Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Ducimus]

I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I just have to post this one more time because I think it should be heard.



This sheriff succinctly makes nearly every argument that I think i've been trying to make in this thread. On this note, I am a bit tired of posting about this, so i'll bow out of this thread now. Not intended as a cope out, I'm just genuinely weary of the politics, and I hope this is all over soon.

edit:

Originally Posted by Méo

@Ducimus

Maybe, but I don't think I pretend anything at all.

Btw, I respect some conservative like you or Steve (don't know exactly if you are, but seems so).

I'm just amazed to see some folks here being so extreme in their posts (I'm sure you know who I'm talking about).

Peace out

I think you'll find me somewhere in, or near, the Libertarian camp. And yeah I know what your talking about.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

How i'm interpretting this is you actually have MORE then what was cited because you have those violent crime stats in addition to........ whatever else, while we just lump them all into one category.

Not entirely sure I follow that line of thought. The reason we have more 'violent crimes' in that category are because we class crimes in that category that the US doesn't. So it's really the other way around, we lump them all into one category, including crimes that in the US aren't counted as 'violent crime'. For example, in the UK, all sexual offenses are classed as 'violent crime' not just forcible rape. Vehicle theft, purse snatching and bicycle theft are also classed as 'violent crime' (now you see why our officers are always stuck behind desks of paper).

Backtracking a moment, and putting most everything else aside, I think the guy in that video makes an undeniable point about large metro areas. That is where most of the crime occurs, and we do have more large metro's.

Where I live, crime is so rare, i have inlaw's that rarely lock their doors. The nickname of this area is "happy valley" because everyone here lives in a bubble so to speak, because nothing bad - never, or rarely happens here. (wheres I grew up in SoCal, and am not as oblivious to crime or bad people. I always lock my doors, and put stop sticks in the windows. Others, not so much.)

You certainly do have more large scale urban areas, and it cannot be denied that there is a higher rate of crime in urban areas than in rural areas. Around here, which is pretty rural but still a tourist hotspot, crime is also very low, we had a spate of break-ins by a drug addict looking to fund his latest fix, but they were mainly focused on commercial areas and the odd holiday home. If anything, around here, there are more traffic offences and related deaths than any real violence, although there are certain towns that are a bit rough, and it's usually the youth partaking in the crime because they can get away with it more. But I digress...

Now, if you compare the stats for property crime rates in the UK and US, you get the following picture (data from 2011):
US - just over 9,000,000
(http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...property-crime and http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...tables/table-2)
UK - +/- 2,124,169
(http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_263244.pdf - For some reason, Violence against the person and Sexual assault are included in the Total Property Damages section of this report, I removed them to get the figure I have displayed)


EDIT: And in the time it took me to research that, the discussion has ended. This is why I fail at maths! But anyway, there's no real axe to grind here, as you've probably seen in other threads I can argue both sides of gun control, and I fall probably somewhere in the middle of the argument (I do that a lot, I had this annoying habit of being able to see both sides of most disagreements) but I just wanted to correct a misunderstanding which is cropping up a lot in America at the moment.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I just have to post this one more time because I think it should be heard.

Now that I can agree with. The primary reason the government is acting on gun control is so it can be seen as 'doing something'. It is primarily a political act rather than an effective act.

Well said that officer. When government tries to get involved with law enforcement, usually a mess will follow, I think any policeman could agree with that.

The question is, how does one address the 'culture of violence' and 'criminal gun activities', I don't think anyone in either the US or UK government knows the answer to this.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I have discussed the point in the OP and my responses.This is exploitation of a woman who is most likely in such grief and a private citizen has no place given a presidential address.Of course others took the topic into other things but that i the point, this is another scumbag move on part of dear leader.My rhetoric is not emotional, it's just laying out the truth.

No, you screamed and yelled and waved your arms. Your point is actually a good one, but you are indeed being quite emotional. What you say here about private citizens and presidents is much more reasonable, but as soon as you call it "disgusting". You may think it is, and it may be, but that is an extremely emotional response, and not rational at all.

Also, you will never be able to have a real discussion as long as you keep pushing the hard-right point of view.

Of course Obama is using this for his own agenda. It's what politicians do. He is no better and no worse than other presidents who have done this, and no different. Unless you can respond equally to the ones on "your" side when it happens, then you will continue to come across as nothing more than a right-wing shill.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

My rhetoric is not emotional, it's just laying out the truth.

So you had no emotional response to the story? Why post something about it then? Having emotions is not a weakness, although that is what you are implying and you are actually doing what you are accusing Obama and this mother of. Using emotion to sway and argument. Doing so under the guise that you are being logical and reasonable is just BS.

Where is the truth in saying that this mother's emotions invalidate her right to a voice in this debate?

As Steve and I pointed out the politicians on both sides will use emotion to sway people, that's what they do. If you expect anything else, then you are certainly not living in the real world.

Why not ?

Since that has already been answered last time you posted the same video surely the question is ...
Why are you repeating the same rubbish from the same source when it has already been shown to be complete rubbish?

