Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 40

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
« #60 : June 10, 2013, 09:22:34 PM »



I would just like to applaud Vin for being so spot on in this thread. Nicely done.

excellent use of sarcasm

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
« #61 : June 10, 2013, 09:44:30 PM »

Nearly 800,000 deaths prevented due to declines in smoking; NIH study examines the impact of tobacco control policies and programs, and the potential for further reduction in lung cancer deaths
Twentieth-century tobacco control programs and policies were responsible for preventing more than 795,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States from 1975 through 2000, according to an analysis funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health.


http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/TobaccoControlCISNET

"Gun logic"  === Tobacco causes preventable death BUT we should do NOTHING about it because people will still smoke  ???

"Gun logic" === do NOTHING about obesity, people will still be fat. Do NOTHING about alcohol, diseases, poisons, auto accidents . . .  people will still die  ???



curious thing, logic . . . .  it can be a **CENSORED** when you're on the wrong side of it

The big difference is that here a problem was identified, and an effective solution proposed.

What we have with the current gun control "debate" is a bunch of people who had a solution waiting for a problem to occur. Subsequently that solution does not address the problem. There is only one solution to eliminate gun deaths, and people know what it is.

I have a question for you Vin, what people would your universal background checks be designed to filter out?

olafberserker

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 21323
Offline
« #62 : June 10, 2013, 09:46:17 PM »

It's a good thing they passed those expanded background checks for cigarettes

Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17739
Offline
« #63 : June 10, 2013, 09:53:23 PM »

It's time to ban fat people .

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20283
Offline
« #64 : June 10, 2013, 09:57:50 PM »

Nearly 800,000 deaths prevented due to declines in smoking; NIH study examines the impact of tobacco control policies and programs, and the potential for further reduction in lung cancer deaths
Twentieth-century tobacco control programs and policies were responsible for preventing more than 795,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States from 1975 through 2000, according to an analysis funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health.


http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/TobaccoControlCISNET

"Gun logic"  === Tobacco causes preventable death BUT we should do NOTHING about it because people will still smoke  ???

"Gun logic" === do NOTHING about obesity, people will still be fat. Do NOTHING about alcohol, diseases, poisons, auto accidents . . .  people will still die  ???



curious thing, logic . . . .  it can be a **CENSORED** when you're on the wrong side of it

The big difference is that here a problem was identified, and an effective solution proposed.

What we have with the current gun control "debate" is a bunch of people who had a solution waiting for a problem to occur. Subsequently that solution does not address the problem. There is only one solution to eliminate gun deaths, and people know what it is.

I have a question for you Vin, what people would your universal background checks be designed to filter out?

Spartan, how was an "effective solution" proposed for any of those preventable deaths? They all still exist.  You are actually talking in circles now, pointing out the folly of the pro-gun position. If you applied "gun logic" none of those problems would have even been addressed precisely because, by "gun logic" they were all INEFFECTIVE (i.e., they did not absolutely prevent the problem).  That's  actually the very argument you make later in the same comment when you say what people would be filtered out.  You're saying, essentially, that universal background checks wouldn't cure the problem . . . well, we still have smokers and obese people . . . and yet those efforts saved lives.

by the way, what's is it? what is the one solution?

There is only one solution to eliminate gun deaths, and people know what it is.


Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20283
Offline
« #65 : June 10, 2013, 10:02:36 PM »

It's time to ban fat people .

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent $830 million funding obesity studies in fiscal year 2011. Between 2008 and 2011, NIH spent over $3.3 billion on obesity research. Spending on obesity research also overshadows many other areas of research funded by NIH, including research on Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and breast cancer, which received $448 million, $437 million and $715 million in 2011, respectively. “Obesity is a very is a very significant cause of current illness in our country and becoming more significant all the time,” said Dr. Francis Collins, NIH director.

