View Poll Results: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 13.64%
  • No

    38 86.36%
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72

Thread: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

  1. #61
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    What gun control advocates need to understand is the utter irrationality of their own arguments for gun control - some of which we've already pointed out. Not only are they irrational, they are wholly disproportionate in magnitude to many, MANY other causes of death we routinely face - tragedies gun control advocates simply ignore in favor of more sensational topics like "guns."

    While it gets old having to constantly remind gun control advocates that their arguments simply don't hold water or worse, that their actions when implemented actually have the OPPOSITE effect of that which [they say] is intended, this is a topic rational people who value their freedom and liberty will not allow to go unanswered or unopposed. Moreover, I'm tired of the lame, irresponsible accusations that attempt to put the blame and onus on responsible gun owners for the tragic incidents that have happened in the past - or the veiled threats that would have us be the ones who assume responsibility for the "misuse of guns" - or the asinine innuendos "if we REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment."

    If you want to start a dialog and establish even some semblance of credibility on this issue, you need to start addressing OUR data, OUR statistics, OUR concerns. It's ridiculously easy to refute arguments made by gun control advocates - so I understand why you don't take our offer up and respond to the refutations we make - like the ones we made in the posts above. I think you realize you can't. But not to be dissuaded from your purpose, you push on regardless, despite the overwhelmingly logical and reasonable arguments against your ideology.

    The only side that needs to "step up and take accountability for the misuse" of anything... is the gun control side, which misuses statistics, which confuses emotions with reason, which takes absurdly disproportionate stances on topics they largely have no knowledge of whatsoever.

    For instance, you mentioned "suicide" earlier. Do you know where suicide ranks in the list of all deaths in the US? 27. And that's ALL suicides. Did you know there are more people killed in car accidents than who kill themselves? Rank: 22.

    Or how about homicide? It ranks 35th. And that's for all homicides, not just those committed with a gun.

    Your argument for gun control included the snippet about threats of violence making parts of large cities off-limits to outsiders. Ever thought about why that is? Ever imagine that it might not be in part because those are cities who have banned guns? Two of the largest cities in this nation (Chicago and Wash, D.C.) have banned handguns and yet lead the pack in gun violence.

    Speaking of massively disproportionate "concern:"
    Wanna know where abortion - the "darling" plank of the liberal platform ranks? It ranks a firm, solid #1
    Wanna know why? Because we abort more babies annually than the next top 4 causes of death combined, more than coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancers, and lung diseases combined.
    Yep - abortion, right there at the top of the liberal agenda. Er, the "woman's right to choose."

    Well you're so enamored with giving women the right to choose, how about law abiding citizens? How about letting us decide whether we want to own a gun or not? Or is a little hypocrisy ok?
    You have not even recognized some of the suggestions for compromise in my post. Please tell me why they cannot be considered. You should listen to the linked podcast, you would hear valid opinions that seldom get attention from either side of the issue and it's a pretty good in any case.

    First what you get wrong about my argument:

    -I don't want your gun taken away from you, and I don't blame you and other responsible gun owners for our problem.
    -I don't refute that violence is steadily declining, including gun violence
    -I have listened to the arguments and I know why people choose to carry guns
    -Liberals do not want gun control. Normal people want to see the problems surrounding guns addressed.

    But yes, people are irrational! They are irrational when they want to ban a thing that human nature says is impossible to ban, whether that's pot, liquor, or guns. They are also irrational when they refuse to compromise on anything because it's a free country and we can't make you.

    You know the thing about liberty? It is not the same for everyone. In fact, your liberty can come at the cost of my liberty, and vice versa. So when you decry your liberties being threatened, others consider their liberties being held hostage by you. That is why you cannot be an absolutist and live in a civilization. There is a trade-off with sharing society with other people.

    By the way, if gun-control freaks are guilty of forgetting statistics, so are gun nuts. You think that because gun violence is declining in the US that there is no problem? Of all the countries in the world, it is the developed country with the worst record on gun violence. That's the same whether it's ranked by suicide, homicide, unintentional, or total. You might be safer in Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, but that's nothing to write home about.

    And that is just per capita. We are also the 3rd most populous country in the world. That is a lot of bodies. If you cannot see that there is a problem, then you cannot begin to address a solution.

    How about another sadly forgotten statistic? If you have a gun in your house for your own defense? It's unfortunate, then, that those who do and their families are statistically more likely to die from a gun in their home. I'm not denying that they might be careful and responsible. By having a gun in their house they are statistically more likely to die from one. A person might have a gun to protect their wife or girlfriend, but the sad fact is that by living in that house, women are statistically much more likely to die from it than men are.

    Yes, women are more likely to die in the home by a gun, a fact you should remember when you derail the topic by shooting back with "liberals kill more babies than guns kill people." I am not going to argue with you about the morality, or realities, or science of abortion. I'm fine with just letting you know that it's pretty misogynistic to accuse women of worse atrocities than mass-murderers. At the very least, you're probably just not going to be that popular with the ladies if you share that opinion with them.

    And when you rank deaths by causes, satisfied that heart attacks and strokes and cancer and car accidents kill more people, you are ignoring the obvious. Only violent acts and suicides are the direct result of a person wanting to hurt another person, for which we as a society are entitled to demand justice, in the individual act and at large. Hiding behind a list of hundreds of thousands of sick, injured, and diseased people to satisfy that a lesser cause of death is unimportant in the cosmic sense is pathetic.

    By the way, if you want to see where guns from places like NYC come from, look at places like Virginia. The reason gun violence cannot simply be a state and local matter is because people don't have to stay on one side of the country.

    It used to be that the US thought of gun owners as normal people, hunters, defenders of their lives and property, and willing to fight for their country when the time called.

    Unfortunately now those earnest people are overshadowed by a vocal few militant absolutists who are more likely to threaten revolt against their country at the slightest provocation, dismiss any discussion as offensive to liberty, and would rather see dozens of kids killed in cold blood before they consider any compromise. They are like SUV drivers that everyone on the road can't stand, willing to pose a danger to others if it offers them the slightest degree of protection, because it's their kids, g*d d****t. That means no taxes, no limits on ammo, no waiting periods, no background checks at gun shows. They are going to piss off so many people that eventually they will completely turn public opinion against them.

    You can keep your guns and your rights, but please tell the people that will never listen to reason to let up before they ruin it for everyone.

  2. #62
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    For one thing, we shouldn't have to "protect" the 2nd Amendment. It's a right whether you like it or not.

    It seems to me like a lot of liberals are not really pro tougher penalties for criminals or making time in prison more unpleasant for those prisoners.

    Another point is that you cannot always tell beforehand who is mentally ill. Treating someone AFTER they have already done something terrible is not preventing the massacres from happening.

    All of the things you list are not failures of law-abiding citizens who happen to own guns. It is the fault of our justice system and those who think that prison for adults should be like a stay at a spa. I think most adult habitual criminals are not capable of rehabilitation, and if you think about it, it's actually gang warfare in the inner cities that kills the MOST people.

    Another thing is I don't know of ONE person who makes excuses for people who commit actual crimes with guns.
    I basically agree with everything you said. Common ground.

  3. #63
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,766

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    You have not even recognized some of the suggestions for compromise in my post. Please tell me why they cannot be considered. You should listen to the linked podcast, you would hear valid opinions that seldom get attention from either side of the issue and it's a pretty good in any case.

    First what you get wrong about my argument:

    -I don't want your gun taken away from you, and I don't blame you and other responsible gun owners for our problem.
    -I don't refute that violence is steadily declining, including gun violence
    -I have listened to the arguments and I know why people choose to carry guns
    -Liberals do not want gun control. Normal people want to see the problems surrounding guns addressed.

    But yes, people are irrational! They are irrational when they want to ban a thing that human nature says is impossible to ban, whether that's pot, liquor, or guns. They are also irrational when they refuse to compromise on anything because it's a free country and we can't make you.

    You know the thing about liberty? It is not the same for everyone. In fact, your liberty can come at the cost of my liberty, and vice versa. So when you decry your liberties being threatened, others consider their liberties being held hostage by you. That is why you cannot be an absolutist and live in a civilization. There is a trade-off with sharing society with other people.

