Video ‘guns have changed, shouldn’t our gun laws?"

[Durango95]

You keep citing the same sources. Good for you.

If you don't want a gun. Don't buy a gun. If you don't want a high capacity magazine. Don't buy a high capacity magazine.

 

[Rolyo85]

You keep citing the same sources. Good for you.

If you don't want a gun. Don't buy a gun. If you don't want a high capacity magazine. Don't buy a high capacity magazine.

And you keep citing NO sources. The fun nuts keep ranting about how different sides have different stats, but in reality they have NO stats at all...

 

[andysayshi]

You keep citing the same sources. Good for you.

Actually, there's at least two sources in my last post that haven't been cited previously in this thread. One of them is YOURS: the US Dept Of Justice. Since they very specifically prove your argument false, I'm surprised you mentioned them at all. As you are a conspitatorialist, (is that a real word?) I guess you'll just blame Obama for that. Even though the DoJ has made similar findings since the mid nineties.

If you don't want a gun. Don't buy a gun. If you don't want a high capacity magazine. Don't buy a high capacity magazine.

You completely misunderstand my opinion. I don't give a shit how many lethal weapons you own, so long as you can prove you're competent to do so, responsibly and safely. That's all I ask.

 

[Rolyo85]

The "if you don't want it, don't get it" sound bite isn't applicable for tools of murder.

 

[andysayshi]

Rolyo85, you could apply the same logic to drugs, abortion or gay marriage. If you don't want one, don't get one.

Seems conservatives are a little more angry about some things than others.

 

[Rolyo85]

Rolyo85, you could apply the same logic to drugs, abortion or gay marriage. If you don't want one, don't get one.

Seems conservatives are a little more angry about some things than others.

No, you misunderstand my post. Those are the things you CAN apply it to, since those are personal things that impact no one else. But other people's decision to buy murder weapons uncontrollably is not a personal thing, it's a threat to everyone else, ME included.

 

[andysayshi]

Sorry, my sarcasm was not obvious enough. I completely agree. Unfortunately, people like Durango95 consider gun ownership a personal matter, rather than a community matter, despite the fact that gun ownership has a very direct impact on the community, far and above its effect on the individual. You and I are in complete agreement, sorry if my previous post was blurry on that.

 

[Durango95]

I should have said the same type sources. I will confess. I didn't read your entire post. Propaganda is so tiresome. I know I will not change your mind on this issue. You will not change mine either.

The concept of weapons being more a matter of the community than the individual is typical for your ilk. You do realize that most everything also has an effect on the community not just guns. The fact you have a car has an impact on the local community. How you maintain your property has an impact on your community. Both of which could potentially be deadly.

Thousands of people die in automobile accidents every year. Thousands of people die in house fires every year. Thousands of people die in wild fires every year.

About 30 thousand people on average are killed by guns per year. There are 300 million guns estimated in the US. That is one death per 100 thousand guns. Guns are weapons specifically designed to kill.

About 35 thousand people die in automobile accidents every year. There are an estimated 72 million cars in the US. That is one death per approximately 2 thousand cars. Cars are not designed as weapons. Their primary purpose is not to kill but to transport.

Guns are safer than cars even though guns are designed to kill.

 

[CowboyBob]

I should have said the same type sources. I will confess. I didn't read your entire post. Propaganda is so tiresome. I know I will not change your mind on this issue. You will not change mine either.

The concept of weapons being more a matter of the community than the individual is typical for your ilk. You do realize that most everything also has an effect on the community not just guns. The fact you have a car has an impact on the local community. How you maintain your property has an impact on your community. Both of which could potentially be deadly.

Thousands of people die in automobile accidents every year. Thousands of people die in house fires every year. Thousands of people die in wild fires every year.

About 30 thousand people on average are killed by guns per year. There are 300 million guns estimated in the US. That is one death per 100 thousand guns. Guns are weapons specifically designed to kill.

About 35 thousand people die in automobile accidents every year. There are an estimated 72 million cars in the US. That is one death per approximately 2 thousand cars. Cars are not designed as weapons. Their primary purpose is not to kill but to transport.

Guns are safer than cars even though guns are designed to kill.

This is the biggest bunch of bullshit I think I've ever read.

 

[Rolyo85]

Ah, the good old "cars also kill people". Yes, except that's not the sole purpose for buying one.

And it's laughable that you think you'll get away with "we won't change each other's opinion". Yes, we won't. But that doesn't remove the fact that we offer hard numbers and all you have is empty rhetoric.

 

[andysayshi]

Thousands of people die in automobile accidents every year. Thousands of people die in house fires every year. Thousands of people die in wild fires every year.

About 30 thousand people on average are killed by guns per year. There are 300 million guns estimated in the US. That is one death per 100 thousand guns. Guns are weapons specifically designed to kill.

About 35 thousand people die in automobile accidents every year. There are an estimated 72 million cars in the US. That is one death per approximately 2 thousand cars. Cars are not designed as weapons. Their primary purpose is not to kill but to transport.

Guns are safer than cars even though guns are designed to kill.

That's why we REGULATE cars and drivers and house construction. To make them safer.

And yet, despite the fact that "guns are weapons specifically designed to kill" (your words) you argue AGAINST their regulation!

It's senseless.

But the fact that you admit not even reading arguments against your stance is not surprising. Most ideologues aren't interested in the truth, just reinforcement of their own opinion.

 

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, admiring you're not reading the arguments you respond to is pathetic.

 

[Durango95]

That's why we REGULATE cars and drivers and house construction. To make them safer.

