Forum Thread

Again...on Gun Control & needing new restrictions

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 58 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sorry, but gun control and advocating new legislation for strict restrictions will not go away. I was pleased to read a recent article from MSN Money on the gun industry. Please enlighten yourself at this web site:

    http://money.msn.com/investing/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you

    Pretty much provides information on a subject this Hub has been responding to for months. Although we get long into the responses, there is some heated debate on this subject that appears to threaten our 2nd Amendment. We all have our patriotic stand on more gun control, but nobody can defend the notion successfully America needs more guns. We all have our right to own guns, but if you are mentally impaired, a felon, known criminal with anti-social behavior, suicidal tendency, known to traffic illegal contraband, involved with human trafficking, and other bad criteria that make questionable the ownership of a gun, America should deny your right.

    I realize that you all have your local news stories that have involved the illegal use of a gun. It begs to answer the sanity of America of why more guns and little control on distribution. Just yesterday, locally in my city, a joyous free day at the zoo for school children out on spring break, adults brawling and shots fired. Why does this lunacy and insanity continue to be supported by gun zealots? Don't even try to defend this trivial act of gun violence with guns don't contribute to crime. We have already hashed that over and over in the previous three threads on Gun Control. Defending guns on the issue of criminal acts doesn't work. This is what the NRA and Gun Manufacturers want you to respond and how you can better support their agenda to distribute more guns in America. It's their bottom line...........money.


    Support Gun Control and Mental Health Initiatives.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: Sorry, but gun control and advocating new legislation for strict restrictions will not go away. I was pleased to read a recent article from MSN Money on the gun industry. Please enlighten yourself at this web site:

    http://money.msn.com/investing/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you

    Pretty much provides information on a subject this Hub has been responding to for months. Although we get long into the responses, there is some heated debate on this subject that appears to threaten our 2nd Amendment. We all have our patriotic stand on more gun control, but nobody can defend the notion successfully America needs more guns. We all have our right to own guns, but if you are mentally impaired, a felon, known criminal with anti-social behavior, suicidal tendency, known to traffic illegal contraband, involved with human trafficking, and other bad criteria that make questionable the ownership of a gun, America should deny your right.

    I realize that you all have your local news stories that have involved the illegal use of a gun. It begs to answer the sanity of America of why more guns and little control on distribution. Just yesterday, locally in my city, a joyous free day at the zoo for school children out on spring break, adults brawling and shots fired. Why does this lunacy and insanity continue to be supported by gun zealots? Don't even try to defend this trivial act of gun violence with guns don't contribute to crime. We have already hashed that over and over in the previous three threads on Gun Control. Defending guns on the issue of criminal acts doesn't work. This is what the NRA and Gun Manufacturers want you to respond and how you can better support their agenda to distribute more guns in America. It's their bottom line...........money.


    Support Gun Control and Mental Health Initiatives.



    Why not just petition your legislators to relax the HIPPA rules when it comes to mental health questions when applying for a firearm, it is after all those with mental health issues that seem to cause most if not all of the more recent mass murders.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:Sorry, but gun control and advocating new legislation for strict restrictions will not go away.
    Uhhhhh, gun control is going away. Courts are, with increasing frequency, enforcing the right to arms and invalidating prejudicial and discriminatory gun control laws and policies.

    Feb 13: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/feb/13/local/la-me-concealed-weapons-20140214

    March 6th: http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/california/2014/03/06/yolo-county-gun-po...

    March 18th; http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/crime/2014/03/18/nra-wins-delaware-sup...

    I don't expect liberal advocacy for unconstitutional restrictions will die out anytime soon but perhaps they will change tactics and begin focusing on proposing measures that will actually have a positive effect, instead of just poking the gun lobby in the eye.

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:Although we get long into the responses, there is some heated debate on this subject that appears to threaten our 2nd Amendment. We all have our patriotic stand on more gun control, but nobody can defend the notion successfully America needs more guns.
    We need less criminals and kooks freely out in society.

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:We all have our right to own guns, but if you are mentally impaired, a felon, known criminal with anti-social behavior, suicidal tendency, known to traffic illegal contraband, involved with human trafficking, and other bad criteria that make questionable the ownership of a gun, America should deny your right.
    Do you really think there is resistance to that coming from gun rights supporters?

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:Just yesterday, locally in my city, a joyous free day at the zoo for school children out on spring break, adults brawling and shots fired. Why does this lunacy and insanity continue to be supported by gun zealots? Don't even try to defend this trivial act of gun violence with guns don't contribute to crime. We have already hashed that over and over in the previous three threads on Gun Control. Defending guns on the issue of criminal acts doesn't work.
    Are your really trying to say that the anti-social and criminal actions of violent, gun shooting, out of control, gang involved "youths" are supported and defended by gun rights advocates?

    How is anyone supposed to respond to a line of thought so completely untethered to reality?

    I really don't see how you can both be advocating for reasoned discussion while engaging in such insulting hyperbole. It boggles the mind that you assign gun rights supporters such ridiculously nefarious positions.

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:This is what the NRA and Gun Manufacturers want you to respond and how you can better support their agenda to distribute more guns in America. It's their bottom line...........money.
    Unicorns farting rainbows . . .

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:Support Gun Control and Mental Health Initiatives.
    I'm beginning to think such hyperbolic, divisive and denigrating arguments in support of gun control demands mental heath intervention.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    It is still about the money as it is explained on the money.msn.com link about what the gun industry does not want you to know. Let life live or buy more guns..................your choice.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: It is still about the money as it is explained on the money.msn.com link about what the gun industry does not want you to know. Let life live or buy more guns..................your choice.
    That piece is a joke.

    And your inability to address anything I said above is very, very telling.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Al-PA, Your in a world of denial, so your argument will always be un-conclusive. I intended the readers to see the MSN Money link, which I saw as interesting to the point of 10 things the gun industry does not want you to know. Simple and easy for most to understand, unless your agenda is to perverse the issue with your apparent reasoning to defend mass killing in America alongside the proliferation of countless numbers of guns. Do you realize that more people in America have been killed by gun violence or misuse of guns in the past twenty years than all that has been killed in all world wars and conflicts in the past century? So, I conclude we will have to agree to disagree, because I will never advocate the continued distribution of guns in America. I will never defend the NRA's stand on their beliefs of the 2nd Amendment and I will continue to oppose all who advocate for loosening existing gun legislation. As a social issue improving humanity, guns need to be under the strictest control and people desiring guns be under scrutiny by investigation into mental issues and criminal behavior.

    This Gun Control WILL continue......with you or without you. Very simple!

    Support strict gun control and mental health initiatives..............it is for humanity.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Algernon Wrote:That piece is a joke.

    And your inability to address anything I said above is very, very telling.
    When did one Amendment in the Bill of Rights become so sacrosanct that it supersedes the rest of the Bill of Rights? You are correct the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to mean that an individual person has a Constitutional right to bear arms. One thing you neglected to say is that the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling stated that "...the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." That language specifically means the legislative branch has a role to play in determining what types of weapons an individual can possess and for what purpose they can possess them.

    You also are neglecting to say that multiple decisions by the court have been overturned throughout our nations history, so this one ruling should not be interpreted as the end all be all. Even more so since it was a 5-4 ruling that could easily switch when, not if, the political divide of the court swings back to the left. It is incorrect to think the rightward shift of the court will last forever. The court is like a pendulum. It has gone back and forth throughout our 200 plus year history.

    The NRA does not care about anything other than making sure Americans have as many guns as they can possibly have. Multiple peer reviewed studies by a variety of independent organizations have come to the same conclusion for the past twenty years, which is that more guns equals more killings. It's a catch 22--gun enthusiasts insist we need more guns because crime is high but crime is high because we have so many guns. It's a vicious cycle that is having deadly consequences on a daily basis.

    The next argument that drives me nuts is the whole "mental health" argument by gun enthusiasts. They insist that guns don't kill people--crazy people kill people. The problem is that this isn't backed up by science or any peer reviewed study. It's a juvenile argument and people that love all things guns like to make sweeping generalized arguments to confuse the population as a whole. The same people that want to blame gun violence on mental health are the same people who want to cut scientific research funding into mental health disorders. It's a cop out argument that isn't backed up by any facts whatsoever.

    Mental health is a serious issue in America, but it has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence. There is no science to back up the claim and that's because it is impossible to connect the two. Mental illness is a catchall phrase, but it must meet certain and specific criteria to be able to hold up in a court of law. Anyone that decides to go on a mass shooting spree could be called mentally ill, but that doesn't mean they are mentally ill in a clinical manor. It is an argument not based on science but rather misinformation by the gun lobby to try to deflect criticism for being directly responsible for mass murder throughout this great nation of ours.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: Al-PA, Your in a world of denial, so your argument will always be un-conclusive.
    And I note once again not a syllable of on-point rebuttal.

    Are the courts I linked to in denial?

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:I intended the readers to see the MSN Money link, which I saw as interesting to the point of 10 things the gun industry does not want you to know. Simple and easy for most to understand,
    Yes, simple and easy to understand, written for those with a limited knowledge of the issue, composed in a way that is leading and is not intended to inform but to enforce confirmation bias in people who already consider gun manufacturers to be evil, money consumed merchants of death. IOW, it is carefully crafted BS for anyone but you.

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:unless your agenda is to perverse the issue with your apparent reasoning to defend mass killing in America
    That is what's perverse; that you need to make comments like that.

    That statement certainly is not true so the only reason for making it is for self-affirmation.

    It is no more than a lie you tell yourself that allows you to maintain a prejudiced feeling towards an opponent, when you know you can not form a reasoned, logical rebuttal to the argument of that opponent.

    Of course, if I did wish to protect mass murderers, if I did "defend trivial acts of gun violence [at the KC zoo]" as part of my "gun rights", any thinking person with a conscience would be opposed to me (heck, I'd be opposed to me LOL) . . .

    So, that self-delusional "logic" yo engage in also tells you that you are aligned with everyone against the evil gun worshiper who will gladly fondle his penis extension while sitting on a pile of dead children.

    But that isn't the case and now I'm told I'm in denial because I don't recognize that in myself . . .

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:Do you realize that more people in America have been killed by gun violence or misuse of guns in the past twenty years than all that has been killed in all world wars and conflicts in the past century?
    Now that is a classic.

    No, I don't "realize" that.

    In fact I'm calling you on your BS and demanding you either admit that to be a blatant, inflammatory lie or prove the statement.

    I know you will do neither.

    But I do thank you for an incredibly funny candidate for a sig line here.

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:So, I conclude we will have to agree to disagree, because I will never advocate the continued distribution of guns in America.
    I' don't reply to you to actually sway you; I post just to dissect and shred the reasoning that supports your argument and expose the flaws and errors in your argument so others don't give your argument a moment's consideration.

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:I will never defend the NRA's stand on their beliefs of the 2nd Amendment
    It is a free country, you can be wrong if you want to!

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:and I will continue to oppose all who advocate for loosening existing gun legislation.
    That's gonna be a long list.

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:As a social issue improving humanity, guns need to be under the strictest control and people desiring guns be under scrutiny by investigation into mental issues and criminal behavior.
    Do you have a Passport? What you want will not be happening in the USA.

    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:This Gun Control WILL continue......with you or without you. Very simple!
    You seem to be living completely inside your own head, ignoring what's happening around you, maintaining incorrect and illogical self-affirming beliefs in the face of incontrovertible facts.

    So, you are correct, I will not be joining you there.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Algernon Wrote:
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:Do you realize that more people in America have been killed by gun violence or misuse of guns in the past twenty years than all that has been killed in all world wars and conflicts in the past century?
    Now that is a classic.

    No, I don't "realize" that.

    In fact I'm calling you on your BS and demanding you either admit that to be a blatant, inflammatory lie or prove the statement.

    I know you will do neither.

    But I do thank you for an incredibly funny candidate for a sig line here.
    If you actually studied things, you would realize that he was correct. 335,609 people were fatally shot in America from 2000-2010--that is one decade. The last study by the CDC states that there is an average of 31,672 deaths by guns per year in America. If AmcmurryFreedom was exclusively talking about American deaths in wars, then he would be correct because 426,271 Americans soldiers have died in from WWI-Gulf War 1. The most recent study doesn't include deaths from Afghanistan and Iraq, but the numbers still don't add up to what you're claiming. If he was talking about every person in every war that was fought in the past twenty years, he would be incorrect. But that just doesn't make sense and you should understand that.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Algernon Wrote:
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote:Do you realize that more people in America have been killed by gun violence or misuse of guns in the past twenty years than all that has been killed in all world wars and conflicts in the past century?
    Now that is a classic.

    No, I don't "realize" that.

    In fact I'm calling you on your BS and demanding you either admit that to be a blatant, inflammatory lie or prove the statement.

    I know you will do neither.

    But I do thank you for an incredibly funny candidate for a sig line here.
    If you actually studied things, you would realize that he was correct. 335,609 people were fatally shot in America from 2000-2010--that is one decade. The last study by the CDC states that there is an average of 31,672 deaths by guns per year in America. If AmcmurryFreedom was exclusively talking about American deaths in wars, then he would be correct because 426,271 Americans soldiers have died in from WWI-Gulf War 1. The most recent study doesn't include deaths from Afghanistan and Iraq, but the numbers still don't add up to what you're claiming. If he was talking about every person in every war that was fought in the past twenty years, he would be incorrect. But that just doesn't make sense and you should understand that.
    Well, that's the way I took it, "all that has been killed in all world wars and conflicts in the past century" which is why I considered it so ridiculously, absurdly incorrect.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: Well, you are wrong. The way "I" looks at things is different than actual history.
    Why say that when you said that if I took it to mean "all" then I would be correct?

    Because I read what's written and I'm not a mind reader, my answer is "different than actual history"?
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:When did one Amendment in the Bill of Rights become so sacrosanct that it supersedes the rest of the Bill of Rights?
    Gonna hafta explain that to me.

    All I would ask for is that the 2nd be treated the same as the rest, no greater, no lesser . . .

    jaredsxtn Wrote:You are correct the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to mean that an individual person has a Constitutional right to bear arms.
    As it did in 1876, 1886, 1939 and 1980 . . . With a bunch of other mentions that are not ambigous.

    jaredsxtn Wrote:One thing you neglected to say is that the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling stated that "...the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." That language specifically means the legislative branch has a role to play in determining what types of weapons an individual can possess and for what purpose they can possess them.
    Congress possesses a very, very limited scope of powers to dictate to the law-abiding private citizen any aspect of the possession and use of his/her personal arms. No power was ever granted to the federal govenrment to do so and the sliver of power that has been upheld to exist is very narrow and not subject to expansion at the legislature's discretion.

    The rest of the regulatory schemes that Congress and the states currently enforce, are for now according to Heller, only "presumptively lawful" because Heller did not directly address any question beyond the DC statutes. BUT . . . Because of Heller invalidating Cases v US and Tot v US, many gun control laws in the USA (federal and state) are on the thinnest of ice, those hundreds (if not thousands) of laws that have been sustained / upheld upon any mutation of the "collective right" theory, are especially infirm and will fall when challenged.

    jaredsxtn Wrote:You also are neglecting to say that multiple decisions by the court have been overturned throughout our nations history, so this one ruling should not be interpreted as the end all be all. Even more so since it was a 5-4 ruling that could easily switch when, not if, the political divide of the court swings back to the left. It is incorrect to think the rightward shift of the court will last forever. The court is like a pendulum. It has gone back and forth throughout our 200 plus year history.
    But for 136 of those years the Court has been boringly consistent in its opinion on the right to arms / 2nd Amendment (two separate, distinct things). In order for SCOTUS to reverse Heller it would need to upset the entire foundation of rights theory the Constitution is based upon and that the Court has enforced since its inception.

    The "one thing is not like the other" mentality is a delusion only held by the anti-gun left.

    jaredsxtn Wrote:The NRA does not care about anything other than making sure Americans have as many guns as they can possibly have.
    Well, that's news to me. I've been an Endowment Life member for over 20 years, a regular Life Member for 15 before that; I have attended dozens of NRA conventions and meetings and dinners and have voted in every election and have conversed with nearly all elected officials and I can say that never comes up LOL.

    jaredsxtn Wrote:Multiple peer reviewed studies by a variety of independent organizations have come to the same conclusion for the past twenty years, which is that more guns equals more killings.
    But . . .

    In 1990, 16,218 people out of a population of 249,464,396 were murdered with a gun.
    In 2010, 8,775 people out of a population of 308,745,538 were murdered with a gun.
    20 years + 60,000,000 people + at least 80,000,000 guns = 7743 FEWER ANNUAL HOMICIDES?

    jaredsxtn Wrote:It's a catch 22--gun enthusiasts insist we need more guns because crime is high but crime is high because we have so many guns. It's a vicious cycle that is having deadly consequences on a daily basis.
    Except gun homicides are at their lowest point in decades.

    jaredsxtn Wrote:The next argument that drives me nuts is the whole "mental health" argument by gun enthusiasts.
    Now that is some funny word choice right there!

    jaredsxtn Wrote:They insist that guns don't kill people--crazy people kill people. The problem is that this isn't backed up by science or any peer reviewed study. It's a juvenile argument and people that love all things guns like to make sweeping generalized arguments to confuse the population as a whole. The same people that want to blame gun violence on mental health are the same people who want to cut scientific research funding into mental health disorders.

    It's a cop out argument that isn't backed up by any facts whatsoever.
    It seems you have described your argument to a "T" in that last sentence!

    jaredsxtn Wrote:Mental health is a serious issue in America, but it has absolutely nothing to do with gun violence.
    That's the first time I've heard that line of reasoning. You better tell the President because he seems to think it's important.

    jaredsxtn Wrote:There is no science to back up the claim and that's because it is impossible to connect the two. Mental illness is a catchall phrase, but it must meet certain and specific criteria to be able to hold up in a court of law. Anyone that decides to go on a mass shooting spree could be called mentally ill, but that doesn't mean they are mentally ill in a clinical manor.
    That's correct. To prohibit gun ownership by someone there does need to be a clinical diagnosis or a court order.

    It is among the criteria that establishes a "prohibited person" under federal law:

    18 U.S.C. § 922(d) - It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -

    (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
    (2) is a fugitive from justice;
    (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
    (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
    (5) being an alien . . . illegally or unlawfully in the United States
    (6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
    (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner . . .
    (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

    The same criteria is listed in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which forbids any individual meeting those criteria the acquisition / ownership of a gun or ammo under any condition by any means.

    In the VA Tech shooter and the Auruoa Theater and Giffords shooting etc, etc, etc, "everybody" from the mailman to the cafeteria lunchlady knew they were off their rockers but their families and the mental health community let them (and us) down. They didn't get the help they needed.

    jaredsxtn Wrote:It is an argument not based on science but rather misinformation by the gun lobby to try to deflect criticism for being directly responsible for mass murder throughout this great nation of ours.
    It is a fact that the NICS database (FBI 11.7KB pdf) is a joke. After the VA Tech shooting Bush signed a law that was supposed to have the states finally comply with the Brady Law (1994) mandates for reporting of mental health determinations to the background check . . . that still remains a joke even after President Obama's Executive Action after Newtown again demanding the states submit those records to NICS, and it still isn't being done.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AL-PA, yes, I predicted your response. Yes, I agree with you that I mistakenly indicated numbers, however this is such a hot button topic with me that I see many grass root groups that would enjoy debating this issue with you. I can get carried away with my desires to improve humanity and save life, but that's not wrong, is it?

    I did get an estimated number of killed in battle, and non-battle deaths in wars and conflicts involving America around the world and at home. The time frame is from 1775 through 1991 and is estimated at 231 Million. These numbers from wars and conflicts may be located at:

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004615.html

    On a NBC news link I located an estimated 13.75 Million killed in gun violence in America during 1993 through 2011.

    This appears to compare with the following links:

    http://nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx

    , which is from the National Institute of Justice and one of many articles on gun violence.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/
    ..identifies facts on killings in America with statistics and an interesting national poll on increasing gun control.

    http://sbcoalition.org/2011/04/gun-violence-and-the-census-sobering-statistics/

    .......high lights a national gun control advocacy group

    http://theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/gun-violence-in-america-the-13-key-questions-with-13-concise-answers/272727/

    .......the above link shows debate issues on 13 questions about gun violence

    Al-PA, I realize you will never be an advocate for gun control, because you have shown too much of your colorful character. That's your right, but the rest of America and our numbers are growing with every senseless killing, like the famous Black American saying in song, "We will overcome".



  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AmcmurryFreedom Wrote: On a NBC news link I located an estimated 13.75 Million killed in gun violence in America during 1993 through 2011.
    Not going to waste time composing posts, we'll see if this shows (or stays).

    76,000 deaths a year?

    Where does that number come from?
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    AL-PA, To go to the source of the articles, you have to read the credits at the end. We do live in a world that credits it's authors, so in order to write a report and any facts you use, it is customary to show credit of the source. It's about proper and correct editorial writing. Please go back to the links and at the end you will find the resources. Some of those resources have web links you can go to and read additional material. It's about researching, unless you don't care about the truth.

    another interesting link:

    http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/

    .....Law Center to prevent Gun Violence........a take-action group!