Not entirely sure I follow that line of thought.

oberon.
That is because that "line of thought" does not follow anything like thought.
The sets of figures used are completely incomparible so any attempt at drawing conclusions by comparing those figures is an exercise in dishonesty.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Really, you are incorrect here. The emotions you refer to(ill just call them that for discussions sake) were not irrational ones though.After a long series of abuses, the founders made a sound, rational and logical choice to fight for liberty, to free their nation from oppression, which is a natural instinct more than an emotion.

You really need to study a little history. After a couple of taxes the Founders (all of them, not just the famous ones) overreacted by a huge margin, tarring and feathering tax collectors, rioting, mobbing and attacking soldiers merely for what they represented. This is not to say the British governors were any better, yelling for soldiers when a little honest discussion would have done the trick. To their credit the Founders didn't actually start shooting until troops were sent to confiscate weapons. The first time they got rational and logical was when they decided it was time to write the Declaration, and that was a year after the war had started. By that point they had to start being rational or lose everything.

Emotions over a tragedy like Newtown while justified, are not the same and people should not allow them to influence public policy.The emotions this woman is feeling is to give up our rights in order to prevent another tragedy? Well time and time again it's proven this will not help.Only people driven by an irrational, illogical force such as grief would do so.Much like 9/11, so many are ready to surrender their rights in the name of "safety" while not thinking clearly.Really, it is akin to someone shooting a lover when upset, caught in the heat of the moment.Of course people closest to it are affected the most and the longest, which disqualifies them from offering an objective opinion, at least for a while.

This is a good observation. If only you had started with this, rather than the way you did.

People like Obama could care less, well I will be nice, he cares but sees an opportunity here to advance his agenda, knowing that many of the sheep will just fall in line, as they have a few times before.Obama is many things but I have never said he is dumb.Although if one is a marxist, there is a certain lack of intellect but that is another story.Bottom line, this is exploitation of people who are for the time being, unstable(somewhat) and in no way qualified to make judgements on public policy. Issues like this require rational, well thought out decision making.

And that's something you'll never get whenever a 'hot-button' topic like this arises. No one is being rational here, on either side. For something rational to happen it needs to be discussed rationally, not with words like "disgusting". This is, however, a start.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by TarJak

So you had no emotional response to the story? Why post something about it then? Having emotions is not a weakness, although that is what you are implying and you are actually doing what you are accusing Obama and this mother of. Using emotion to sway and argument. Doing so under the guise that you are being logical and reasonable is just BS.

When you consider the misogynistic statements he's made in the past, the "weak emotional woman" thing makes perfect sense.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

When you consider the misogynistic statements he's made in the past, the "weak emotional woman" thing makes perfect sense.

Saying a woman is emotional and that women as a gender do tend to be more emotional is not misogyny, it is REALITY. I know in the PC liberal world you guys like to ignore reality and say things are not what they do just to make yourselves feel better, but this is reality.However, this is off topic as this post was about the president exploiting a grieving mother to appeal to emotions and prevent a rational, fact based discussion on an issue.

[Tchocky]

You, Bubblehead, are certainly never emotional.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Saying a woman is emotional and that women as a gender do tend to be more emotional is not misogyny, it is REALITY.

Do you have any actual proof for this claim? It's merely your opinion.

I know in the PC liberal world you guys like to ignore reality and say things are not what they do just to make yourselves feel better, but this is reality.

And we're back to the same old games. If you can't come up with any facts, use innuendo and call people names.

However, this is off topic as this post was about the president exploiting a grieving mother to appeal to emotions and prevent a rational, fact based discussion on an issue.

That's a fair point, but it has been pointed out that most if not all politicians do this, and you only bring it up when it's the side you don't like, which makes you disengenuous at best. Besides, can you show one single instance on this forum where you have ever offered a rational, fact-based discussion about anything? You started this thread ranting and raving about it, not discussing it. You almost got there once, but now you're back to the hardcore one-sided name game.

Oh, and capslock, which indicates shouting when used in print, doesn't help your argument for someone else being unreasonable.

Do you have any actual proof for this claim? It's merely your opinion.

It's not merely his opinion, its a CAPSLOCK opinion

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Apparently the mother of a Newtown, CT shooting victim will deliver the President's Weekly radio address for him.This is inappropriate and disgusting as they are exploiting this woman's grief for political purposes as they know they do not have legal or moral ground to stand on in their efforts to destroy the second amendment! Instead, they push emotion based propaganda hoping it will garner support based on the irrational emotional feelings for this woman.Of course the media will not call Obama out for this, they never do.

I think she kind of has a vested interest in gun control. Right Or wrong, the parents of newtown (or at least some) are campaigning for Obama's proposed gun bills. Just because they had a tragedy happen does not mean they do not get to participate in our political process. Should I say the same thing to parents of dead soldiers when they ask for us to support the troops? HECK NO! parents shouldn't bury their kids no matter how they passed on...and I can understand anybody who puts the word out there after any kind of tragedy.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Saying a woman is emotional and that women as a gender do tend to be more emotional is not misogyny, it is REALITY.

No it's not.

I know in the PC liberal world you guys like to ignore reality and say things are not what they do just to make yourselves feel better, but this is reality.

No it's not.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

HECK NO!

BE CAREFUL. THE CAPSLOCK POLICE ARE ON PATROL.