"gun logic" == do NOTHING about obesity because there will always be fat people . . .lol

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20283
Offline
« #66 : June 11, 2013, 09:08:08 AM »

Search underway, how did he get all the ammo?  The Colorado shooter purchased his online:

"Authorities are tracing two firearms used by Zawahri. One weapon was a .44-caliber handgun that a federal law enforcement official described as a "curio- or relic-type" weapon that might have been in the shooter's family for years. The second was an AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle. Investigators are looking into whether Zawahri's possession of the gun was prohibited under California's long-standing assault weapons ban. The rifle was being examined Monday at the Sheriff's Department crime lab, a local law enforcement source said.

"We've been at his house, going through his computer too," the federal official said.

Authorities want to know how Zawahri, an unemployed 23-year-old with what associates said was a history of mental problems, obtained vast quantities of ammunition. Several sources said Zawahri had 40 large-capacity magazines in pouches in his clothing and in a bag he carried. Each magazine held about 30 rounds. The ammunition was strapped to his body — including his chest and thighs — as well as in pouches in his clothing and protective vest, they added."


Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
« #67 : June 11, 2013, 10:44:49 AM »

Nearly 800,000 deaths prevented due to declines in smoking; NIH study examines the impact of tobacco control policies and programs, and the potential for further reduction in lung cancer deaths
Twentieth-century tobacco control programs and policies were responsible for preventing more than 795,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States from 1975 through 2000, according to an analysis funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health.


http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/newsfromnci/2012/TobaccoControlCISNET

"Gun logic"  === Tobacco causes preventable death BUT we should do NOTHING about it because people will still smoke  ???

"Gun logic" === do NOTHING about obesity, people will still be fat. Do NOTHING about alcohol, diseases, poisons, auto accidents . . .  people will still die  ???



curious thing, logic . . . .  it can be a **CENSORED** when you're on the wrong side of it

The big difference is that here a problem was identified, and an effective solution proposed.

What we have with the current gun control "debate" is a bunch of people who had a solution waiting for a problem to occur. Subsequently that solution does not address the problem. There is only one solution to eliminate gun deaths, and people know what it is.

I have a question for you Vin, what people would your universal background checks be designed to filter out?

Spartan, how was an "effective solution" proposed for any of those preventable deaths? They all still exist.  You are actually talking in circles now, pointing out the folly of the pro-gun position. If you applied "gun logic" none of those problems would have even been addressed precisely because, by "gun logic" they were all INEFFECTIVE (i.e., they did not absolutely prevent the problem).  That's  actually the very argument you make later in the same comment when you say what people would be filtered out.  You're saying, essentially, that universal background checks wouldn't cure the problem . . . well, we still have smokers and obese people . . . and yet those efforts saved lives.

by the way, what's is it? what is the one solution?

There is only one solution to eliminate gun deaths, and people know what it is.

No I am not. In car accidents people were killed and injured by being smashed against the dashboard or through the windscreen. Seatbelts prevent this from happening.
People were dying of cancer because of smoking cigarettes. Not smoking cigarettes dramatically reduces this.

To answer your question, the solution is to ban all guns.

Now, back to my question, what people would your universal background checks be designed to filter out?

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
« #68 : June 11, 2013, 10:52:07 AM »

Search underway, how did he get all the ammo?  The Colorado shooter purchased his online:

"Authorities are tracing two firearms used by Zawahri. One weapon was a .44-caliber handgun that a federal law enforcement official described as a "curio- or relic-type" weapon that might have been in the shooter's family for years. The second was an AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle. Investigators are looking into whether Zawahri's possession of the gun was prohibited under California's long-standing assault weapons ban. The rifle was being examined Monday at the Sheriff's Department crime lab, a local law enforcement source said.

"We've been at his house, going through his computer too," the federal official said.

Authorities want to know how Zawahri, an unemployed 23-year-old with what associates said was a history of mental problems, obtained vast quantities of ammunition. Several sources said Zawahri had 40 large-capacity magazines in pouches in his clothing and in a bag he carried. Each magazine held about 30 rounds. The ammunition was strapped to his body — including his chest and thighs — as well as in pouches in his clothing and protective vest, they added."


