Print

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

[TheBiggerFish]

The Supreme Court has unanimously held that  “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

It's pretty non-negotiable.

The problem is when even basic research cannot be carried over it through the CDC. Besides, people are a lot less liable to respect the law if they feel it's slowly chocking them and their loved ones to death.

That article is ridiculous. There is no "gun violence crisis" ^{[citation needed]}. Homicide has been steadily dropping for nearly thirty years now ^{[citation needed]}. Also, the CDC can study all they want ^{[dubious - discuss]}, they just can't advocate for unconstitutional political change ^{[dubious - discuss]}. The AMA is also intentionally conflating suicide and homicide, which are two totally separate issues ^{[dubious - discuss]}. Your article is garbage propaganda^{[citation needed]} that has no place in honest discussion ^{[citation needed]}.

FTFY.

FTFTFYFY.

[Frumple]

Eh, re: the homicide statement, at least, morg was pretty accurate. 1990-94 was about the last time in recent history both the rate and the raw number have done much more than slide pretty steadily downward, and that was 26-22 years ago.

[TheBiggerFish]

Citation needed, citation found.

[Neonivek]

Sorry posted it in the wrong spot

It is ALWAYS in the gun manufacturer's best interest to ensure that there is an idea of there always being a problem with gun and weapon violence in order to sell their product.

[Morrigi]

More in the best interest of the press. Gun manufacturers have a lot to lose, while the press doesn't. The press routinely lies through their teeth about "assault rifles" being used in mass shootings - they're doing it right now.

[Neonivek]

More in the best interest of the press. Gun manufacturers have a lot to lose, while the press doesn't.

How? The US is never gonna actually ban guns and the most they can do is require licensing which affects them very little.

[Morrigi]

A new assault weapons ban would cause problems for them, never mind the fact that it did nothing to reduce the homicide rate

[Neonivek]

A new assault weapons ban would cause problems for them, never mind the fact that it did nothing to reduce the homicide rate

Well... Of course it didn't, it didn't happen yet.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

He's referring to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

[Shadowlord]

More in the best interest of the press. Gun manufacturers have a lot to lose, while the press doesn't. The press routinely lies through their teeth about "assault rifles" being used in mass shootings - they're doing it right now.

Are you claiming that he didn't use the Sig Sauer MCX that he used in the shooting in the shooting?

[chaoticag]

A new assault weapons ban would cause problems for them, never mind the fact that it did nothing to reduce the homicide rate

It wouldn't probably, but evidence points to multiple restirctions targetting guns do indeed have an effect on death by guns. And well, this isn't "just one study"but it's a meta study of 130 studies taking place in 10 different countries and conducted between the years of 1950 and 2014.

[sluissa]

A new assault weapons ban would cause problems for them, never mind the fact that it did nothing to reduce the homicide rate

It wouldn't probably, but evidence points to multiple restirctions targetting guns do indeed have an effect on death by guns. And well, this isn't "just one study"but it's a meta study of 130 studies taking place in 10 different countries and conducted between the years of 1950 and 2014.

If you fill in all the pools it will have an effect on the number of deaths by pool. But what it won't show is how many stupid people went on to find something else to die by.

I'd like to see that study re-done to show deaths by violence overall after gun restrictions. Until then it's a silly thing that just proves that it's hard to kill with a gun when you don't have a gun. Which I don't think anyone would dispute.

More in the best interest of the press. Gun manufacturers have a lot to lose, while the press doesn't.

How? The US is never gonna actually ban guns and the most they can do is require licensing which affects them very little.

It's pretty obvious that Obama has done more to help the manufacturers sell guns than he's ever done to harm them. Scaring people about just about anything, and especially taking away their guns, is a good way to get people to stock up on guns.

[misko27]

Why hasn't anyone here discussed the LGBT or terrorism angle? It's not like those parts aren't important. In fact they are probably just as important as the gun part. Or would a conversation about all three defy an easy argument?

[Frumple]

Pretty sure that was actually touched on a fair bit during the initial discussions on it, before this thread was made. It has been mentioned a bit here, too.

That said, more discussion on the firearm angle kinda' makes something approaching sense. Doing stuff about it involves a lot less... everything. Logistics, political capital, etc., etc., etc. Makes it easier to get invested in the discussion.

Mostly just been the flow of conversation, though.

[Neonivek]

Why hasn't anyone here discussed the LGBT or terrorism angle? It's not like those parts aren't important. In fact they are probably just as important as the gun part. Or would a conversation about all three defy an easy argument?

The issue with the LGBT angle is just that... Well this is so typical with how they are generally treated it kind of goes without saying. It is unfortunately something we are still going to just expect.

Minorities, especially ones not well favored, just are targets... and there is pretty much nothing more we can do (well more we can do on the protection angle).

The Terrorism angle I think people just don't want to touch because the USA is becoming increasingly Islamphobic and no one got time for a debate. Either that or no one honestly believes that Islam is an evil religion that breeds bad people who is willing to argue it.