Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Reelya]

Look, I'm tired of this game. Look at popular opinion and quit haggling with me about this 'rights' [of which I doubt anyone could quote the text of the 2nd without looking it up] spiel.

If you're against universal background checks you're against majority opinion.

I'm not talking about background checks, I'm talking about the "assault weapons ban" and its tangible effects on stopping crime. Can you give me figures on how violent crime figures were affected by the ban under Clinton? Why is banning "assault weapons" more important right now than having tighter restrictions on handguns?

IDK about that exactly, but the Brady Bill background checks (which came in in ~1994) to seem to have a huge impact on hand-gun deaths. The previous type of background checks were abolished in 1986 under Reagan. Graphs show that handgun deaths increased almost every year from 1986-1995, then steadily fell back to the previous levels. Other types of homicide steadily fell for the entire period before, during, and afterwards, which rules out that people were just "especially murderous" in the time period in question. Why just handguns if that's the case, and no increase in e.g. knife murders?

[Owlbread]

That was the goddamn point of the new bill. To improve the background check system and re-implement the previous successful ban of military weaponry.

Of course, you wouldn't know that with the rampant amounts of disinformation thrown out there by right-wingers. I'm considering dropping my Republican title entirely. My party disgusts me to my marrow. Are arms dealers truely more important than even attempting to save lives from gun violence?

Well, that isn't what I said. I said "without prohibiting them completely", that ban did exactly that which is going to ruin a lot of hobbyists' fun.

You know, I'm just reading the wikipedia article right now on the ban with respect to the comments made by the CDC:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence," noting "that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."

Surely they'd have access to the same figures you did. Why didn't they come to the same conclusion?

[Nadaka]

The ban didn't objectively affect the crime rate because those banned guns were not often used in crimes at the time. The fall in the murder rate was across the board, for all weapons used including bare hands and blunt objects. A much more likely cause of that is the rise of electronic media and interactive gaming getting young men to stay home instead of going and and being hooligans.

you are explicitly and emphatically wrong, you are claiming I don't support universal background checks. And you are doing so in a way that makes you look like a complete fool.

I'm very surprised. It seems like a lot of effort to go out and buy some of the weapons described in the ban just to rob somebody, why not just buy a Hi-Point for a hundred dollars or something? I can understand if it's linked to gang violence but surely reasonable background checks/license renewal system could solve that issue without prohibiting the sale completely?

That was the goddamn point of the new bill. To improve the background check system and re-implement the previous successful ban of military weaponry.

Of course, you wouldn't know that with the rampant amounts of disinformation thrown out there by right-wingers. I'm considering dropping my Republican title entirely. My party disgusts me to my marrow. Are arms dealers truely more important than even attempting to save lives from gun violence?

"Assault Weapons" are not military weapons. The only reason that more than a tiny fraction of people support the "Assault Weapon Ban" is that they are deluded into thinking they are. Much like you appear to be.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

you are explicitly and emphatically wrong, you are claiming I don't support universal background checks. And you are doing so in a way that makes you look like a complete fool.

"Assault Weapons" are not military weapons. The only reason that more than a tiny fraction of people support the "Assault Weapon Ban" is that they are deluded into thinking they are.

Nadaka's best arguement: I'm right, you're wrong, my opinion is all encompassing! Cute. There's a reason your debates never fulfill any goal, mate. Support any position with popular opinion and prove your hyperbole claims of this being akin to a registry system and I'll give you the light of day to discuss your misguided views, otherwise you're stuck in la-la land.

Semantics and hyperbole and disinformation are your creed I see. If you did not support the universal background check bill you are opposed to universal background checks for your own childish reasoning and find it upsetting to be called out on your inherit hypocrisy. Sorry. Get over it.

[Nadaka]

you are explicitly and emphatically wrong, you are claiming I don't support universal background checks. And you are doing so in a way that makes you look like a complete fool.

"Assault Weapons" are not military weapons. The only reason that more than a tiny fraction of people support the "Assault Weapon Ban" is that they are deluded into thinking they are.

Nadaka's best arguement: I'm right, you're wrong, my opinion is all encompassing! Cute. There's a reason your debates never fulfill any goal, mate. Support any position with popular opinion and prove your hyperbole claims of this being akin to a registry system and I'll give you the light of day to discuss your misguided views, otherwise you're stuck in la-la land.