What's wrong with buying ammo online?

High capacity magazines were banned in California in 2000.

I also observe that the weapon used is constantly being referred to as an "AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle." Wonder why that is? It alludes that they are trying to imply something because it probably doesn't quite fit the current narrative. It will be interesting IMO to see how that plays out.

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20283
Offline
« #69 : June 11, 2013, 12:52:00 PM »

I also observe that the weapon used is constantly being referred to as an "AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle." Wonder why that is? It alludes that they are trying to imply something because it probably doesn't quite fit the current narrative. It will be interesting IMO to see how that plays out.

I think you mean that is what you infer from the comment, but I think the use of a "AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle" is like saying the person drove a "pickup truck". A layperson knows one when they see one (there are pictures of the guy holding it and of it sitting on a table after the event) but the author is not qualified to make the distinction between variouse versions.

Respectfully, it is gun owners, not lay people, who draw very fine lines around what is and is not an "assault rifle" (perhaps because of sensitivity about the "narrative"?) Most non gun owners just know that mass murderers have recently  chosen "assault rifles" as the weapon of choice (why not?  they are deadly, ubiquitous and can be purchased online  or at a gun show w/o background check . .  and some killers copy cat)

Btw, it is not coincidence that this crime mirrors Sandy Hook and Columbine and the Colorado shooting in many ways.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20283
Offline
« #70 : June 11, 2013, 12:59:19 PM »

No I am not. In car accidents people were killed and injured by being smashed against the dashboard or through the windscreen. Seatbelts prevent this from happening.
People were dying of cancer because of smoking cigarettes. Not smoking cigarettes dramatically reduces this
.

To answer your question, the solution is to ban all guns.

Three things:

1. the first part, in bold, IS actually pointing out the folly of the pro-gun position found all over these pages BECAUSE the "pro-gun" position is that no measures can be taken to reduce gun violence because nothing will totally prevent it (i.e. only the criminals will get guns, people can still get  guns if they want). Auto and anti-smoking efforts do not totally prevent auto and smoking deaths and yet we still do it.

2. The second past, in red, should be shown to Escobar, who insists that FEAR is not a motivating factor with gun supporters.  You are afraid (I am just stating it is a fact, not a criticism) that the government is heading toward a "ban of all guns."  Escobar says that cannot be true.  Many gun owners deny it, you do not.

3. Universal background checks are designed to prevent the same people from buying guns who cannot buy them if they choose to go to a brick and mortar gun shop. The only difference is the word "universal" which means to apply it to all purchases rather than a finite set.  (I presume you refuse to accept any universal background check proposal because you have never responded to my queries)
« : June 11, 2013, 01:04:49 PM VinBucFan »

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
« #71 : June 11, 2013, 01:39:29 PM »

I also observe that the weapon used is constantly being referred to as an "AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle." Wonder why that is? It alludes that they are trying to imply something because it probably doesn't quite fit the current narrative. It will be interesting IMO to see how that plays out.

I think you mean that is what you infer from the comment, but I think the use of a "AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle" is like saying the person drove a "pickup truck". A layperson knows one when they see one (there are pictures of the guy holding it and of it sitting on a table after the event) but the author is not qualified to make the distinction between variouse versions.

Respectfully, it is gun owners, not lay people, who draw very fine lines around what is and is not an "assault rifle" (perhaps because of sensitivity about the "narrative"?) Most non gun owners just know that mass murderers have recently  chosen "assault rifles" as the weapon of choice (why not?  they are deadly, ubiquitous and can be purchased online  or at a gun show w/o background check . .  and some killers copy cat)

Btw, it is not coincidence that this crime mirrors Sandy Hook and Columbine and the Colorado shooting in many ways.

