Seems to me that you are being criticized for presenting something on a debate forum without doing basic research on it yourself, while being presented with a counterview to that which you posted. That's not hateful, that's loving surely?
You are a stupid, pointless waste of space. Everything you say is awful and leads to pain and misery of which you should be ashamed you piece of bigoted crap. I hope you have an 'accident' after finding your family dead in a fire. You are going to be burned forever for loving black people the same as white. You don't deserve the right to vote because you are such a habitual moron and I will fight tooth an nail to disenfranchise you and other right wing christians.
That previous paragraph is hateful abuse. Outside of certain context (such as this) it would be unacceptable and if I saw it, would draw criticism from me (or sanction).
quote:There are so many things wrong with this I do not know where to start.
quote:Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 not 1863.
quote:Your sources are lying and you are spreading lies.
Neither hateful nor abusive.
quote:Then research it your self. LOL. You won't.
Inviting you to research, but predicting you won't. Not hateful. Perhaps a little disdainful, but you basically confirmed his disdain with 'I have NO interest in researching this kind of thing'. Despite the fact that you have spent more energy responding to Theo than it would take to google some of the names on that list and see if they were left wing, liberal or Democrat. Theo even did you the favour of pointing out some of the dubious ones to narrow down your searches.
quote: Of course not, you just want to post things that agree with your worldview, whether they are true or not.
Again, this is a standard debate line. To posit that your opponent is not interested in testing the views they share, but only confirming their viewpoint (something you largely admit to, incidentally) is not hateful.
Just because somebody disagrees with something you posted, and criticizes you for not bothering to research it - that doesn't make them hateful. Knowing that humans have bias - I tend towards giving my opponent a bit of leaway when I perceive something personal or abusive. I may be succumbing to bias, after all. Maybe you should re-calibrate your abuse detectors?
In any event - do you concede that this list might be dubious, now that someone else who has done more research than you has uncovered some problems with it?
Another part is focusing millions of dollars on making sure deer hunters in the southern portions of the state are carrying around a little plastic card.
Seems to me they are spending their money on trying to ensure felons, domestic abusers, the seriously insane and so on don't have legal access to firearms. Even if they reside outside of the city of Chicago.
I don't argue they've found the optimum way to achieve this but I think we can agree we don't want seriously psychotic, wife beating liquor store robbing hunters legal access to one of the most deadly inventions humankind has dreamed up.
Perhaps an approach that is more along the lines of NY would be more feasible....? How do they do it there?
I don't know.
To own a handgun you need a Pistol Permit. I presume this is like FOID, though I don't know if a physical piece of plastic exists.
Rifles were recently fine outside of the city of New York, though some rifles and shotguns are now restricted generally.
Well I think you're being naively generous in that assessment; don't forget that we know that our ex-governors were criminals.
To be fair, I don't know many people that aren't criminals.
I don't think we can take our legislators' word for it on what their motives were.
I'm not. I'm observing what reasonably independent people are writing about it. It seems to have been a reaction to the 1960s high profile assassinations. The wording of the law prohibits certain people from legally purchasing weapons. So that's how I conclude that. I did not read the authors of the legislations opinions.
It seems to me that they want to know who is capable of buying a firearm.
They already know: Anyone with money.
I mean, look at the way they went about it. Rather than focusing on the felons and insane, they look to everyone else but them
What are you talking about? How are they not focussing on the felons and the insane when they institute procedures for ensuring that felons and insane can't legally purchase firearms?
Let's say that I own a bus company. I then have everyone with brown, black, and blonde hair provide me with their name, address, phone number, gender, race, social security and drivers license number, and also a photograph of themself. And then I tell you that my reason for all that was to keep the redheads off of the bus.
You see what I mean?
This doesn't seem remotely related to the firearms issue. Let me modify it.
Let's say that I own a bus company. I then have everyone provide me with their name, address, phone number, gender, race, social security and drivers license number, and also a photograph of themself. And then I tell you that my reason for all that was to keep the redheads off of the bus.
If your intent is to ensure redheads don't get on the bus, it seems you'd need people to prove they aren't redheads.
As long as its not at the expense of everyone else's right.
So you think it is more important that everyone has access to guns, that you'd be prepared to let homicidal maniacs have weapons to ensure everyone else isn't inconvenienced?