And yet, despite the fact that "guns are weapons specifically designed to kill" (your words) you argue AGAINST their regulation!

It's senseless.

But the fact that you admit not even reading arguments against your stance is not surprising. Most ideologues aren't interested in the truth, just reinforcement of their own opinion.

Guns are currently regulated. There is no need for further regulation. There is a need for this current administration to actively enforce the laws instead of selectively parsing out "justice". You presented no argument. It was propaganda, plain and simple.

 

[andysayshi]

Guns are currently regulated. There is no need for further regulation.

90 percent of Americans disagree with you. And I suspect the families and friends of the 30,000 Americans that die each year from a gunshot disagree as well.

There is a need for this current administration to actively enforce the laws instead of selectively parsing out "justice". You presented no argument. It was propaganda, plain and simple.

Well, at least I tried. You haven't posted a single thing except your own opinion. An opinion that seems highly motivated by political bias, rather than facts or truth.

 

[Rolyo85]

Yes, repeating stuff that's debunked by stats that are posted in THIS topic, is... Silly.

 

[Durango95]

90 percent of Americans disagree with you. And I suspect the families and friends of the 30,000 Americans that die each year from a gunshot disagree as well.





Well, at least I tried. You haven't posted a single thing except your own opinion. An opinion that seems highly motivated by political bias, rather than facts or truth.

You do understand that all of your posts were your opinion as well. The polls you reference are highly suspect. To you I'm sure they are gospel. You also should know your opinion is solely motivated by political bias. So it is a draw.

We both know the "new" gun laws will not pass. I suppose that makes this whole exchange a moot point indeed.

 

[Rolyo85]

You do understand that all of your posts were your opinion as well. The polls you reference are highly suspect. To you I'm sure they are gospel. You also should know your opinion is solely motivated by political bias. So it is a draw.

We both know the "new" gun laws will not pass. I suppose that makes this whole exchange a moot point indeed.

And the polls you reference... Oops, where are they? I find their lack much more highly suspect.

 

[andysayshi]

You do understand that all of your posts were your opinion as well. The polls you reference are highly suspect.

How would you know? You already admitted you didn't read them. For the record, the majority of data presented by myself and other posters in this thread doesn't come from polls. It's statistical data. Do you understand the difference?

To you I'm sure they are gospel. You also should know your opinion is solely motivated by political bias.

No, my standpoint is one based on overwhelming statistical evidence, gathered over decades in many nations. What would be my political bias to support gun background checks? Where is the political advantage to an average schmo like me? See, the hundreds of millions of lobbying dollars spent by the gun industry and their NRA each year have an obvious political purpose: to increase and protect gun sales.

But what is the opposite motivation for those who seek to increase background checks? Other than some wild conspiracy theory about Obama wanting to take your guns before the jackboots come to town to take over, what benefit (other than improved safety) would motivate those who want stronger checks on gun purchases?

So it is a draw.

Lol, you can't call a draw when you haven't been part of the game, mate. You haven't posted a single statistic, survey, piece of data or information to support your argument. You are a non-participant. Audience members don't get to call the game.

 

[Durango95]

I would know because I used to be you. That is before I grew up and got a real job. I was specifically referencing your use of the Quinnipiac University telephone poll, a single poll which said what you wanted. Statistics are routinely manipulated to reflect a point of view, much like AGW etc. You only referenced data which supported your point of view.

As to your motivation, I can only assume that your motivation is to support the political point of view you support regardless of anything other than it is whom you support.

I was not arguing with you I was stating my point of view, as were you. I understand that it is important for those of your ilk to always be "right". If you want to think that, so be it. The gun ban or background check augmentation still will not pass. If you want to call that a win, I'm fine with that.

 

[andysayshi]

I would know because I used to be you. That is before I grew up and got a real job.

Err... that's a weird thing to say. You sound like my grandad.

I was specifically referencing your use of the Quinnipiac University telephone poll, a single poll which said what you wanted. Statistics are routinely manipulated to reflect a point of view, much like AGW etc. You only referenced data which supported your point of view.

Okay, if you don't like the Quinnipiac University poll, who's methodology seems fine to me, then how about a Fox News Poll, April 20-22,2013 82% support for expanding background checks

Or the Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 11-14, 2013 86%

Or the CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7, 2013 83%

Or this CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013 90%

That's just polls from the past month. There are plenty more if we stretch back a few more months. FFS, even FOX NEWS VIEWERS support expanded background checks!!!

And if you don't want to take MY word for it, how about Politifact, who rate Gabby Gifford's claim in her speech that "Americans overwhelmingly support expanding background checks" as TRUE.

Our ruling

In her op-ed, Giffords said polls show that Americans "overwhelmingly" support "expanding background checks." Four independent polls taken in the previous month showed that some sort of expansion of background checks earned the support of between 83 percent and 91 percent of respondents, a level of backing we think qualifies as "overwhelming." We rate her statement True.

As to your motivation, I can only assume that your motivation is to support the political point of view you support regardless of anything other than it is whom you support.

I was not arguing with you I was stating my point of view, as were you. I understand that it is important for those of your ilk to always be "right". If you want to think that, so be it. The gun ban or background check augmentation still will not pass. If you want to call that a win, I'm fine with that.

No, it's obviously and plainly a loss. What upsets people like ME is when people like YOU dismiss facts and data as "opinion", when it plainly is not, and the consequence of that blindness is thousands of dead people every year.

If guns make people safer, why is the most heavily armed nation on Earth so unsafe from guns? If tighter gun laws don't reduce gun deaths, why do the majority of US States with tighter gun laws have less gun deaths?