|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
What is it I have not sourced??? Everything that is hosted on your tripod.com site.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3741 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Your graph does not say that 70% of black Americans are on welfare (nor does it say that 67% of black Americans are on welfare).
I realise that you prefer to make shit up, and it seems you are unable to make an exception this time. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What is it I have not sourced??? My experience with Liberal progressive people educated in the humanities is that their mind is made up and their ego will defend that position in the face of facts and sources because they believe that nothing is so, so clear that their fogging of the issues can not confuse other readers. They will attack the messenger.They will attack the sources. They will facts with feeling they will generate concerning individual cases. They will attack the motivations of the other side. They will attack with accusations of racism, misogyny, and evil. They will also refuse to admit they were wrong, and gang together in a "democratic" ridicule full of anger and hatred for the person if the truth seems to be on his side. Based on observation, what they mainly do is point out that you're not telling the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
But the point I make is that inner city Blacks kill half of all peoploe murdered in the USA when the whole Black community represents only @10% of the population. Let's say that were absolutely true. Now what? Poor people tend to be more violent and find alternative means to support themselves. Without strict gun control you've also armed them too. Does that make sense to you? So I'll ask you what you suggest we do, as a nation? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So I'll ask you what you suggest we do, as a nation? Well, obviously, we should deny law-abiders the tools they need to participate in their own defense while not making any effective effort to seize arms from criminals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
crashfrog writes: Well, obviously, we should deny law-abiders the tools they need to participate in their own defense while not making any effective effort to seize arms from criminals. I'm sure everyone here, regardless of their position on gun control, is an favor of law enforcement making an "effective effort to seize arms from criminals." But how do criminals acquire guns in the first place? According to Mayors Against Illegal Guns more than a half million guns are stolen each year:
So one effective way of reducing criminals' access to guns would be to take them away from everyone else. This would also reduce the number of gun-related incidents of all types. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Well, obviously, we should deny law-abiders the tools they need to participate in their own defense Yeah, I'm all for that. Not the point I was trying to convey in my previous post but, sure, citizens should NOT take the law into their own hands. However, I'm not for the removal of ALL guns. I enjoy duck hunting and I'm currently getting into deer/hog hunting. So I've always been cool with owning a hunting rifle or shotguns. Both can of course be used for self-defense in your home, and also for the more common use of sport/hunting/target shooting. I don't support the ownership of concealable handguns or assault rifles. I see no point to them.
...not making any effective effort to seize arms from criminals. Yeah, I wonder why that is...? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So one effective way of reducing criminals' access to guns would be to take them away from everyone else. How would that even be possible? I mean, besides just being unconstitutional, how would you go about taking them?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
How would that even be possible? Criminals aren't walking into stores buying guns, for the most part. They acquire the guns from people who have legally purchased them. If you completely take away their source (ie. gun owners) then in time you reduce the amount of guns the criminals have. In my opinion, this is only relevant for concealable weapons like handguns, and high casualty weapons like mini assault rifles. I don't really see many criminals walking around with a 30/30. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Catholic Scientist writes: How would that even be possible? I mean, besides just being unconstitutional, how would you go about taking them? We just follow the instructions on their bumper stickers and pry them out of their cold dead hands. Seriously, it's too early to begin considering concrete proposals for removing guns from circulation. We don't have the resolve, nor even a consensus interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Maybe a constitutional amendment is necessary first. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Criminals aren't walking into stores buying guns, for the most part. They acquire the guns from people who have legally purchased them. If you completely take away their source (ie. gun owners) then in time you reduce the amount of guns the criminals have. Sorry, I meant how would it be possible to take The Peoples' guns away? First off, its unconstitutional. Secondly, yeah, exactly how do you go about taking someone's gun from them? Its not like they're just going to hand it off...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Seriously, it's too early to begin considering concrete proposals for removing guns from circulation. We don't have the resolve, nor even a consensus interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Maybe a constitutional amendment is necessary first. Its seems like such a vacuous statement: "just take away the guns" Get real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Sorry, I meant how would it be possible to take The Peoples' guns away? "Take them away" is ridiculous. Making it impossible for you to do anything with it is more likely and not far reaching. Stop manufacturing handguns and assault rifles, make the sale of them illegal and stop manufactuing ammunition. Eventually you'll just own a worthless hunk of metal. At least I'm only talking about those two weapons. And it won't deny Americans the right to bear arms. It just limits what you own, and we do that already. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
"Take them away" is ridiculous. That's what I'm sayin'
Making it impossible for you to do anything with it is more likely and not far reaching. I think its fairly far reaching...
Stop manufacturing handguns and assault rifles, make the sale of them illegal and stop manufactuing ammunition. Eventually you'll just own a worthless hunk of metal. Guns can be made privately and ammunition can be refilled. You're right that eventually it'll run out, but I think you far underestimate how long it would actually take. And I don't think those who would back you are willing to wait many multiple years for the plan to be implemented.
At least I'm only talking about those two weapons. And it won't deny Americans the right to bear arms. It just limits what you own, and we do that already. Handguns are the best for personal defense. I don't see those going away. And I've never seen a good defintion of an "Assault Rifle".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are aware, surely, that hunting rifles, assault rifles, and handguns use the same ammunition? Or can, anyway.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024