If you want to keep redheads off your bus, then you stop them when they try to get on. You don't make a detailed database of all the non-redheads.
Are you saying that the government does not keep records of felons in a database? People who have been hospitalized with a mental health problem? People that abuse their spouse?
Are the people who run NYC a bunch of criminals?
What's their percentage of blacks? I'm sure there's much more impactful factors than gun permits.
You think that the number of people with higher amount of melanin in their skin impacts gun crimes more than the proliferation or regulation of firearms?
Like, been-to-prison criminals? Four of our last seven governors actually went to prison.
Most criminals manage to avoid prison. Especially the wealthy white ones. I guess that says something about the quality of criminal you guys like to elect
Its more than that... They made it illegal to possess a handgun outside of your home.
Hell, its illegal for you to just hold a bullet if you don't have a FOID card, which is silly.
Bullets are the bits that do the killing right?
No, you can't legally buy a gun without a FOID card. I meant capability in the legal sense. Obviously laws can't stop people who don't obey laws.
Well I think it is sensible for a government to keep track of who is legally allowed to control weapons of certain power and above.
Because by widening your focus to every single person in the state, you're failing to focus on the felons and insane. Looking at everybody is the opposite of focusing on somebody.
Your original complaint was that they were looking at everyone but those that are disqualified from ownership. It was this that I was seeing as problematic.
Or you could just prove which people have red hair and leave the rest of them alone.
What information does the government have and use that you feel they shouldn't (as it relates to the topic obviously)?
Right. So if you want to prevent those people from getting guns, you create a system to check against those databases at the point of purchase. If you just want to prevent those people from having guns, you don't need to build a database of information for every single person who is interested in obtaining a gun. That they went the route of building a database of information for every single person who is interested in obtaining a gun, exposes the fact that they were interested in more than just preventing those people from getting guns.
Do you feel the same way about driver's licences? That is - the government should only track the people who are forbidden from driving a motor vehicle?
Maybe we should spend more time investigating the criminals, rather than bothering all the law abiding citizens.
Unfortunately there is a tension between these concepts. In order to investigate people to see if they are criminals, it sometimes requires bothering people who are not.
I think the majority of people who shot somebody, and the majority of people who were shot, were black.
You should probably expend some energy into discussing why you think this is the case, to avoid appearing to be a racist.
quote:The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Berberian v. Lussier (1958):
quote:We have, however, come to the conclusion that we can no longer completely subscribe to the proposition for which the LaPlante case stands. The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law.
Adams v. City of Pocatello 1966:
quote:The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.
We're talking about the death of 0.003% of our population. Let's say we're in a population of 33,000 people.
50 people over here are dying from this disease, 50 people over there are dying from that disease, and you come along: "I'm concerned about innocent deaths, there was one guy who was murdered with a gun. We need to do something about all this innocent death."
A fair point, we should see how far this reasoning can take us.
Let's say 35 billion people lived in the world in the 20th Century. Let's say 200,000 died as a result of nuclear explosions. That means, in the 20th century what's that 0.0006%?
That's only 1/5 of a person in our small population stretching over 100 years! We should stop worrying so much about nuclear proliferation.
My point is that if you are trying to prevent X (like innocent deaths), and you start talking about something that has a negligible effect on X, then I'm saying that X isn't really the thing that's driving you.
And my point is that this is false. First there is the nuclear proliferation concept. We can include other weapons, grenades, miniguns, cannons, 500lb conventional bombs. If all of these were legal to own, but were only involved in 10,000 deaths in the USA per year - while bringing a sense of safety and being enjoyed by hobbyists. Then yes, I think it would be reasonable that if someone where to say:
"We'd have thousands of fewer deaths if we just stopped allowing people to carry grenades or store large bombs"
And that reducing the number of people dying is the driving force behind petitioning for a ban.
Even if an order of magnitude more people die from heart attacks.
An easier example might be a new designer drug. The drug kill 70% of people who try it (as in 70% of those who try it will, at some point, die as a result of it). It's new and its constituents are not illegal, nor is there any law against the combination of ingredients. It's just difficult to make, requiring very high skill and knowledge as well as access to difficult or expensive materials or equipment. Only 100 people a year try it for the first time (we shan't worry about how money is being made in the industry).
Should we decline to ban the substance in favour of a law mandating 20 minutes of daily exercise? If we were really interested in saving lives, and all.
To argue for gun control because of all the innocent lives that are being lost is inane.
Then tell me, in an ordinal list ranking deaths in order of per capita incidents, how far down the list do we have to go before someone who is trying to do something about it is not so doing because of their wish to save lives?
I'll help out, there were about 10,000 people killed in drink-driving (or drunk-driving) incidents in the USA per year for the last few years. If someone in 1991 (when it was around 15,000) had suggested improving enforcement, lowering the legal limit, or some other measure - would you be arguing it was inane of them to suggest they are doing so because of their desire to save (a mere) 5,000 lives a year? (I appreciate things like general vehicle safety and medical technology are confounding factors, but they confound against your hypothesis as far as I can tell).
Mountains of bodies and lakes of blood?
There really aren't that many people that are being killed by guns.
Well it's a relative thing, isn't it.
Firearms: 30,000 deaths (over 95% of which is intent to harm) Poison: 43,000 deaths (15-25% intentional harm) Falling: 27,000 deaths (less than 3% intentional)
Of an arbitrary selection of injury related deaths of about the same magnitude (alcohol and motor accidents likewise, but intentionality is probably low in these situations too).
So, you might argue not that people are particularly annoyed by guns because they cause unprecedented amount of deaths, but that guns are used to intentionally harm many people which could be mitigated by reducing the amount of guns there are available.
I'm not saying that say, removing most guns, would mean all death rates stayed the same, but you'd lose the firearms figures. It seems to me though, that it should reduce the overall deaths, injuries, and associated fear, anger and sadness of those in the periphery.
Am I way off base that they just don't like guns and are looking for emotive things to distract you from their real motivations?
Which would be what? They're scared of loud sudden noises? The smell of gunpowder makes them want to puke? They are well-jel of the mad skillz the 1337 has, innit? How about, they are concerned that everybody being armed with efficient killing tools poses a public safety concern?
You wanted to contrast death by injury with death by illness:
quote:Meanwhile, ~500,000 died from heart disease, and another ~500,000 from cancer. Hell, ~50,000 people died from the flu and pneumonia.
2500 minors die from from gun incidents. I can't find any reliable stats about mortality from heart disease in minors. A lot of stuff about congenital heart conditions (about 3,000 if you're interested), I'm not sure if that counts in your stats or if infant congenital deaths are excluded.
The point being, that providing a breakdown relating to age is particularly important when talking about disease. After all, everybody dies of something eventually, and its not surprising that it's usually a disease that gets credit.
Unless you think we should have had a 2500 post discussion about America has morally failed by allowing the proliferation of senescence.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Actually they established gun control in 1919, tightened those controls in 1928 and then in 1938 RELAXED the gun control laws - rifles and shotguns were deregulated entirely. Also, the range of people exempt from needing permits for other weapons such as hand guns was extended. The legal age to own a gun was reduced to 18. Restricted firearm permits were tripled in length (1 year to 3). Jews were prohibited as an extension of the rules set out in 1928 regarding 'trustworthy' people (Jews cannot be trusted, ergo no guns).
To complete the dataset, gun ownership was massively restricted after the Nazis left power and weren't relaxed again until 1956 which set things back to 1928. This was then severely restricted in 1972, which was tightened again a few times during the early 21st Century.
What you've managed to do is point at the darkest period of modern German history which was also the period in which gun control was the LEAST RESTRICTED and tried to argue that this proves that restricting guns was a key part in the subsequent genocides.
Bremen school shooting, 1913: Legally acquired firearms used Cologne school massacre, 1964: improvised weapon (flamethrower) Eppstein school shooting, 1983: legally acquired pistols Erfurt massacre, 2002: From my understanding they were legally acquired firearms, as the commentary about it tends to suggest that there were laws, already in debate, that would have made them not able to be acquired legally by the perpetrator. Emsdetten school shooting, 2006: legally acquired firearms/air/percussion weapons. Winnenden school shooting, 2009: legally purchased firearms, stolen by the teenage son of the owner
Those actually happened. The German government imposing heavy restrictions on ownership and then going on a rampage? No. They disarmed the Jews, but if they hadn't I doubt it would have stopped the Nazis who had plenty of support from many more other armed citizens. If the Jews started shooting the Nazi party, they get more propaganda to exploit and they get more armed people willing to shoot Jews. So ultimately - I don't see how giving the Jews guns could be regarded as a simple fix. Then again, adding guns to a problem has not historically resulted in unambiguously good results.