Semantics and hyperbole and disinformation are your creed I see.

That is the pot calling the god damn sun black. If you can't actually form a decent argument you don't need to be here.

[Owlbread]

Semantics and hyperbole and disinformation are your creed I see.

Are you going to tell me why the guns should be banned completely at a federal level and not just introduce tighter restrictions on the licensing for it? You're going to completely ruin the days of thousands of hobbyists across America who shoot the guns included in those definitions for fun. Why not apply the same laws to automatic weapons to the guns that fit the imaginary "assault weapons" definition?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That is the pot calling the god damn sun black. If you can't actually form a decent argument you don't need to be here.

Form a single sentence without resorting to childishness and utilize a fact or two, then. :]

Are you going to tell me why the guns should be banned completely at a federal level and not just introduce tighter restrictions on the licensing for it? You're going to completely ruin the days of thousands of hobbyists across America who shoot the guns included in those definitions for fun. Why not apply the same laws to automatic weapons to the guns that fit the imaginary "assault weapons" definition?

Look at facts and come back to me.

[Owlbread]

But I'm suggesting that maybe a similar outcome could be reached without completely banning the guns and ruining the fun of thousands of hobbyists across America. Hell, amplify the amount of hoops that need to be jumped through by a hundred or a thousand, just as long as people can still have fun if they want to.

You also didn't attack Nadaka's argument on the subject of the crime rate falling:

The ban didn't objectively affect the crime rate because those banned guns were not often used in crimes at the time. The fall in the murder rate was across the board, for all weapons used including bare hands and blunt objects. A much more likely cause of that is the rise of electronic media and interactive gaming getting young men to stay home instead of going and and being hooligans.

Would you mind maybe dealing with that argument rather than just belittling him as much as you can?

[Sirus]

*hides the pills and grabs more popcorn*

Goddamn it Dutchling, you've doomed the whole thread

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Form a single sentence without resorting to childishness and utilize a fact or two, then. :]

So you aren't going to then, you'd rather just get one over your opponent. That's a pity. I was hoping we were going to have robust debate.

Okay. 'Robust debate' does not equal licking non-informed boots and playing like the anti-regulation arguement here holds any sort of weight.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

^better indicator, since gun crime typically affects disenfranchised youth. Youth violence index dropped to 25 year lows during the course of the ban.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Another important one. People tend to use them to intimidate and extort and rob people, especially women.

I don't care if people disagree or find it difficult. I agree with saving lives from needless violence, I don't care to cater to childish views of absolute constitutional rights. If so we should be allowed to scream fire in a theatre and I don't see Nadaka arguing for that.

[Scoops Novel]

Banhammer descending!

[Nadaka]

That is the pot calling the god damn sun black. If you can't actually form a decent argument you don't need to be here.

Form a single sentence without resorting to childishness and utilize a fact or two, then. :]

I have. Repeatedly. But you ignore everything and just figuratively call me a poopy head.

[Owlbread]

If you're going to repeat yourself because you think people haven't listened to you, so will I:

But I'm suggesting that maybe a similar outcome could be reached without completely banning the guns and ruining the fun of thousands of hobbyists across America. Hell, amplify the amount of hoops that need to be jumped through by a hundred or a thousand, just as long as people can still have fun if they want to.

You also didn't attack Nadaka's argument on the subject of the crime rate falling:

The ban didn't objectively affect the crime rate because those banned guns were not often used in crimes at the time. The fall in the murder rate was across the board, for all weapons used including bare hands and blunt objects. A much more likely cause of that is the rise of electronic media and interactive gaming getting young men to stay home instead of going and and being hooligans.

Would you mind maybe dealing with that argument rather than just belittling him as much as you can?

[FearfulJesuit]

OP steps in

*large and calm voice*

CHILL, Y'ALL. REGAIN YOUR COOLNESS OR MOVE TO ANOTHER THREAD.

Nadaka, you're starting to act hostile. Mic, you're getting close to that stage. Not in my thread. The rest of y'all- don't feed hyperbole.

And stop name-calling. That goes for all of you. I ain't gonna let this politics thread descend to the level of third-graders calling each other bodily functions over disagreements of opinion.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

"Your graphs don't agree with my predisposed views so you're wrong!" Sorry. Just trying to inject facts into the gun debate. Tends to rustle jimmies I guess.