You are 100% correct. but it raises an eyebrow because the media haven't hesitated to call these weapons ar-15 assault rifles, now they are hedging around the edges. Makes we wonder why?

It mirrors those shootings in one way that is not being mentioned much, the shooters went straight to "gun free zones." Sandy Hook is different though because I think that guy had a beef with the fact his Mom worked at the school. Now I hate to even think of providing you with more ammo to go ape (excuse the pun), but I read this guy got off 70 rounds before the cops got there. Thank God he was a lousy shot by all accounts as all the victims could could do was either hide or scatter and run. In this situation having someone who was armed would have definitely been beneficial, this could have been a turkey shoot.

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7109
Offline
« #72 : June 11, 2013, 01:53:58 PM »


Three things:

1. the first part, in bold, IS actually pointing out the folly of the pro-gun position found all over these pages BECAUSE the "pro-gun" position is that no measures can be taken to reduce gun violence because nothing will totally prevent it (i.e. only the criminals will get guns, people can still get  guns if they want). Auto and anti-smoking efforts do not totally prevent auto and smoking deaths and yet we still do it.


You keep on saying this "no measures" thing time and time again, I respond and you ignore my responses and repeat it like I never said anything. The problem is to reduce gun deaths and violence (apparently). The center piece of gun legislation is to ban a weapon, the so called assault rifle that is used in < 5% of all shootings. Explain to me how that adequately addresses the problem? Or, is it more than likely just a case that some people don't like those guns and are just trying to get them banned? Seatbelts specifically address the problem of people flying through the windscreen. In fact I they have a success rate of 100% when worn. That is what I mean by solving the problem.


2. The second past, in red, should be shown to Escobar, who insists that FEAR is not a motivating factor with gun supporters.  You are afraid (I am just stating it is a fact, not a criticism) that the government is heading toward a "ban of all guns."  Escobar says that cannot be true.  Many gun owners deny it, you do not.

Knowing that a herd of wildebeest is about to come storming over the hill prompts you to move. That is not fear, it's called common sense. Knowing what the end game is and taking steps to not get screwed is not fear, it's also common sense. This "you are scared" is getting a bit old and is a tactic used on people who cannot think for themselves. We can.


3. Universal background checks are designed to prevent the same people from buying guns who cannot buy them if they choose to go to a brick and mortar gun shop. The only difference is the word "universal" which means to apply it to all purchases rather than a finite set.  (I presume you refuse to accept any universal background check proposal because you have never responded to my queries)

Methinks we have just had a conversation about that haven't we? Perhaps you forgot?

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20283
Offline
« #73 : June 11, 2013, 02:27:07 PM »

I also observe that the weapon used is constantly being referred to as an "AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle." Wonder why that is? It alludes that they are trying to imply something because it probably doesn't quite fit the current narrative. It will be interesting IMO to see how that plays out.

I think you mean that is what you infer from the comment, but I think the use of a "AR-15 type semiautomatic rifle" is like saying the person drove a "pickup truck". A layperson knows one when they see one (there are pictures of the guy holding it and of it sitting on a table after the event) but the author is not qualified to make the distinction between variouse versions.

Respectfully, it is gun owners, not lay people, who draw very fine lines around what is and is not an "assault rifle" (perhaps because of sensitivity about the "narrative"?) Most non gun owners just know that mass murderers have recently  chosen "assault rifles" as the weapon of choice (why not?  they are deadly, ubiquitous and can be purchased online  or at a gun show w/o background check . .  and some killers copy cat)

Btw, it is not coincidence that this crime mirrors Sandy Hook and Columbine and the Colorado shooting in many ways.

You are 100% correct. but it raises an eyebrow because the media haven't hesitated to call these weapons ar-15 assault rifles, now they are hedging around the edges. Makes we wonder why?

