Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
USA Shootings (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter randall146
- Start date
-fish-
Footballguy
What I really want, as Justice Scalia opined was required to allow for adequate gun control and Justice Stevens has recommended, is to see the Second Amendment revised so that we can have meaningful laws imposed on the manufacture, sale and ownership of handguns. Since that's not going to happen, I want meaningful gun control laws that I have laid out for you many times because stricter gun regulations have been unequivocally proven to result in less gun violence.
You can't make a sensible argument from one post to the next, because you keep parroting talking points and mix them together. You just said we have sensible gun regulations. But immediately after that you claim that gun laws don't work.
Arguing against adopting laws because criminals don't follow laws is the one of the worst of the NRA talking points. All laws affect all citizens. When someone breaks those laws, they become a criminal. That's how it works. Under the NRA's inane argument, we shouldn't have any laws at all, since "law-abiding" citizens don't need them and criminals ignore them. Repeating that nonsense doesn't help your cause.
Law abiding citizens really shouldn't have a problem with gun control laws, since they're law abiding and all. Other than keeping you from firing off 30 rounds because you like to do it, what gun control laws affect you? Are you so irresponsible with your guns that you refuse to securely store them? Why wouldn't you register a gun? Do you have something to hide? Why wouldn't you want law enforcement to be able to effectively track guns used in crimes? Aren't you the one that says we should focus on criminals?
-fish-
Footballguy
Not going to gloss over this little NRA talking point. Gun violence has trended down since 1993-1994 after it hit its highest point since 1968. Can you remind me what happened that caused this downward trend?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
abbottjamesr
Footballguy
I would say that.
Most drug users are only criminals because its against the law to buy/poses drugs.
Dickies
Footballguy
I absolutely believe it and did a research paper on it in college. The war on drugs artificially inflates drug prices, creates criminals out of drug users, and creates massive economic opportunity for those willing to risk the consequences of selling the drugs. Gangs largely fund their operations on drug sales and obviously don't want rivals to infringe on their ability to sell drugs. If you want to stop the flow of illegal drugs into this country and limit gang violence then make drugs cheaper, legal, and easier to obtain.
I haven't heard of gang wars over black market cigarettes.
KCitons
Footballguy
Isn't this true of any criminal? The only reason they are criminals, is because there is a law against something they choose to do.
KCitons
Footballguy
I also haven't heard of many Harvard gangs. I'm sure your research showed the reason is based more in social economic issues as to why a person joins gangs to begin with. Remove the ability to sell drugs and they will find something to fill the void. It's not likely they are just going update their resumes and start looking for a job in IT.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
Guns? Gambling? Prostitution? Human trafficking?
Do you think gang members would suddenly start working the fry station at McDonalds?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Man Shoots Dogs Attacking Neighbor :: 07/25/2014
OK, think link could be interesting...
-fish-
Footballguy
some of those stories are pretty worrisome. at least a few are flat out criminal, and the person acting in "self defense" should have been charged with second degree murder or manslaughter.
there was a story on our local news a couple days ago where this woman got celebrated for defending herself from a "home invasion" by pointing a gun at a guy and holding him at gunpoint until the police came. she proudly said "she should have pulled the trigger." turns out it was just a neighbor who got drunk and tried to go into the wrong house. he had committed no crime whatsoever (not even trespassing, since she wouldn't let him leave). the police let him go.
this law-abiding citizen regretted not shooting him.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Not sure why gambling and prostitution are illegal either.
I guess I dont see these others being nearly as popular, and would still think it would help the problem a bit, but I get your point. .
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Plus those 2000 stories are from 5 years. How many accidental gun deaths during that time?
Like you said, those stories dont paint quite the picture that Stealthy thinks they do anyway.
KCitons
Footballguy
The more I think about it, it might make things worse. Lack of ability to sell drugs, may force gang members to resort to more violent crimes to get money.
-fish-
Footballguy
gun violence went down as the crack epidemic subsided. it's reasonable to assume that if you eliminated the drug trade entirely, you'd have less gang violence.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Wait
Stealthycat
Footballguy
laws loosely bind society - we have them in place for almost everything we have in the USA don't we ? do they all "work" ? well, you have to define "work"-fish- said:
people, individuals, have a responsibility to do things right and legally and without endangering others .... people choose to be criminals though and choose to do things wrongly .......... and when they do, no laws bind them really
this is true with guns, knives, drugs, alcohol, automobiles etc etc
Stealthycat
Footballguy
the gun control laws that your side / Democrats want to push only affects law abiding people - why in the WORLD does your side want to target us ?-fish- said:
we're not the problem are we? the answer of course is no, we're not ............. but your side only wants to target us
why ?
here's a better idea - target criminals. Make gun crimes/penalties FAR harsher, red flag laws that allow catching people before they act on their violence, help the mentally ill ............... see, those laws actually target the criminals, not us
what your side wants to do is literally the equivalent of MADD wanting to ban Bud Light to stop DUI's
Stealthycat
Footballguy
link please-fish- said:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
assuming you are rightDickies said:
legalize all illegal drugs , gun violence would be projected to drop bigly ..... and would Democrats quit pursuing gun laws that target gun owners? i highly doubt it .....
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
secure storage keeps guns from being stolen by criminals. expanded background checks (with funding) keep guns away from criminals. a gun registry (funded) makes it easier to keep guns from criminals. searchable databases of guns used in crimes helps catch criminals. prohibition of felons, domestic abusers and stalkers from owning guns is targeted only to criminals. regulating expanded magazines does not affect any legitimate hunter, sport shooter or anyone owning a gun for home defense, but it does address one of the issues with mass shootings.
you want guns because you like guns. your blind repetition of NRA rhetoric just shows that you don't even bother to read or consider anything else. and you keep screwing up your talking points. the bud light analogy is supposed to be used for banning assault weapons when handguns are the problem. in this context, it doesn't even come close to making sense. you need to read your propaganda more carefully, comrade. your NRA overlords would be disappointed in their follower.
-fish-
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
sigh
all you listed target gun owners, not criminals
yes, I don't want you infringing on my rights to own guns - I along with 150 million homes and 15 million concealed carry holders every day are of ZERO threat to you. Stop being afraid of us, stop targeting up and please, PLEASE start focusing on the core problems
I know your agenda -fish .......... you want to continue anti-gun agenda and target legal law abiding citizens and ignore criminals. This is the same agenda Democrats have had for 20 years now or more. Thankfully, the GOP has fought well to stop the craziness and through more guns in the hand of legal law abiding people, we've seen gun violence go down for 2 decades now overall. That's probably the biggest flaw in your anti-gun argument - more guns today than ever, more people carrying guns in public today than ever ....... and gun violence has went down down the past few years and all the legally carrying people are really no threat at all to you.
Just the opposite of what your side preaches.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
This is where the Second Amendment gets messy for me. If specific models of guns were banned yet numerous others were not would we still be able to buy guns? At what point is it infringing on our rights to bears arms? We already have restrictions on automatic guns so wouldn't there be the ability to restrict other types of guns. I know the hardest part would be deciding on which ones but since we'd still be able to buy certain guns I don't see how our rights are being infringed upon. This is why I'd like to see the Second Amendment revised and be a be more clear. I find it to be too vague right now.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I think that is where common sense comes in
Think about what fish / rover is saying........... if they succeed in banning high cap magazines, semi-auto guns, scary looking guns etc, hunters and shooters will get other guns that do fit the new rules and regulations and use them right ?
but criminals won't ? really ? sure they will .......... my argument is stop the criminals, and law abiding people will not have to be be targeted at all
-fish-
Footballguy
Heller makes this pretty clear. The right to own guns commonly used for home defense can't be infringed on by the state. Others, including guns that are more suited for military purposes that have been converted to civilian use, can be. That's why we really can't do much about handguns, but we can ban assault weapons since they aren't considered common for home defense. Both Scalia, who wrote the opinion, and Stevens, who was the primary dissenter, recognized that we live in a far different world than when the Second Amendment was written and that the United States may benefit from stronger gun regulations, but that it would require amending the Constitution to do that.
NRA parrots like Stealthycat make absurd arguments like "there's no such thing as an assault weapon" or "why regulate AR15's when handguns are used in more shootings" based on the fact that we are stuck with the ruling we have. So gun legislation has to be done on the fringes, like raising the purchase age, safe storage, targeting groups of people like felons, domestic abusers and stalkers, expanding background checks, etc. because we can't really address the heart of the problem by doing something like banning semi-automatic handguns, which are used in more instances of gun violence that any other weapon.
-fish-
Footballguy
Your argument is the same repetition of "don't adopt laws because criminals don't obey laws." It's an absurd argument.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
There are a lot of guns that law abiding people have no reason to own other than they think they are cool. No one needs a .50 caliber sniper rifle yet I know someone that has one. No one needs a semi-auto gun with a clip that holds more than 10 bullets. There are so many guns that are made just because people think they are cool or they like to pretend they are sort of tactical soldier. Just look at the ads for some of this stuff. They're for the people who want to play soldier. I completely understand wanting to do that though, I think it's cool to. I enjoy going to the rifle range and shooting all kinds of cool guns. There are times when I stop and think how ridiculous it is that we are able to have an arsenal like this and the damage that it could all do if someone wanted to. All because of one Amendment written a very long time ago when nothing was similar to today.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I never said that
Your side wants to address guns/gun violence radically differently than any other problem we have as a society by attacking legal law abiding gun owners and shackling them with new bans, new rules etc, all of which will have very little impact on criminals.