By my reckoning, mass killings are almost always carried out by basically law abiding people with legally acquired weapons rather than hardened criminals with black market weapons...regardless of the laws of the land. And if the government wants to kill you for some reason, there is an overwhelming probability that they have the support or apathy of enough others regarding your ongoing life and if you happen to own guns all that is going to happen is that you will die without any chance to say anything and you may harm innocents (or cause innocents to be harmed) in your blaze of glory defiant last stand.
On the other hand, if enough Americans want the government gone - they won't need guns to do it regardless of the tyranny levels of the government.
But enough of all that, how would a total gun ban be implemented? If it was implemented basically the same as the 55 mph speed limit - "Congress voted on this, and this is how things are". A few months grace period for everyone to turn their guns in, before arrests and imprisonment started?
Yes - I imagine the government would consider instituting a buy back scheme like Australia did.
What percentage of gun owners would turn their gun in? I suspect it would be VERY low.
Then you are telling me that most gun owners are not law abiding citizens. This seems to justify taking their firearms.
An unregistered gun would become a novelty, their value would go way up.
An unregistered gun is already a 'novelty' and their value is already up. I doubt anybody in my family would risk a 5 year prison sentence per firearm (consecutive) and a criminal record for possession of illegal weapons - unless they needed them to protect a lucrative criminal enterprise that I am unaware of.
The government would realize this - how would they react?
The same way they react to people with hand grenades and other military grade hardware today. With overwhelming force, I expect.
How intense would their searches for guns be?
About the same as their searches for military grade hardware. If they have reasonable suspicion somebody has weapons they are not allowed to, law enforcement has tended to have a pretty intense reaction.
And remember, a person with an illegal firearm is a criminal. A criminal with a gun is a threat to cops. Cops in the US have a reputation for erring on the side of murder in such cases. Whether that's justified or not, I don't think a cop will turn a blind eye to someone with illegally held weaponry.
Could this gun ban be repealed?
All I got was a "straw man" accusation in the next message, I assume that is supposed to mean that gun control advocates claim to NOT be in favor of a total gun ban. Yet their rhetoric makes it clear that they are.
I advocate a UK based system. This is not a total gun ban, but his heavily restricted. I doubt this is realistic for the USA today. As such, I advocate a handgun ban first. If we assume the 2nd Amendment must stay in place then I think a UK based system may not be feasible - but I see no reason why the USA can't institute laws that limit firearm ownership to weapons like non-repeating double-barelled shotguns. Weapons which can be used in domestic hunting and home defence. Other weapons would be allowed, but only to certain people in certain contexts (game hunters, farmers, off duty police officers etc).
I'm not sure this is optimal, personally - but I think it'd still fall within the remit of the 2nd amendment as people would still have access to better weapons than the founding fathers envisioned.
Do you have any proposals for how gun control could be more successful than heroin control?
I'd be happy if only 0.6% of the US population were using firearms per year.
Think of the brand new possibilities there would be for insane people to invent new shooting galleries. Do you think guns that couldn't be heard more than, say 50 feet away, yet could kill within a half mile, are a technical impossibility? No matter how much money and effort is poured into the idea?
Some interesting fear you have decided to deal in there, but let's be realistic.
1) America is a leader in military research 2) America is a leader in civilian research 3) Many guns are available legally in the USA 4) America has a well funded military that it uses overseas 5) America's well funded military used napalm in living memory. They and their allies also dropped over 70,000 cluster bombs into Iraq since 1991.
I think a reasonable conclusions from these reasonably well known facts, is that if your nightmare case is possible - there has never been a more optimal time for research into it.
Knives and opportunity are much cheaper and easier to come by.
I am not sure what you are trying to prove Dr. A. As anyone who knows anything knows, within the last 3 years, 3 people have died and literally hundreds injured in the USA as a result of malicious use of the APC: