The Gun Conversation

[Omerta+ 1,206]

All valid points aside, I want to highlight on this one (I can't really refute your statement because I mostly agree with it).

 

If you hate the Republicans, why did you just call out Obama for advancing his political agenda (which, IMO, is completely false)? All sides are doing this right now and calling out just one side is kind of biased.

 

It is possible to hate both parties, been doing it for years.

 

However to answer the question yes the know-it-all's are using this to push their agenda. Are you seriously surprised ? Republicans did the same thing. Was anybody surprised then ? When the Patriot Act (which nobody seems to want to talk about) was passed the know-it-all's were crying bloody murder about the shit and now they turn around and do the same type of shit.

 

I will not say OBAMA is specifically doing it but he is playing the good party man and going with what they want. So in a way F4E and your friend are correct. Instead of blaming the party as a whole they just put it on the leader which is not that far of a stretch when looked at objectively.

[OSUViking 505]

 

 

I will not say OBAMA is specifically doing it but he is playing the good party man and going with what they want. So in a way F4E and your friend are correct. Instead of blaming the party as a whole they just put it on the leader which is not that far of a stretch when looked at objectively.

 

It is a stretch in every sense of the word. Example? The Republicans won't even support Boehner right now. Being the leader does not mean you will always adhere to every party member's agenda, which Obama certainly is not doing. Saying, "God! Obama is just using this as a cover for his blatant anti-gun agenda," is frankly bullshit and spews nothing but anti-Obama rhetoric.

[Vin+ 3,121]

If they're going to roll out a plan, they should've done so before this, instead of using this incident as a rallying-cry. Which unless you classify gun control as banning everything, wouldn't have been prevented with some form of gun control in place since the weapons were originally obtained legally.

 

Too bad ID-locked guns wouldn't solve anything/be too much of a hassle to implement/have too much potential to be abused.

[BwareDWare94 723]

You can walk in just about anywhere and kill someone, with or without a weapon. Should we have brain scanners on the way into buildings?!

 

You can go to most any store and steal most anything with little effort. When do the full body scanners appear at Wal-Mart and the like?!

 

I've never hot wired a vehicle.. but what is ACTUALLY stopping you from unlocking somebodies door and driving off?

 

We could go on... and on... and on...

 

Just because someone isn't watching or checking on you at all times, doesn't mean a law is any less unlawful.

 

Sounds like you are edging on some big brother, 1984 type stuff.

 

You're equating stealing a $5 shirt at Walmart to walking into a school and massacring people. Ending lives. Come on, dude. It's no invasion of privacy to put metal detectors at the entrances of campus buildings. Turn my pockets out; all I've got is my pocket knife that I carry for work (which I can very easily leave in my glove compartment while at school). I move on.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Better ban pooping.

 

That is just flat out disrespectful to the victims and their families of the Newport shooting. Talking about gun control after nearly thirty people are massacred isn't the same thing as "interrupting defecation." Give me a fucking break. The poor girl got a taste of some dude's skid marks. So what. It's disgusting, but she's alive. All of those kids and teachers are gone. Forever.

 

That was low, dude. Very low.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

You're equating stealing a $5 shirt at Walmart to walking into a school and massacring people. Ending lives. Come on, dude. It's no invasion of privacy to put metal detectors at the entrances of campus buildings. Turn my pockets out; all I've got is my pocket knife that I carry for work (which I can very easily leave in my glove compartment while at school). I move on.

 

I was responding to "maybe the solution is actually enforcing laws" -- a quote of yours. I did this by posting other laws that you can easily break because it's impossible to monitor every single person every waking moment. There was no comparison to the shootings themselves in the slightest.

 

You have proven over and over again throughout this thread that you are in over your head. The constant insults, demeaning behavior, and attempts to convey others posts to turn public perception in your favor is just getting to the point of absurd.

 

I really think it might be time for you to remove yourself from the topic. For the betterment of everyone involved.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I was responding to "maybe the solution is actually enforcing laws" -- a quote of yours. I did this by posting other laws that you can easily break because it's impossible to monitor every single person every waking moment. There was no comparison to the shootings themselves in the slightest.

 

You have proven over and over again throughout this thread that you are in over your head. The constant insults, demeaning behavior, and attempts to convey others posts to turn public perception in your favor is just getting to the point of absurd.

 

I really think it might be time for you to remove yourself from the topic. For the betterment of everyone involved.

 

Insults? Really? Didn't even insult you in that post. Just clarified that no matter what your intentions were, to reply with that creates a comparison. I don't think that lowly of you, JD. Hell, I don't even think low of you, but you must understand the unintentional comparison you made there.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Insults? Really? Didn't even insult you in that post. Just clarified that no matter what your intentions were, to reply with that creates a comparison. I don't think that lowly of you, JD. Hell, I don't even think low of you, but you must understand the unintentional comparison you made there.

 

No such thing was done. You are resorting to creating conflict, because I think you are beginning to realize just how silly a lot of what you are saying is.

 

Argue the points -- not the semantics. Don't get really defensive and talk about how insulting or how "low" a response is.

 

You make a post saying maybe this or this might need to be done. Per the usual for you on this issue, you are living in this perfect world where reality is distant and logic is void.

 

It gets pointed out to you, in this specific case, how your proposition just doesn't make sense, doesn't hold up logically, and isn't feasible in the real world... And you come back, not countering the argument, but making sure everyone knows how "low" or "disrespectful" a certain post is.

 

Stop the attacks. Argue the points.

Edited December 21, 2012 by Favre4Ever

[BwareDWare94 723]

Well excuse me for pointing out to another poster that comparing defecation to cold-blooded murder was a bit of a stretch, and quite frankly, beyond insensitive.

[SteelersNation36 128]

That is just flat out disrespectful to the victims and their families of the Newport shooting. Talking about gun control after nearly thirty people are massacred isn't the same thing as "interrupting defecation." Give me a fucking break. The poor girl got a taste of some dude's skid marks. So what. It's disgusting, but she's alive. All of those kids and teachers are gone. Forever.

 

That was low, dude. Very low.

 

Maybe I could make the arguement it was disrespectful of you to not give a shit about gun control before this happened but I don't care to make assumptions about people. Don't come at me all high and mighty and act like you know how i feel about little kids getting murdered.

 

 

oh and since you wanted to get personal about it....go fuck yourself you band wagoning, two teaming asshole.

Edited December 21, 2012 by SteelersNation36

[BwareDWare94 723]

Maybe I could make the arguement it was disrespectful of you to not give a shit about gun control before this happened but I don't care to make assumptions about people. Don't come at me all high and mighty and act like you know how i feel about little kids getting murdered.

 

 

oh and since you wanted to get personal about it....go fuck yourself you band wagoning, two teaming asshole.

 

I cared long before this tragedy.

 

And I didn't claim to know how you feel. Your post was in poor taste, very poor taste. I called you on it. I'd expect you to do the same were our situations reversed.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It is a stretch in every sense of the word. Example? The Republicans won't even support Boehner right now. Being the leader does not mean you will always adhere to every party member's agenda, which Obama certainly is not doing. Saying, "God! Obama is just using this as a cover for his blatant anti-gun agenda," is frankly bullshit and spews nothing but anti-Obama rhetoric.

 

Go back a couple pages and you will notice that I conceded that Obama has had the lightest gun laws in recent memory so it is not him.

 

And using one example as the norm is not truly indicative of how it operates. By and large Obama has been a party man and will continue to be for the rest of the time in office.

 

I will say it like this. I do not believe that Obama is dumb enough to let this go by with his name on it. However I do believe he is smart enough to realize that the usually fickle congress has been spurred out of their mental slumber for the time being and wants to get something done. He knows that it will be short lived but through the duration it will be powerful and this could be one of his defining moments in his second term. I think his party sees this as a chance to show the republicans that they have a voice because no matter who is president republicans can generally get what they want. So Obama sees this and is going by the "it is better to be at the right hand of the devil than in his path" mentality. He is going to ride this party victory and be able to play both sides. If it works people will rain in the hand wringing and tell him how great he is, if it fails people will realize that congress was going to push something through.

 

So I disagree this is a stretch to say Obama is a party man and playing party politics. As I have said before it is not just him and it will happen again, but don't fool yourself into thinking that just because people who are usually saying it are wrong are wrong all the time.

 

As many people who were united by the tragedy just as many will be just as united against this. This is the new patriot act. If it passes I will not be disappointed because that would mean I have expectations for our president and congress to actually do something right for the people, but that does not mean I will like it.

 

They all play buddy buddy within the party and you know that. You are not an idiot if you stop and think about this you will see this is no different just the cause is. They are playinf party politics but it is to be expected. This gun laws thing is an age old battle between the rich kids and the know-it-alls and neither side know why anymore.

[SteelersNation36 128]

As gun ownership has increased dramatically, gun-related violent crimes have gradually decreased over the past six years in the state of Virginia, according to a new analysis.

 

From 2006 to 2011, the total number of guns purchased in Virginia increased 73 percent, while the total number of gun-related violent crimes decreased 24 percent over that period. And when adjusted for population growth, the number of crimes further decreases to more than 27 percent, with 79 gun-related offenses per 100,000 in 2006 dropping to 57 by 2011.

 

Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas R. Baker conducted the analysis at the request of the Richmond Times-Dispatch. Baker told the paper that the findings appear to contradict the popular premise that more guns cause more violent crime.

 

“While there is a wealth of academic literature attempting to demonstrate the relationship between guns and crime, a very simple and intuitive demonstration of the numbers seems to point away from the premise that more guns leads to more crime, at least in Virginia,” said Baker.

 

Baker examined data from the Virginia Firearms Transaction Center, which tracks the number of gun transactions for every federally licensed Virginia firearm dealer, to state crime data from 2006 to 2011. That data demonstrated that an increase in gun purchases one year was often followed by a decrease in gun crime the next year.

 

“So the only thing it could be is that more guns are causing less crime,” Baker concluded, noting that the data is “pretty overwhelming.”

 

Additionally, this trend held true when comparing purchases of all types of firearms, including pistols, revolvers, shotguns and rifles, to gun crime during that period.

 

The number of gun purchases in the state rose to a record-breaking 420,829 purchases last year, according to gun-dealer transaction data.

 

Baker believes guns become a political issue because criminals use them and the notion that guns cause crime is “persuasive.” But he notes those individuals focus on the wrong component.

 

“Instead of trying to figure out why are these people committing crimes — and using the most effective tool to commit those crimes — they focus on the tool,” he continued. “So the gun is causing the crime.”

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/report-in-virginia-more-guns-less-crime/#ixzz2FhlvSQQ3

[Vin+ 3,121]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/12/21/nra-blames-violent-entertainment-for-shootings-eca-responds

 

 

 

 

 

The NRA has lashed out at violent entertainment as the cause of the recent shootings in Newtown, Connecticut. In a press conference held earlier today and a statement posted on the NRA’s official site, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said violent crime is increasing and that “there exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.”

 

LaPierre specifically called out “vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse” and pointed to a ten year-old flash game called Kindergarten Killer as well as “blood-soaked slasher films like American Psycho and Natural Born Killers.” LaPierre said such films “are aired like propaganda loops on ‘Splatterdays’ and every day” along with “a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life.”

 

“And then they have the nerve to call it ‘entertainment,’” LaPierre added, “but is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.”

 

LaPierre said “a child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18” and called upon parents to protect their children, adding “they're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.” Rallying against gun control, LaPierre called upon Congress “to put armed police officers in every school” in order to “make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.”

 

In response to LaPierre’s statements, Jennifer Mercurio, vice president & general counsel at the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA), issued the following statement:

 

“We agree with the Supreme Court's decisions, and the volumes of scientific research, which all clearly state that there is no causal link between media violence and real life violence. As we are all learning increasingly through the news, this is a situation of the perpetrator's mental disorders, and his family's inability to adequately deal with them in time. Our hearts remain with all those suffering in the aftermath of this horrendous crime.”

 

LaPierre’s statements come just days after West Virginia senator Jay Rockefeller proposed a bill to study “the impact of violent content, including video games and video programming, on children.”

 

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Let's point fingers and assign blame!

[SteVo+ 3,702]

lmaoNRA. I've played Grand Theft Auto for many years now. I take great pride in running over hookers, shooting innocent pedestrians, and throwing molotov cocktails at police offiers.

 

But would I ever dream of doing something like it in real life? Never.

 

Video games aren't the problem. People are the problem.

Edited December 21, 2012 by SteVo

[Omerta+ 1,206]

lmaoNRA. I've played Grand Theft Auto for many years now. I take great pride in running over hookers, shooting innocent pedestrians, and throwing molotov cocktails at police offiers.

 

But would I ever dream of doing something like it in real life? Never.

 

Video games aren't the problem. People are the problem.

 

Just to add to this, in the 50's children actually pointed toy guns at each other and pretended to be dead so it is not like this is some new thing. It is just that the methods and entertainment platforms have changed. This is a ridiculous statement.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Not sure I understand the NRA's "put armed officers in schools" theory. Columbine had an on duty officer didn't it?

 

Edit: I've been thinking about this stuff a little today while at work. This particular tragedy at Newtown supports both the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds if you think about it. Lanza tried to buy a rifle legally but had to wait for the 14-day background check. Because of the background check, he didn't buy the rifle. Gun control worked.

 

On the other hand...he stole his mother's guns and then killed her BECAUSE he couldn't buy a gun legally. In that regard, the pro-gun guys would say "see, gun control doesn't work because he just stole some instead" I think.

 

All this does is beg the question: If his mother doesn't have any guns, is he willing to look for some illegally? Obviously that's not a question we or anyone not named Adam Lanza can answer. I'm just thinking out loud.

 

I hate researching and debating gun freedom vs gun control. Neither side presents infallible logic.

 

If I feel up to it over the next week I might write a kinda long post on the paradox of guns and gun control in this country.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Phailadelphia

[SteVo+ 3,702]

Just to add to this, in the 50's children actually pointed toy guns at each other and pretended to be dead so it is not like this is some new thing. It is just that the methods and entertainment platforms have changed. This is a ridiculous statement.

 

Not to mention the fact that the GTA games are sold in many countries other than the US.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cory-booker/gun-law-reform_b_2346911.html

 

Cory Booker lays some decent groundwork for gun control imo. It doesn't take guns away from anyone or inhibit the purchase of ammo, but rather implements some barriers to purchase to anyone.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

 

“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

 

Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

 

“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

...

 

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

 

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

...

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

 

...

 

“For policy to be effective, it needs to be based on evidence,” said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who had his C.D.C. financing cut in 1996. “The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that policy could be based.”

 

...

 

After the centers’ clash with the N.R.A., Mr. Teret said he was asked by C.D.C. officials to “curtail some things I was saying about guns and gun policy.”

 

There's more in the link. The tl;dr is the NRA has been oppressing any studies on firearms that might indicate they're doing more harm than good. Interesting.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

There's more in the link. The tl;dr is the NRA has been oppressing any studies on firearms that might indicate they're doing more harm than good. Interesting.

 

So basically what tobacco companies were doing back in the day?

[Guest Phailadelphia]

So basically what tobacco companies were doing back in the day?

 

'Murrika

[OSUViking 505]

Why is lobbying even legal?

[Thanatos 2,847]

The ECA is entirely correct. There has never been any verified evidence of the ridiculousness the NRA is spouting. It was also incredibly dumb of them to do this, because they just alienated an ally. The ECA was under attack by other morons also trying to make a link that the stats show is completely false, and now the NRA points the finger at them?

 

This is incredible that old, (dare I say senile?) men continue to bring up this point. It's irrelevant, it's blatantly false, and they are doing nothing but trying to misdirect the blame. It shouldn't be aimed at the NRA either, but this was a very stupid move on their part.