I know it, you know it, Democrats know it ........... so the real core reason is what then, if not to stop gun violence? Again, we both know the answer - your side is scared to death of guns and legal law abiding people having them and you want to ban/restrict/take and in some cases even repeal the 2nd totally.
All the while, the criminals are giggling at your silliness because they'll not obey a single law you add to the books and continue doing their crimes. THAT is what is absurd
luckily, states are winning with more guns being sold than ever, stand your ground laws and either carry permits or free carry for law abiding people. We're winning -fish- .... and on other levels too like security at schools and events etc. We're not going to let the criminals win
Stealthycat
Footballguy
again .... target law abiding gun owners, not criminals
you paint that very clearly above
Stealthycat
Footballguy
nobody needs a car that goes over 25 mph right ? or a knife with a longer than 2" paring blade ?
you're right - "need" is something American's don't really accept right ? its more what we want ....and you can't tell someone why they want a porche or a bowie or an AR15 in a .308 etc .... people make those decisions themselves
and all those guns .... 99.9999% of them will be used the right way today, law abiding gun owners will not use them wrongly
that small small % of people that are criminals and DO want to inflict harm ... they have to be stopped, we as a society do not need criminals and crime and gangs and violence
stop them - and it won't matter who has what kinds of weapons
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
I knew you were going to have the same response as always and as always they are all terrible comparisons.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
except they're not
what I typed is factual - 450 million guns, 500 million guns in the USA today and in the hands of legal law abiding people how many will be used wrongly ?
100? 50 ? what % is that ?
its NOT legal law abiding gun owners who are the problem, why in the world support targeting them with laws/restrictions ?
KCitons
Footballguy
This is difference we have. You see the arsenal as a problem. I stop and think how ridiculous it is that there are people that would use an arsenal to kill dozens of people. I want to fix the people. You want to fix the problem caused by the people.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Which is more likely to result in the change you seek. The problem lies with the people. You can remove guns from the equation, but your still left with bad people. Are you prepared to remove the next object? or the one after that?
I choose to address the source of the problem to find a solution. Otherwise it's just a shell game.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
I'm not so sure the source of the problem will ever be fixed. It's human nature. It's not like an inanimate object that humans have complete control over. One can be controlled and one can not.
KCitons
Footballguy
Then what makes you think that a person, hell bent on killing people, will be stopped by putting regulations on guns? It also doesn't take into account the fact that peoples mental health changes over time. A person could pass all proposed background checks and legal storage requirements, only to go off one day and commit a mass shooting. The most recent appears to be triggered by the loss of a job.
People here, and in our society, can say that they are not wanting to ban guns. But, you and I know, this is the only way you will see the results you desire. Even then, the global smuggling will still make weapons accessible to those who want one. As long as the desire remains to commit mass shootings is there, the people will find a way to carry them out.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Because they're not this country. Why do other countries not have the mass shooting problems that the U.S. has? Is it because of guns, or because of the citizens?
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
So then it's not human nature, and those people didn't find a way to keep committing mass shootings.
Why are we so ####ed up then?
KCitons
Footballguy
Unbridled freedom? Greed? Inability to achieve the American dream? Inability to cope with life's problems?
Where does the U.S. rank globally when it comes to murder rate?
-fish-
Footballguy
What's different about the US?
oh, yeah, the right of just about any yahoo to own as many guns and as much ammo as they want, with minimal regulation or oversight. gee, I wonder why that isn't working for us.
KCitons
Footballguy
That right has been around for hundreds of years. Why the increase in mass shootings in the last 10 years?
-fish-
Footballguy
Focus on criminals!
4 year old shot himself and a sleeping woman when he found a loaded gun and fired it. Safe storage would have prevented it. Oh, and the irresponsible gun owner? He may be charged.
Hint for SC: That means he's a criminal.
4 year old shot himself and a sleeping woman when he found a loaded gun and fired it. Safe storage would have prevented it. Oh, and the irresponsible gun owner? He may be charged.
Hint for SC: That means he's a criminal.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Bud Light analogy has to be the worst one he uses.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
You have admitted in this thread that this is not the case, and the weapons do matter.
-fish-
Footballguy
Similar threads
