Summations Only

School shootings are easy to eliminate.No schools with more than one classroom per grade level. No schools with more than 250 students. No towns with more than 5,000 people.Problem solved.

I don't think this holds. Whenever we look at the originally-proposed versions of early parts of the Constitution, they are always clear, specific, and inline with the mindset we'd expect from post-revolutionaries.The versions that end up in the actual document, however, are always the distilled trash we'd expect as the byproduct of political haggling. If we are looking for intentnot sure why we are, but if we are, the final version is really not the place to look.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

But that's not what Dr. A said. Dr. A said:

quote:

---

Dr. A in Message 135:

​

... if they considered saying that, and ultimately decided not to say that, it's probably not what they wanted to say.

---

I quite frankly don't give a rat's ass what the intentions were of anyone. The document we have is the document we have.But to say that the document we have accurately represents the intentions of its writers is just bullshit. There are a lot of intentions left out of the final version, and this is only all too obvious given the records of ideas as proposed checked against the record of ideas as adopted (the Constitution we have).Jon

Too funny. A drafter writes and a writer drafts. Your argument is bullshit. Again too funny. How many times has the second amendment been changed since originally being adopted? And that isn't what he is referring to. Have you even read his post? I give Dr. A more credit than to assume he is making the pointless and evasive distinction between a writer and a drafter.Have some Christmas spirit...Jon

Why is anyone even bothering to reply to you?You are clearly so damned ignorant of the workings of even the most basic aspects of the U.S. legal system that your comments on its ability to control gun ownership are just pointless hogwash.Get a clue. Then come back and lay out a realistic plan whereby the U.S. could actually enact the kind of gun 'control' found in these other countries whose gun restrictions you so worship.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

My replies were to Dr. A. Your argument doesn't matter.

I for one think the way free speech is handled in this country is a down-right disgusting slap in the face to all the people who fought and died to free the fledgling colonies from their British king.And the Patriot Act is not only unconstitutional, but immoral; it is also one of the great examples of why a citizen's right to bear arms is so importantto recoil against encroaching tyranny.And you might have known these things about some of the 'American people at large' if you weren't quite so busy arguing against positions no one has taken...Jon

This thread has suffered from an artificially maintained irrelevance for quite some time now:

quote:

---

Percy in Message 571 (emphasis added):

​

I thought I'd clarify the topic just a little bit, since my opening post was a bit terse.

​

I wanted to discuss how or if we can reduce gun deaths in the US.

---

Is there really anyone in this world that concerned with how they get murdered? I'll be no happier the day I am stabbed to death simply knowing that I wasn't shot instead.Pushed from a tall building? Nothing comforting there just because it didn't involve a pistol.Neglected in a nursing home? Small comfort that the nurses aren't armed.If we want to give this thread some meaningful new direction, how about we talk about the effect of gun ownership on overall violent crime in generalyou know, the stuff that actually matters?Even worse, relevant alternatives to gun control for reducing violent crime have also been ruled out:

quote:

---

Percy in Message 571:

​

But single motherhood's and welfare's impact on crime is clearly not part of the topic.

---

What gives here? To point out that violent crime is more than just 'gun deaths' appears off-topic. To point out all the alternatives to reducing violent crime that don't involve disarming the populace is also 'off-topic'.So what the hell is on topic, then? Well, apparently it's only the discussions and evidence that favor a predetermined mind set and point of view, all else being banned.If we want to give this thread some new life, we could start by bringing in some relevant topics for discussion and pushing down these silly artificial walls against meaningful worldly-relevant examples and evidence.Or we could let it die...

I think it is pretty obvious that the 'reducing gun ownership will reduce homicides' crowd is well aware that they are treating symptoms instead of underlying causes.But it is equally obvious that they don't care, and have such high and irrational fears of guns that they will attempt to infringe upon/ignore the plain-as-day right of the people to keep and bear arms at any cost.I see no reason to keep beating my head; Crash: save your breath; these sheep be lost.

I've stated several times that I have no interest in discussing this matter with people who want only to focus on gun deaths.When you're ready to discuss things that matter, give my post another reply and we can talk.Jon

As I said a while back, you have done nothing but create an environment in which only evidence that supports your position can be considered, because all other evidence is 'off topic', despite its obvious relevance to the issue of gun control's effectiveness.Which reminds me of why I stopped posting in this thread in the first place...Have a nice day.

Nave

Registration obviously simplifies confiscation. It's hard to confiscate something you don't even know exists.

Interestingly, car insurance doesn't make anyone safer.

Because history has shown us that governments never confiscate guns; obviously...