Gun Violence Tracker (5 Viewers)

[Old State]

Washington had his will drafted to free his own slaves upon his death. Jefferson enacted laws to move toward gradual abolition. Adams refused to own slaves on moral grounds. Clearly the movement was powerful enough during their time in power to influence these actions and positions. And yet many of the founding fathers chose still to own slaves in spite in spite of this.

You cannot deny he facts above and to the degree that you continue to argue this point you will look silly at best and bigoted at worst.

I guess there are two racist cards in the deck...

Read the link above. Those men were a rare exception in many things but not the norm. You are the one that looks silly at best, desperate at worst.

 

[jbutler]

I guess there are two racist cards in the deck...

Read the link above. Those men were a rare exception in many things but not the norm. You are the one that looks silly.

Are we not talking about the founders' morals and ethics in our criticisms of their practices? Even if you want to frame them as exceptions, by comparing them to their own standards their work on the Constitution reveals that they did not live up to even what they knew to be right.

 

[Old State]

Are we not talking about the founders' morals and ethics in our criticisms of their practices? Even if you want to frame them as exceptions, by comparing them to their own standards their work on the Constitution reveals that they did not live up to even what they knew to be right.

You are filibustering and I need to go to sleep.

 

[bergs]

There is also historical context. Its absurd to apply 21st century morals on 18th century people. The honest approach would to be to judge them by their peers and the times they lived in. Again we discussed this earlier

It's absurd to apply 21st century morals to 18th century society, and this explains why it was OK to permit slavery and prevent women from voting until the Constitution was amended, correct? Things changed and thus the amendments were necessary?

Yet, when we consider that there has been significant changes in firearm technology and our ability to make war with a standing army in lieu of a people's militia, and we talk about the 2nd Amendment, people hold onto that language like its a sacred cow and can't possibly be modified or re-interpreted because OMGFounders!

The idea that the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be reflected on in light of the changes in the last 250 years is patently absurd.

If there wasn't an NRA lobbying Congress, the 2nd Amendment would've been modified to allow for better common-sense gun legislation 25 years ago.

The natural rights conversation is perhaps interesting, but it doesn't belong in this thread and should be moderated out. This is about money, greed, and people being selfish.

 

[Old State]

It's absurd to apply 21st century morals to 18th century society, and this explains why it was OK to permit slavery and prevent women from voting until the Constitution was amended, correct? Things changed and thus the amendments were necessary?

Yet, when we consider that there has been significant changes in firearm technology and our ability to make war with a standing army in lieu of a people's militia, and we talk about the 2nd Amendment, people hold onto that language like its a sacred cow and can't possibly be modified or re-interpreted because OMGFounders!

The idea that the 2nd Amendment shouldn't be reflected on in light of the changes in the last 250 years is patently absurd.

If there wasn't an NRA lobbying Congress, the 2nd Amendment would've been modified to allow for better common-sense gun legislation 25 years ago.

The natural rights conversation is perhaps interesting, but it doesn't belong in this thread and should be moderated out. This is about money, greed, and people being selfish.

Those are some really poor apologies. The first part on voting doesn't make sense.

The rest....I'm not sure where to begin. We didn't "fight wars" with militias and the constitution allowed a standing army. The militias were allowed for emergency defense of the individual states and for the states defense against the government and the governments standing army. The Federal government could also call up militias in an national emergency if needed.

The 2nd Amendment relates to the natural right of selfdefense; from a bad guy, a bear, or the government. Technology is relevant and equal to what ever you are trying to protect yourself against; whatever is common and what the bad guys have. There was great debate on what was going to be included in the second amendment. In 1791 an individual's right to bear arms for hunting or personal protection was assumed and woven into the fabric of society. Basically everyone owned guns then. Some were trying to jam 3 or 4 points into one amendment. As a comromise they settled on two to get it ratified.

Ironically the expansive reading of the 14th Amendment by progressive courts has incorporated the states into the Bill of Rights. Before that, the Constitution only impacted the Federal government. States could ban what ever they wanted. That is was the McDonald case was about.

When the first Amendment was written they only had printing presses. Now you can get on the Internet and in seconds and spread false or libelous information all over the globe. Should we adjust that?

Politicians and media try to make out the NRA as some gigantic interstellar entity. It's an organization of 6 million dues paying members and 10x that number of supporters. The NRA doesn't make politicians vote a certain way. They vote the way they believe their constituency wants and what will get them reelected. Remember, a Democratically controlled House and Senate couldn't pass any gun legislation with an anti gun Presdient waiting to sign anything.

 

[bergs]

NRA doesn't make politicians vote a certain way. They vote the way they believe their constituency wants and what will get them reelected.

That's a quaint notion. The NRA has one of the most powerful lobbies in the country and if you run afoul of them they'll support the other guy in your next re-elect. Their votes in Congress have very little to do with the constituency (on anything, not just gun control).

Argue the Founding Fathers all you want, but it's a theoretical argument at best as they aren't here to adjudicate the debate. I love the Founding Fathers, but that has very little to do with why there are insufficient controls on firearms in this country.

 

[Old State]

That's a quaint notion. The NRA has one of the most powerful lobbies in the country and if you run afoul of them they'll support the other guy in your next re-elect. Their votes in Congress have very little to do with the constituency (on anything, not just gun control).

Argue the Founding Fathers all you want, but it's a theoretical argument at best as they aren't here to adjudicate the debate. I love the Founding Fathers, but that has very little to do with why there are insufficient controls on firearms in this country.

There are lobby groups way larger and more influential than the NRA....NEA, UAW, etc. the NRA has a popular message that resonates with the voters

Gun control loses at the polls because people don't buy it. The NRA is always the excuse for an unconvincing message. Even with the support and weight of 90% of the media your side hasn't been able to convince majority of people

 

[Meddler2]

Still unwilling to answer the question presented numerous times. Not one 2A enthusiast has had the courage either. Which leads one to conclude you're either wholeheartedly embarrassed or ashamed to admit that you believe your right to own a firearm unabated from regulations is more important than the rights of the 1.5million people they have been used to murder over the past 48 years; slightly more than 31,000 annually.

Btw a majority of Americans favor gun control laws, poll shows.

 

[Old State]

Still unwilling to answer the question presented numerous times. Not one 2A enthusiast has had the courage either. Which leads one to conclude you're either wholeheartedly embarrassed or ashamed to admit that you believe your right to own a firearm unabated from regulations is more important than the rights of the 1.5million people they have been used to murder over the past 48 years; slightly more than 31,000 annually.

Btw a majority of Americans favor gun control laws, poll shows.

No one has answered you because no one is made that claim

For credibility I think you might want to cite a source for these numbers you keep throwing out. The sources like the FBI would be nice.

 

[Meddler2]

No one has answered you because no one is made that claim

For credibility I think you might want to cite a source for these numbers you keep throwing out. The sources like the FBI would be nice.

I have cited a source but it is irrelevant to your unwillingness to answer the question. Here it is again:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...mericans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

The numbers are accurate so
be a man and answer the question.

For the record:
US Declaration of Independence penned - 1776

In terms of emancipation both the slaves trade act and slave abolition acts were predated by a legal case brought in1772.
James Somersett, a slave owned by an north American colonist from Boston, MA, had been brought to England as a personal servant. But, as Mr Somersett had not been purchased or sold in England he absconded and sued for his own freedom. The subsequent judgment found that slavery did not exist in England, so Mr Somersett kept his freedom. The case emancipated thousands (10,000+) who had been brought into the country as domestic servants of traders.
The subsequent Acts of Parliament cleared any legal gray areas, but unlike much of the rest of Europe slavery had no legal standing in Britain since the middle-ages.

 

[bergs]

There are lobby groups way larger and more influential than the NRA....NEA, UAW, etc. the NRA has a popular message that resonates with the voters

Gun control loses at the polls because people don't buy it. The NRA is always the excuse for an unconvincing message. Even with the support and weight of 90% of the media your side hasn't been able to convince majority of people

Source?

 

[Old State]

Source?

Source for what?

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/01/investing/companies-lobbying-10-biggest-spenders/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

 

[Old State]

I have cited a source but it is irrelevant to your unwillingness to answer the question. Here it is again:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...mericans-killed-guns-1968-all-wars-says-colu/

The numbers are accurate so
be a man and answer the question.

For the record:
US Declaration of Independence penned - 1776

In terms of emancipation both the slaves trade act and slave abolition acts were predated by a legal case brought in1772.
James Somersett, a slave owned by an north American colonist from Boston, MA, had been brought to England as a personal servant. But, as Mr Somersett had not been purchased or sold in England he absconded and sued for his own freedom. The subsequent judgment found that slavery did not exist in England, so Mr Somersett kept his freedom. The case emancipated thousands (10,000+) who had been brought into the country as domestic servants of traders.
The subsequent Acts of Parliament cleared any legal gray areas, but unlike much of the rest of Europe slavery had no legal standing in Britain since the middle-ages.

Maybe people would respond if they knew what you were talking about. What's your point? This makes no sense

 

[Old State]

Still unwilling to answer the question presented numerous times. Not one 2A enthusiast has had the courage either. Which leads one to conclude you're either wholeheartedly embarrassed or ashamed to admit that you believe your right to own a firearm unabated from regulations is more important than the rights of the 1.5million people they have been used to murder over the past 48 years; slightly more than 31,000 annually

Btw a majority of Americans favor gun control laws, poll shows.

You should brush up on gun laws. There are thousands of regulations on the books.

This point is of your own creation and now you are demanding people address it. You can't simply project a point of view of your choosing on people and expect them to respond.

 

[Cliff]

The simple question posed is how many deaths does it take to change the minds of staunch t2a advocates?

I think this was his question.

 

[jbutler]

The simple question posed is how many deaths does it take to change the minds of staunch t2a advocates?

I think this was his question.

Answering for myself only it would have to be 69.

 

[bergs]

I bet the staunch 2A advocates' minds would change regarding the interpretation of the 2nd amendment if their children were gunned down while attending grade school.

 

[Meddler2]

I'm pretty sure he knows the question.

 

[bergs]

I'm pretty sure he knows the question.

He's taking the typical rightie approach in avoiding the question by trying to frame it around what the Founders intended, which only he seems able to accurately interpret.

 

[Meddler2]

I bet the staunch 2A advocates' minds would change regarding the interpretation of the 2nd amendment if their children were gunned down while attending grade school.

Yep. That's what motivated WWII super hero to take on the NRA.
http://alexkershawauthor.com/?p=31

Fascinating book btw.

 

[Old State]

He's taking the typical rightie approach in avoiding the question by trying to frame it around what the Founders intended, which only he seems able to accurately interpret.

He asked numerous questions

 

[Cliff]

Answering for myself only it would have to be 69.

Why 69?

Most ladies prefer 77, they get 8 more

Not implying that you are a lady

 

[Jeff]

How many deaths will it take to change a second amendment supporter to change their mind ... about what?

That the second amendment should be repealed?
That we should have a federal background check for an/all sales or transfers?
That a gun owner should pay a lot of money in the form of fees/taxes to support a bureaucracy?
That a gun owner should br required to jump through the time and expense of more licensing and education?

You guys are sure spending a lot of time talking past each other.

 

[David O]

Why 69?

Most ladies prefer 77, they get 8 more

Not implying that you are a lady

No the number is 68. You tell them, "you do me and I owe you one".

 

[Old State]

It's a matter of context. There were 8124 people murdered with firearms in 2014 as the FBI I reported here...

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

Of that 80% was gang related violence according to FBI and CDC reports. So that leaves you with 1624 non gang related gun murders in a population of 350M. That equates to .00000464% of th US population

In 2014 4295 people were killed driving motorcycles yet we don't hear about our epidemic of motorcycle deaths. Mass shooting are also extremely rare but the media coverage implies this is happening everywhere all the time. We need to keep things in statistical perspective.

Here is one of my original posts. The point I was making was that statistically, if you are not involved in criminal activity, the likely hood of being killed with a gun is exceedingly low.

What is see here is a lot of emotional hyperbole. Every gun owner cares about innocent people being killed. That said, in context, you are far more likely to killed by something else than a gun.

The "how many" questions could be asked of just about anything. And as for regulations, there are already tons of them.

Your side loses over and over because it's dishonest and people don't trust you. When the President and other politicians joined by the media repeatedly say the is "a growing epidemic of gun violence" then highlight FBI data showing the exact opposite while trying to attack a political opponent, people notice. And people have been noticing since access to stats are easier than ever. This is why you see the dramatic reduction of support for further gun control over the last 40 years.

I don't make decisions based on emotion or how I feel. I make them on empirical data. This "tracker" is pointless when you have objective FBI stats. Why are you so afraid of those? Because is doesn't back the narrative?

The last page of this thread has become a tediously stupid collection of recycled taking points

 

[Meddler2]

He asked numerous questions

I'll make this as clear as humanly possible for you, Old State, to understand and answer.

How many deaths annually would it take for you OLD STATE to acknowledge there is a gun violence problem and that problem can partially (not 100%) be addressed with better local/state/federal background checks and closing the gun show loop hole etc. (not once have I advocated repealing t2a)

In other words, what's the number whereas you would agree "enough is enough"?

Simply looking for a number; nothing more.

 

[Cliff]

The last page of this thread has become a tediously stupid collection of recycled taking points

Just the last page? Seems like it started with the first post. (Sorry for the cheap shot, there were plenty of valid points made from both sides.)

I must say, I have enjoyed the banter between you and @jbutler.

 

[Old State]

I'll make this as clear as humanly possible for you, Old State, to understand and answer.

How many deaths annually would it take for you OLD STATE to acknowledge there is a gun violence problem and that problem can partially (not 100%) be addressed with better local/state/federal background checks and closing the gun show loop hole etc. (not once have I advocated repealing t2a)

In other words, what's the number whereas you would agree "enough is enough"?

Simply looking for a number; nothing more.[/QUOTE

Holy recycled talking points...but I'll bite...

Do you even understand what the "gun show loophole" is? Have you ever tried to buy a gun and actually know what the process is? Do you realize that almost all guns go through a background check and that 40% number has been discredited as its from a 25 year old phone survey before the NICS system existed?

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

How many you ask? Is this a not so cleaver retread of the ye ole "if we could save one life"? Not too creative. Is the proper answer then one? So tricky you are.

Of course you could ask that question about anything. People get killed all the time texting and driving. What about drunk driving and alcohol poisoning from underage drinking? How much is enough? Give me a number?

Do we ban alcohol again..if it could save one life? What about all those motorcycle deaths. What is the point of a motorcycle anyway? No country legislates like that.

You also conveniently ignored the $11M CDC study ordered by the President in 2013 that he has never formally addressed. The one that contradicts your absurdly low numbers for defensive firearms use you got from "Slate". I posted a direct link to it earlier. Here it is again

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/pr...reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

It said:

"Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996, Kleck 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun use by victims is at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimates of only 108,000 annual defense if use is based on the national crime victimization survey (Cook et al., 1997). "

How many people need to die because they couldnt protect them-self? Just looking for a number? When is enough enough?

There is a violence problem. Especially in the inner cities. Is has been going down dramatically for the past 30 years. Gun sales have gone up exponesionally in the same period. More guns do not equal more crime.

 

[Old State]

Just the last page? Seems like it started with the first post. (Sorry for the cheap shot, there were plenty of valid points made from both sides.)

I must say, I have enjoyed the banter between you and @jbutler.

Yes, at least @jbutler provided some unique commentary.

 

[bergs]

What I've learned in this thread is that people, on the whole, are selfish idiots, and this country is so choked with bullshit that it's impossible to enact meaningful change at the federal government level.

I used to be an optimist. Now I'm just glad I don't have children that have to live in an increasingly fucked up world.

How many people is enough? When it's someone close to you that you love. Just one.

Fuck this thread and fuck this pedantic argument. This is all fucking horseshit anyway.