    By the way, if gun-control freaks are guilty of forgetting statistics, so are gun nuts. You think that because gun violence is declining in the US that there is no problem? Of all the countries in the world, it is the developed country with the worst record on gun violence. That's the same whether it's ranked by suicide, homicide, unintentional, or total. You might be safer in Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador, but that's nothing to write home about.

    And that is just per capita. We are also the 3rd most populous country in the world. That is a lot of bodies. If you cannot see that there is a problem, then you cannot begin to address a solution.

    How about another sadly forgotten statistic? If you have a gun in your house for your own defense? It's unfortunate, then, that those who do and their families are statistically more likely to die from a gun in their home. I'm not denying that they might be careful and responsible. By having a gun in their house they are statistically more likely to die from one. A person might have a gun to protect their wife or girlfriend, but the sad fact is that by living in that house, women are statistically much more likely to die from it than men are.

    Yes, women are more likely to die in the home by a gun, a fact you should remember when you derail the topic by shooting back with "liberals kill more babies than guns kill people." I am not going to argue with you about the morality, or realities, or science of abortion. I'm fine with just letting you know that it's pretty misogynistic to accuse women of worse atrocities than mass-murderers. At the very least, you're probably just not going to be that popular with the ladies if you share that opinion with them.

    And when you rank deaths by causes, satisfied that heart attacks and strokes and cancer and car accidents kill more people, you are ignoring the obvious. Only violent acts and suicides are the direct result of a person wanting to hurt another person, for which we as a society are entitled to demand justice, in the individual act and at large. Hiding behind a list of hundreds of thousands of sick, injured, and diseased people to satisfy that a lesser cause of death is unimportant in the cosmic sense is pathetic.

    By the way, if you want to see where guns from places like NYC come from, look at places like Virginia. The reason gun violence cannot simply be a state and local matter is because people don't have to stay on one side of the country.

    It used to be that the US thought of gun owners as normal people, hunters, defenders of their lives and property, and willing to fight for their country when the time called.

    Unfortunately now those earnest people are overshadowed by a vocal few militant absolutists who are more likely to threaten revolt against their country at the slightest provocation, dismiss any discussion as offensive to liberty, and would rather see dozens of kids killed in cold blood before they consider any compromise. They are like SUV drivers that everyone on the road can't stand, willing to pose a danger to others if it offers them the slightest degree of protection, because it's their kids, g*d d****t. That means no taxes, no limits on ammo, no waiting periods, no background checks at gun shows. They are going to piss off so many people that eventually they will completely turn public opinion against them.

    You can keep your guns and your rights, but please tell the people that will never listen to reason to let up before they ruin it for everyone.
    1) why should there be limits on ammo? why should there be waiting periods when there is absolutely no evidence such waiting periods deter gun violence. YOur concept of reasonable controls demonstrate you really don't know much about this issue and that is why we who do oppose your schemes.

    2) the silly statistic was drawn from a study where of the 436 or so cases of GUNS IN THE HOME-in 430 or so of the person doing the violence BROUGHT THE GUN TO THE HOME--it was not kept at the home prior to the violence

    a bit dishonest



  4. #64
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    What gun nuts have to understand is that every time a horrible event like Newtown comes along, however disproportionately that happens, the people that refuse to budge ground about their gun rights turn public favor against them. It's not liberals like me you need to worry about, it's Wayne LaPierre and the heads of the NRA that you should be worried about. After 1 or 2 more tragic incidents, if LaPierre continues to argue for more guns, you are going to see a new wave of gun control laws after the public outrage.
    Shamefully, there are a few on our side who have fallen for this nonsense as well. It's bull****, of course.

    You do not protect any of your rights, by surrendering a bit more of them every time the opposing side thinks they have an excuse to deprive you of them. To be deprived of essential liberty in small, incremental steps, is no better than being deprived of that same liberty all at once. In the end, the result is the same.

    In fact, those on your side know that you're never going to be able to completely eliminate the right to keep and bear arms in one big step, or even in a few big steps. You know that you will only be able to do so, one little step at a time. get us to concede now and again to one or two small, “reasonable” new restrictions on this right at a time, then, a few years later, when those fail to produce any benefit, get us to conceded a few more; and continue this cycle until we have no freedom left to concede.