It mirrors those shootings in one way that is not being mentioned much, the shooters went straight to "gun free zones." Sandy Hook is different though because I think that guy had a beef with the fact his Mom worked at the school. Now I hate to even think of providing you with more ammo to go ape (excuse the pun), but I read this guy got off 70 rounds before the cops got there. Thank God he was a lousy shot by all accounts as all the victims could could do was either hide or scatter and run. In this situation having someone who was armed would have definitely been beneficial, this could have been a turkey shoot.

ha, have EVERYONE in the country armed is NOT a realistic option so you can drop that idea.  Having heavily armed people at every public place, schools included, is an option, but it comes at a cost, so that means it is now a PUBLIC HEALTH issue and so, much like cigarettes, we can tax all your guns and ammo very heavily to pay for all those armed guards at all public places.  The alternative is just to make it as difficult as reasonably possible for someone to get a gun

a theater is not a gun free zone, a mall is not a gun free zone, and schools I do not beleive were gun free zones when Columbine occurred and tschools had nothing to do with many of the crimes .  The common thread is mental issues and access to guns and density of people or the killers familiaroty with an area with a lot of people.  You cant stop people from gathering, you cannot easily identify people with POTENTIAL deadly medical issues . .  . the easiest thing controlled is .  . . guns.

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20283
Offline
« #74 : June 11, 2013, 02:38:04 PM »


Three things:

1. the first part, in bold, IS actually pointing out the folly of the pro-gun position found all over these pages BECAUSE the "pro-gun" position is that no measures can be taken to reduce gun violence because nothing will totally prevent it (i.e. only the criminals will get guns, people can still get  guns if they want). Auto and anti-smoking efforts do not totally prevent auto and smoking deaths and yet we still do it.


You keep on saying this "no measures" thing time and time again, I respond and you ignore my responses and repeat it like I never said anything. The problem is to reduce gun deaths and violence (apparently). The center piece of gun legislation is to ban a weapon, the so called assault rifle that is used in < 5% of all shootings. Explain to me how that adequately addresses the problem? Or, is it more than likely just a case that some people don't like those guns and are just trying to get them banned? Seatbelts specifically address the problem of people flying through the windscreen. In fact I they have a success rate of 100% when worn. That is what I mean by solving the problem.

first let's start with the apples to oranges.  Cars are an integral and undeniable part of American life essential for everyday living in most places.  Assault rifles serve little or no purpose beyond as a hobby and/or entertainment, except for the tiniest sliver of the populace.  Because the UTILITY VALUE is so different it only make sense that assualt rifles have a higher burden to bear to stay in society than cars.

second, the center of gun restrictions is NOT an assault wespons ban. that's laughable. assault weapons are just highly visble weapons of mass murder with, again, very little actual VALUE for most of society

third, you are actually hiughlighting the flaw logic of the pro-gun crowd that is why I am repeating it, I will use your own words. Truly banning assault weapons with "adequaltely solve" the problme of people being killed with "assault weapons" because they wouldnt be available.  Could people kill other ways? Sure, just like (using your words) seat belts have "a 100% success rate when worn" we acceot that seatbelts will not save every life, just a certain class of lives (those who wear seat belts) because saving lives is the goal and there is no .  . . . FEAR

fourth, on the question of FEAR  . . . your words . ."Or, is it more than likely just a case that some people don't like those guns and are just trying to get them banned?"

using just your example, TRULY banning assault weapons would keep people from being killed by assault weapons. Could people still get killed by guns, sure, just like people get killed in cars when they dont wear setabelts and even when they due.  The only people that would be hurt by an assault weapons ban are people who use them for a hobby or entertainment , little social utility, especially wehn compared to a life.

Btw, I long ago offered a way for assualt rifles to stay around and I agree that the banning is almost symbolic (almost), my response was just to point out the flaw in the logic of the argument you advanced. There's a lot of preventable gun violence in the US because there are a lot of gun, one for every person no matter the age, not just because of assault rifles.
« : June 11, 2013, 02:42:30 PM VinBucFan »

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center
  Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 40
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Official Gun Control Thread. « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools