Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 121 to 133 of 133
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,286
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    This is my issue with pro gun people as well. Many that support gun rights aren't dealing with gun violence. Take my farther for instance. He has worked on guns and hunted for most of his life but he has not been in a city with a big gun problem since 1981 (which is Indianapolis).

    When a minority marginalizes a problem and dictates policies thats when I get ticked off. Most of all when then hinder research of the problem its out right criminal to me.
    That is a great point Pacer, one that doesnt get as much recognition as it should.when a minority group continues to fight and fight,and then tries to do dishonest and decietful, or even illegal means to overcome the democratic process it is tantamount to treason.

    I appreciate a strong conviction,but once the people have spoken,your voice doesnt need to be stilled,or silenced,but muted with the appropriate amount of recognition to our way of deciding things,not growing louder and more reckless.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,228
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by hoosiercubsfan View Post
    I would have to see the data and how the question was asked for only 12 % of the country being against universal background checks. I am sorry I just don't believe that is truly the case that an overwhelming majority of the country is fine with being funneled through a gun dealer for the private sales of guns. So I still hold to my belief that universal background checks are probably not ever going to make it out of the House.
    Okay. Here goes

    CBS poll says 92%

    ABC/Washington Post Poll 88%

    You are just misinformed as to the number of people who are for universal background checks. I stopped at two, but can post more if required.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    anywhere USA
    Posts
    3,092
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    This is my issue with pro gun people as well. Many that support gun rights aren't dealing with gun violence. Take my farther for instance. He has worked on guns and hunted for most of his life but he has not been in a city with a big gun problem since 1981 (which is Indianapolis).

    When a minority marginalizes a problem and dictates policies thats when I get ticked off. Most of all when then hinder research of the problem its out right criminal to me.
    Not to be rude, but the minority live in cities.

    Why has no one still explained cities like Chicago and how many of their crimes are committed with legally and illegally obtained fire arms.

    A reasonable study would be to inact the strictest gun laws possible in Chicago and see the impact, Oh wait.................

    Also show me some math out side of Europe that shows an assault rifle ban will work. I say that because it is illogical to think we would ever have laws that are even close to what Europe has because are constitution forbids it.

    People also need to realize that there is a middle ground with the magazine issue and universal back ground checks but that's where it stops.

    I do wish as a democrat Obama took this issue more seriously, he should of met with both sides and not some look were meeting with the NRA today and oh yeah that committee we have looking into gun violence they finished in 5 days and are now ready for their proposals.

    I am surprised many more people who use logic and not emotion to make decisions did not have a problem with this.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    anywhere USA
    Posts
    3,092
    vCash
    1500
    double
    Last edited by raiderfaninTX; 01-21-2013 at 06:36 PM.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,489
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderfaninTX View Post
    Not to be rude, but the minority live in cities.

    Why has no one still explained cities like Chicago and how many of their crimes are committed with legally and illegally obtained fire arms.

    A reasonable study would be to inact the strictest gun laws possible in Chicago and see the impact, Oh wait.................

    Also show me some math out side of Europe that shows an assault rifle ban will work. I say that because it is illogical to think we would ever have laws that are even close to what Europe has because are constitution forbids it.

    People also need to realize that there is a middle ground with the magazine issue and universal back ground checks but that's where it stops.

    I do wish as a democrat Obama took this issue more seriously, he should of met with both sides and not some look were meeting with the NRA today and oh yeah that committee we have looking into gun violence they finished in 5 days and are now ready for their proposals.

    I am surprised many more people who use logic and not emotion to make decisions did not have a problem with this.
    It's funny that you use Chicago as an example because its the perfect example of how straw man purchases and a lack of a national tracking system to prevent easy bypasses of strict gun laws cause a city to have high Gun crimes. So lets play did you know.

    Did you know that the second leading source of guns used in crimes in Chicago were not purchased in the state of Illinois. Did you know that 10 percent of guns seized came from just two gun stores in a four year period. Did you know that over half the guns in the state of Illinois are not purchased in the state.

    No one city or state can control for legal purchases and illegal transfers of guns. It's half arse policies that get you no where which is why we need stricter federal policies.
    http://www.guns.com/2012/08/29/chica...-straw-buyers/

    Edit.. This pic made me laugh..
    http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploa...b_1_large.jpeg
    Last edited by Pacerlive; 01-21-2013 at 10:31 PM.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    692
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderfaninTX View Post
    Not to be rude, but the minority live in cities.
    Not to be rude, but you are wrong.