    That's the strategy that your side has pursued for many years, now; and so far, it has mostly been successful. But the American public is waking up, it seems. The last cycle, the President and his allies in Congress, in spite of outright lies claiming the support of 90% of the public, could not even get the few “reasonable” new restrictions past Congress that they were seeking. If you cannot even get that, how much fear do you think you're going to be able to instill with your threats of greater violations of our rights? Your side is losing, now. You're no longer fooling enough of us to continue making any further progress toward depriving us of our Second Amendment rights, and God willing, perhaps in a few years, you'll see us taking back the rights that your side has already illegally taken from us.
    Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 09-11-13 at 01:54 AM. Reason: May the Forks be with you, always.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  5. #65
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    One wonders what sort of person would demand that others, complete strangers, have no way to defend themselves against evil.

    That is an incredibly elitist Liberal invasion of the freedom and security of decent Americans that will NEVER come to pass. Good men will die on the front porches of their homes first. The psyche of Liberals renders them incapable of understanding such bedrock passion for self reliance and freedom.
    Last edited by Ray410; 09-11-13 at 02:12 AM.

  6. #66
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    You have not even recognized some of the suggestions for compromise in my post. Please tell me why they cannot be considered.
    Every “compromise” that has been made by our side, on this issue, has served no purpose except to set us up for the next such “compromise”, and it is in this way that we have already lost far too much with regard to our basic right to keep and bear arms. There is no rational reason to expect that any further compromise will be any different.

    “Compromise”, in this context, means nothing other than that my side loses a bit more freedom that never ought to have been on the table in the first place; and gets nothing in return except an empty, false promise that your side will stop there and not extract another such “compromise” later, in which we lose a bit more. And that promise only lasts until your side thinks it can get another such “compromise” from us.

    We've “compromised” far too much already. It's time for us to start taking what what your side has illegitimately taken from us.
    Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 09-11-13 at 02:11 AM. Reason: May the Forks be with you, always.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  7. #67
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    why should there be limits on ammo? why should there be waiting periods when there is absolutely no evidence such waiting periods deter gun violence. YOur concept of reasonable controls demonstrate you really don't know much about this issue and that is why we who do oppose your schemes.
    Or, more likely, that he knows very well that his proposals will do nothing to reduce violence, and is proposing them for reasons that have nothing to do with his claimed motives; which is the case with most gun control advocates, who are willfully on the side of criminals and tyrants and against that of honest citizens.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  8. #68
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock View Post
    Or, more likely, that he knows very well that his proposals will do nothing to reduce violence, and is proposing them for reasons that have nothing to do with his claimed motives; which is the case with most gun control advocates, who are willfully on the side of criminals and tyrants and against that of honest citizens.
    I get your point of view, and the slippery slope argument is a powerful one. I don't know if there is any way to test it though. In the gay marriage debate there is almost always a slippery slope argument too.

    On your last point, though, your dead wrong. If it weren't for criminals we would have no motivation in the gun debate.

  9. #69
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    I get your point of view, and the slippery slope argument is a powerful one. I don't know if there is any way to test it though. In the gay marriage debate there is almost always a slippery slope argument too.

    On your last point, though, your [sic] dead wrong. If it weren't for criminals we would have no motivation in the gun debate.
    For too long, your side was successful at fooling enough of the public to get your agenda implemented, piece by piece. No more.

    Gun control is not, and never was, about fighting violent crime, and the public is finally waking up to this fact.

    Those of you who support gun control do so for a very different motive than that which you claim.

    Spare me your lies, please. Save them for the shrinking populace of fools who are still ignorant enough to believe them.
    Last edited by Bob Blaylock; 09-11-13 at 04:47 AM. Reason: May the Forks be with you, always.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    I basically agree with everything you said. Common ground.
    I don't know if you do. I am against a LOT of gun control measures because it violates our 2nd Amendment rights and wrongfully punishes law-abiding citizens who want to practice their 2nd Amendment right unobstructed by the government. Also, I think it's nuts to give the government the power to "control" our rights. Still agree with me?

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •