tea and crumpets and therefore I would not ask a question before firing my 44 magnum. ...
IIRC there was a news story about a woman that was being assaulted on a street who went to a house and banged on the door for help and the homeowner shot her through the door and killed her, thinking she was trying to break into his house.
You would be that person, because you would not question the situation nor asses your actual danger before shooting, but you would let yourself be driven by fear first.
... As I would have no way of knowing what their intentions were or what weapons they might have.
Because would not take the time and effort to find out. Killer.
Simple, the army did not obey Mubarek's orders and fire on the people. ...
Why did the army not obey Mubarek's orders? I know the answer, I just wonder if you can figure it out.
I hope you live a long life and never regret your epiphany.
BTW do you have an insurance policy of any kind?
Health, car and Homeowner. Insurance against natural and accidental damages or loss.
Where does the second amendment mention anything about rational civilian needs?
Don't be silly. If we are talking about individual citizens that are not part of the armed forces or existing militias, then we are talking about civilians, and I doubt that arming of irrational civilians was intended (although that may be an invalid assumption on my part given that the intent was to allow southern states to keep and kill slaves).
Rational civilian needs is what we use to assess the worth of something to society as a whole -- it is part of the social contract you agree to as a member of society.
Rational civilian needs would apply to traffic laws for instance. They are there to (Message 1):
... establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ...
... that's what the Constitution basically is: a contract with the people for the good of society as a whole, current and future generations.
I don't sit around and fondle my guns. I take them to the range and practice firing them each week so that when our economy crashes which will be very soon. In fact just as soon as the idiots decide to quit buying our bonds as they are worthless and they will never get their principle back we will be in big trouble.
Because in a very short time almost 50% of the people will not have money to buy food with. They will get hungry and in this entitlement society that has been fostered they will do what has been praticed several times in the last few month. You know the stories about a bunch of people entering a business grabbing whatever they want and runing out of the stores. When it comes to food it will be a lot worse.
Shortly there will be a shortage of everything including gasoline and diesel so it won't be long before you can't buy food at any price as there will not be any on the shelves. Then the farmers won't be able to get diesel to plant crops for the next year and things will take a turn for the worst.
Ah the old apocalypse tomorrow fantasy -- you and your mob will be able to steal what you need with your guns and the rest of society be damned?
Alternatively we can work on averting that scenario by cooperation, learning to solve problems with reason rather than guns.
More and more it seems to me that the reasons people give for having guns are very good reasons that they should not have guns.
Would you not agree that in an ideal society people would not need guns for defense in any way?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 758 by ICANT, posted 01-19-2013 1:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 810 by ICANT, posted 01-21-2013 12:41 AM RAZD has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 778 of 955 (688153)
01-19-2013 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 767 by New Cat's Eye
01-19-2013 10:34 AM


Moderator On Duty
Me in Message 764, just three messages earlier:
Admin writes:
Could participants please try to maintain a calm detachment? Thanks.
You:
Catholic Scientist writes:
"Fuck 'em"
...
To the rest of you jerks...
...
Your not going to change anyone here.
About that last, your accusation appears equally true of yourself. Regardless, please focus on the topic, not the other participants.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 767 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-19-2013 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 779 of 955 (688157)
01-19-2013 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by DBlevins
01-04-2013 2:09 PM


guns vs pollution
... Part of the problem that Chicago and other regions with tight gun-control regulations have is that there is still a flow of guns into these areas from outside. It would be akin to me complaining that we shouldn't have pollution regulations because pollution does not stop at the borders. ...
And this is the reason we have the federal laws regarding pollution -- no one area can have effective laws if neighboring areas do not have effective laws.
This is why we need some federal legislation to tackle the cross state border transactions.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by DBlevins, posted 01-04-2013 2:09 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 780 of 955 (688158)
01-19-2013 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 707 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-18-2013 9:40 AM


Re: How gun laws tyrannize people
Faith, although I know you do not trust Wikipedia, because the filthy liberals () have gotten hold of it, but it does not agree with your statement that the Nazis made a confiscation effort (except from the Jews), nor do many other sites.
Wikipedia is a big problem on certain subjects but I don't have any reason to doubt it on gun information, FYI since you think I would.
Your post is a lot of nitpicking as far as I can see, that doesn't contradict anything I said because my point was very general and you are getting all obsessed with irrelevancies. Oh but you get a ton of cheers anyway because nobody bothers with such facts around here.
I didn't make a statement about the Nazis making a confiscation effort other than from the Jews did I? Why should who they targeted make a difference anyway? Using such laws to victimize any group is evidence for the claim that such laws facilitate genocide.
I thought I said something rather general about Hitler making use of gun laws, and specifically referred to gun registration. I should have been more clear about that since as I recall he made use of registration records in countries other than Germany when he invaded. Yes I'm too lazy/disgusted with EvC to go look this up so everybody's going to scream and I'm going to jeer them in return. Try Poland but I don't remember for sure. Someplace they already had registration of guns -- and Jews as I recall were the target there too.
And you do seem to be accusing me of not knowing it was the Weimar Republic that made the first anti-gun laws though you objected to that when I complained. I even gave that information myself somewhere, maybe on the other gun thread.
What exactly did the Nazis do you ask? What I believe I actually SAID is that Hitler "MADE USE OF" gun laws in his projects to bring down his "enemies." I was careful NOT to say he made the laws because I know he didn't make most of them, although I've heard he did add to them, but mostly he simply USED those that were in place against people -- WHICHEVER THOSE HAPPENED TO BE AT THE TIME, as your information says some were, and as I understand it some of them had been made by the Weimer Republic for the purpose of disarming THE NAZIS. Even your information includes the requirement that owning firearms required a PERMIT. Is that registration or not?
You've given an awful lot of detailed information that I suspect does not in any way affect the general statements I made that Hitler MADE USE OF existing laws and ADDED some to them. I'm only going by what I heard, you don't trust what I heard, who cares, but I don't see that anything you said contradicts it. Hitler's more relaxed laws probably had giving his own henchmen more freedoms since the previous administration was out to restrict his henchmen. None of that affects the claim that gun laws were used to make victims of some people, you know, the Jews. That was the focus of that video in relation to Germany and Germany was only one of LOTS of nations that victimized certain populations and I said NOTHING as specific as you are answering.
What's the point in even bothering though. Blah blah blah.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 707 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-18-2013 9:40 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024