    America has grown even more urban. According to new numbers just released from the U.S. Census Bureau, 80.7 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas as of the 2010 Census, a boost from the 79 percent counted in 2000. That brings the country's total urban population to 249,253,271, a number attained via a growth rate of 12.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, outpacing the nation as a whole, which grew at 9.7 percent.
    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/nei...lly-mean/1589/

    Why has no one still explained cities like Chicago and how many of their crimes are committed with legally and illegally obtained fire arms.
    Uh, how else would weapons be obtained other than by legal and illegal means? This makes no sense, neither does the constant citing of Chicago by gun nuts as proof that tighter controls don't work, because you always leave out all other relevant factors. While we're at it, how do we account for the huge difference in murder rates between NYC and Chicago? (Figures below are for 2011)

    Among what are considered Alpha world cities, Chicago has the highest murder rate -- higher even than the Third World metropolises of Mexico City and Sao Paolo.

    Hereís how we rank in murders per 100,000 among cities we consider our peers, based on a projected murder total of 505 for this year.

    Singapore 0.4
    Tokyo 0.5
    Hong Kong 0.6
    Berlin 1.0
    Sydney 1.0
    London 1.4
    Toronto 1.7
    Amsterdam 1.8
    Paris 4.4
    New York 6.0
    Los Angeles 7.5
    Mexico City 8.0
    Moscow 9.6
    Sao Paulo 15.6
    Chicago 19.4

    We could be doing worse: Caracas, Venezuela has a murder rate of 130 per 100,000. But its undeniable that the Windy City is under seige.

    Gun lovers are gleeful about Chicagoís deadly summer. They see it as a rebuke not just to gun control, but to the policies of Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel.

    But Chicagoís murder rate is not proof that gun control doesnít work. Itís proof that, in a country with one gun per citizen, local gun laws are meaningless.

    Letís look at Tokyo, one of the safest cities on that list, with a murder rate of 0.5 per 100,000 citizens. Japanís constitution does not guarantee its citizens the right to bear arms. Handguns are prohibited. Semi-automatic weapons are prohibited. Automatic rifles are prohibited. The only exceptions are hunting shotguns and target-shooting pistols. The penalty for illegal possession of a gun is up to 15 years in prison. Japan has a population of 127 million. In 2006, two people were murdered with guns.

    Japan starts with the principle that citizens have no right to a gun, and forces them to prove they need one. The United States starts with the principle that guns are an inalienable right, and forces the government to justify banning them.

    The number-one factor in predicting crime is not guns -- or lack of guns. It is concentrated urban poverty. Because of Chicagoís history as a segregated city, we have a lot of that.
    Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...#ixzz2Ihne6WzD

    Also show me some math out side of Europe that shows an assault rifle ban will work. I say that because it is illogical to think we would ever have laws that are even close to what Europe has because are constitution forbids it.
    Again, more gun-lover logic:- 'show me proof in advance that an intended policy will work or we'll never agree to it'.

    I am surprised many more people who use logic and not emotion to make decisions did not have a problem with this.
    I am surprised that many more people who claim to use logic do not see the glaringly obvious (long-term) answer, namely that the holiest of holy gun-lover icons, the Second Amendment, will at some point have to be modified to reflect the insane reality of US gun ownership in the 21st century. I'm sure that the saintly Founding Fathers could not even have imagined a figure of 300 million, never mind that there would be more than that many weapons in circulation.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    anywhere USA
    Posts
    3,092
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    Not to be rude, but you are wrong.


    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/nei...lly-mean/1589/



    Uh, how else would weapons be obtained other than by legal and illegal means? This makes no sense, neither does the constant citing of Chicago by gun nuts as proof that tighter controls don't work, because you always leave out all other relevant factors. While we're at it, how do we account for the huge difference in murder rates between NYC and Chicago? (Figures below are for 2011)


    Source: http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...#ixzz2Ihne6WzD



    Again, more gun-lover logic:- 'show me proof in advance that an intended policy will work or we'll never agree to it'.



    I am surprised that many more people who claim to use logic do not see the glaringly obvious (long-term) answer, namely that the holiest of holy gun-lover icons, the Second Amendment, will at some point have to be modified to reflect the insane reality of US gun ownership in the 21st century. I'm sure that the saintly Founding Fathers could not even have imagined a figure of 300 million, never mind that there would be more than that many weapons in circulation.
    1. Subarbs are included in the urban numbers you are citing, I live 10 miles outside of Austin which would still be considered as an urban area in that study. Very misleading

    2. Again you point to international cities that we would never follow when it comes to gun laws. To add onto that again you still did not address how our gun crime rate has dropped since the assault weapon ban expired.

    3. Here is some education you will not learn from watching the news, You cannot modify an amendment once it is ratified. You can repeal an amendment, you can pass another amendment that will alter it but for that to be done you need

    According to Article V of the US Constitution..
    To propose an Amendment to the Constitution one of the following must occur:
    1) 2/3 of Both Houses of Congress must vote to Propose an Amendment
    OR
    2) 2/3 of the State Legislatures shall ask a congress to call a nation convention to propose amendments.

    To Ratify Amendments

    Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
    Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.


    So logically how do you expect that to happen, IT WONT. So please be realistic

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    692
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderfaninTX View Post
    1. Subarbs are included in the urban numbers you are citing, I live 10 miles outside of Austin which would still be considered as an urban area in that study. Very misleading
    You're nitpicking. You won't accept that your original statement was wrong, so you call the US Census stats misleading.

    2. Again you point to international cities that we would never follow when it comes to gun laws. To add onto that again you still did not address how our gun crime rate has dropped since the assault weapon ban expired.
    There are plenty of other US cities on that list, which you conveniently chose to ignore. I have no idea how or why the awful US gun crime rate has become slightly less awful. I'll tell you one thing for damn sure though, it's not because the assault weapon ban expired! If your logic held any water, the US would be the safest country in the world simply because of the number of guns in circulation. Does. Not. Compute.


    3. Here is some education you will not learn from watching the news, You cannot modify an amendment once it is ratified. You can repeal an amendment, you can pass another amendment that will alter it but for that to be done you need

    According to Article V of the US Constitution..
    To propose an Amendment to the Constitution one of the following must occur:
    1) 2/3 of Both Houses of Congress must vote to Propose an Amendment
    OR
    2) 2/3 of the State Legislatures shall ask a congress to call a nation convention to propose amendments.

    To Ratify Amendments

    Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or
    Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.


    So logically how do you expect that to happen, IT WONT. So please be realistic
    I am aware of the virtual impossibility of this course of action. I base my hopes for a modicum of common sense at some point in the future, on a reinterpretation of the SA by a non-conservative loaded SCOTUS.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    anywhere USA
    Posts
    3,092
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by AmsterNat View Post
    You're nitpicking. You won't accept that your original statement was wrong, so you call the US Census stats misleading.



    There are plenty of other US cities on that list, which you conveniently chose to ignore. I have no idea how or why the awful US gun crime rate has become slightly less awful. I'll tell you one thing for damn sure though, it's not because the assault weapon ban expired! If your logic held any water, the US would be the safest country in the world simply because of the number of guns in circulation. Does. Not. Compute.




    I am aware of the virtual impossibility of this course of action. I base my hopes for a modicum of common sense at some point in the future, on a reinterpretation of the SA by a non-conservative loaded SCOTUS.
    all metropolitan areas are included so yes it is misleading.

    It dropped because the crack epidemic is not as bad as it once was, but that still does not mean our drug war is a good thing. I believe there are reasonable gun measures that can take help. We will have to agree to disagree that assault rifle bans will not work.

    but as for the common sense argument, most of the states in our country that have the best financial situation are republican ran states. Common sense would say then that we need to keep electing them (I dont agree with that statement). Illogical thought may be the wrong words, but it is unrealistic in our life time to use the constitution as the tool to fix the problem.

    Could the constitution be outdated in some aspects? Sure, but we do know the constitution was written to weaken the federal government, and the second amendment is honestly to arm the citizens against that government.

    But as crazy as it sounds history repeats its self, and some day probably not in our lifetime our country will fall. It has happened to every civilization, and I do believe that's why it's there. It is out dated now but sometime down the line it will be needed. To believe that the USA as we know it will last forever is also unrealistic.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,489
    vCash
    1500
    Raider I should clarify my minority comment.

    In my experience which includes growing up in a NRA supporting family that has lived both in and outside the city I see many more pro gun people living outside the city where the gun problems are less.

    I see strict pro gun people as people who support policies but don't have to live with the consequnces i.e. they don't live in the cities or neighborhoods where gun crime is a real problem. This would by my father and step father who both are gun enthusiast. I know plenty more NRA supporters to back this claim and if the NRA posted membership maps my guess is that my assumption would be right.

    I am not totally against guns and I personally own a gun and want to buy another. The problem I have is the justification of certain guns, the lack of a national standard in reporting or upholding current laws and the obstructionist approach the NRA has taken.

    IF your a bear hunter then I see the need for a bullet that can penetrate a bullet proof vest and for a semi automatic rifle with 10 rounds. Its dangerous trying to hunt a bear and my fathers camp was attacked by one once. The point is I see more cops get shot up and out gunned because we have to have loose policies on gun control. The solution to me is not cops with more body arm which weighs them down its tighter gun policies nationally.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    3,589
    vCash
    1500
    I'll be the first to say it. Most of the crimes committed in Chicago and NYC are based off gang violence. Those numbers are misleading. There's a reason why you can't stop guns; it's way too late. There's already millions of illegal guns out there in possession. You can't keep track of any of it. It's like trying to stop the sale of marijuana.

    To the people trying to place strict gun control laws, realize that it's impossible. Anyways, guns aren't the biggest deal. Forks and various tools have been misused as weapons before. Why didn't we ban them? Because it doesn't make sense. How about instead of wasting our time arguing about guns, we accept the fact that there are psychos out there!

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    6,286
    vCash
    1500
    Not to gang up or anything but this "crack epidemic" nonsense that is sold on the right is ridiculous.
    Cocaine has been decriminalized in several countries resulting in lower incarcerationand lower crime rates.

    It wasnt the drug at fault ,however harmful they may be.it is a lack of work opportunities and poverty which pressures people to make poor decisions to get involved in Black markets and gangs.

    If Hershey bars were illegal, then they would be selling those,Blaming the "crack epidemic" is a RT wing code for Blaming poor minorities for giving guns a bad name.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Amsterdam/Maryland
    Posts
    692
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by raiderfaninTX View Post
    all metropolitan areas are included so yes it is misleading.

    It dropped because the crack epidemic is not as bad as it once was, but that still does not mean our drug war is a good thing. I believe there are reasonable gun measures that can take help. We will have to agree to disagree that assault rifle bans will not work.

    but as for the common sense argument, most of the states in our country that have the best financial situation are republican ran states. Common sense would say then that we need to keep electing them (I dont agree with that statement). Illogical thought may be the wrong words, but it is unrealistic in our life time to use the constitution as the tool to fix the problem.

    Could the constitution be outdated in some aspects? Sure, but we do know the constitution was written to weaken the federal government, and the second amendment is honestly to arm the citizens against that government.

    But as crazy as it sounds history repeats its self, and some day probably not in our lifetime our country will fall. It has happened to every civilization, and I do believe that's why it's there. It is out dated now but sometime down the line it will be needed. To believe that the USA as we know it will last forever is also unrealistic.
    Honestly, you display the logic of a sausage and the common sense of a brick.

    Carry on disagreeing with the US Census about what is 'urban' and what isn't while failing to address the disparity of the figures between Chicago on the one hand, and NYC and LA on the other. Never mind the disparity between the major US cities and similar ones elsewhere.

    Again, you want some kind of proof in advance that any new (or reinstated) policy will 'work'. There is no such thing as 'proof' in advance for any policy. Common sense should indicate that making it harder, or even impossible, to get hold of the kind of weapons that no one needs for self defense or hunting, weapons that make it easier for someone to kill more people, more quickly, must be a 'good thing' and one tiny step in the right direction of trying to make life a little safer for all.

    The part I have bolded is nothing more than right wing, Faux news disinformation. You have bought into a lie, a myth. It simply isn't true, and there is more than enough evidence to prove the point.

    http://thecentristword.files.wordpre...-socialism.jpg

    http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...es-blog480.jpg


    There are serious economists who study the difference between what our states pay in taxes and how much they get in return from the U.S. government. These people generally donít draw political, let along moral, judgments from these numbers.

    Iím under no such constraint. The numbers, for decades now, have been quite clear: With some exceptions, what we regard as red states are sent a whole lot more of your hard-earned tax dollars than the traditional blue states. In effect, supposedly indolent, ďtax and spendĒ liberals actually subsidize the individualistic, pure, and hard-working lifestyle of our conservative countrymen.
    More here - http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_recko...our_taxes.html

    I have debunked the right wing 'doomsday' scenario often enough. You are attempting to justify the current hoarding by the 'citizenry' of an absolutely insane amount of weaponry of all kinds by painting the specter of a possible doomsday at some point in the distant future - if ever - despite the fact that anyone exercising a modicum of common sense would come to the conclusion that no armed citizenry could withstand the will of government, given the powers that the state already has. To claim that you need all these guns now to maybe fight an evil government whenever, because that's what the Constitution intended, is mere male cow dung.

    Illogical thought may be the wrong words, but it is unrealistic in our life time to use the constitution as the tool to fix the problem.
    I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Lastly, if you're sitting around wondering or even worrying when the USA in its current empire form is likely to "collapse", I seriously would advise that you question your priorities.

    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    I'll be the first to say it. Most of the crimes committed in Chicago and NYC are based off gang violence. Those numbers are misleading.....

    To the people trying to place strict gun control laws, realize that it's impossible. Anyways, guns aren't the biggest deal. Forks and various tools have been misused as weapons before. Why didn't we ban them? Because it doesn't make sense....
    Why are those stats misleading? Why is the murder rate so much worse in Chicago than in NYC or LA? There are gangs everywhere. Maybe there are just more in Chicago at this time?

    The rest of your post merits no more than a

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerlive View Post
    I am not totally against guns and I personally own a gun and want to buy another. The problem I have is the justification of certain guns, the lack of a national standard in reporting or upholding current laws and the obstructionist approach the NRA has taken.
    It is refreshing to see that there is also much diversity of opinion amongst gun owners, and that some are indeed reasonable people with common sense, who can recognize things for what they are! The NRA deserves an entire topic to itself.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Posting Permissions

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