U.S. Politics

Page 900 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
jmdirt said:
Scott SoCal said:
frenchfry said:
Scott SoCal said:
If all motorized vehicles are confiscated we can then eliminate all traffic fatalities attributed to their use. Side benefit is about 5,000 pedestrians and 1,000 cyclists are killed every year by being hit by a car which is utterly outrageous and many, many times higher than mass shootings.

Of course there's no Velo selective outrage about this just yet.
Or how about this one.

Some people die while walking in the park.

Therefore walking in the park = assault rifles

Conclusion: we should ban walking in the park (or assault rifles are no more dangerous than walking in the park, depending on your point of view).

This is a fun game!
It's the progressive way. Ban big gulp soda, erm, uh sanitize the human existence.

You have any idea how many toddlers drown in bathtubs every year?

The progressive way - attack the symptom, ignore the problem.
The problem is people having kids who shouldn't be having kids. That might be even tougher to deal with than regulating how guns/ammo are sold.
You can't say that because it implies an actual solution to a real problem. See, in liberal utopia, it's a good idea to provide economic incentives to procreate particularly for people who will never escape poverty because of the kids they are encouraged to have. Government replacing dad in the family unit is destructive. But in utopia it's the intentions that count.
I have to agree with you on this one, even though I have the feeling most Americans don't even know what real socialism is unless they have spent a little time in France. The welfare cycle is started at birth, and many never recover. But that is another story.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Re:

mikeNphilly said:
*reads posts by people that have no clue how guns are bought, making posts about how to regulate how guns are bought*
It seems to me that many posts are about how guns are used. Of course, before they are used they have to be bought, but I will let you in the know debate that topic.

There are lots of criminals, bangers and mentally ill in France, and indeed many of the criminals possess guns. In general they tend to shoot each other though, and not little children in schools or innocent movie goers. I am not so concerned about gangs being armed, what would worry me is if people I pass on the street were armed. In France they are not, and that is why we don't have a gun control debate here. Simple really.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
Jagartrott said:
'Ignore the problem', he says.
I think that's your problem right there.
Nope.

My position is really the opposite of a progressive one. I'm interested in attacking the problem and I don't give a **** about a band aid solution for the symptom.

We have lots of gun laws now. Oddly, criminals, bangers and the mentally ill don't follow the law. Someday you guys might figure that out.
Lots of gun laws that don't amount to jack-sh!t. The guy that did the last lil ditty owned 14 guns.

This is really simple. There are too many f-ing guns in private hands in the country. In the United States of America there is a greater concentration of firearms privately owned than in any other time or place in the history of civilization. 50%! of privately owned guns are in a country with just 4% of the world's population. That's complete insanity. The incidences of mass murder and single murder and suicides with guns being in the league of Mexico (whose drug cartel is, unsurprisingly, armed with US weapons bought with money from drug sales to Americans), are thus a statistical inevitability.

Saying, therefore, that all these guns are merely symptomatic of the "problem" is an idiocy beyond comprehension and one so colored with a vapid ideology that it doesn't even bear thinking about. Saying that mental health is the problem is equally stupid. You can't forecast who 'sane' today buys an arsenal of guns is going to go insane tomorrow and use them in the next mass murder at a school. What are you going to do screen the entire population? Mental health is today being treated much more than it ever has, but viewed as effective prevention is quixotic scheming at best. There are too many forms, not all are manifestly evident and there is no way of knowing who and when someone that might be affected with it becomes a social danger. Besides in most cases these folks are already armed! So it's already too late. The costs alone of such an operation, in a health system that is already exasperated, also makes this option senseless. Besides the more stringent controls on private lives and personal freedom you guys are always getting so riled up about, goes against the concept of individual liberty. Let's not control guns, let's control people. :rolleyes:

No, the only logical and reasoned conclusion is that the country has a problem with guns and that if this problem isn't even addressed, let alone tackled, the instances of mass murder are destined not only to continue but augment.

Unfortunately this problem should have been addressed long ago, but the f-ing NRA wields too much political powerful (which is an appalling commercial and business issue, beyond a tragic cultural one), and so now it's probably too late to do much about effective gun control.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,573
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
blutto said:
Scott SoCal said:
mikeNphilly said:
*reads posts by people that have no clue how guns are bought, making posts about how to regulate how guns are bought*
Runaway progressivism. They know better and aren't afraid to flaunt ignorance at any opportunity.

Faculty lounge mentality.
....kinda curious how you of all people ( given your posting history here ) would any clue about that....

Cheers
Life experience, keen observation skillz, uncommonly clear common sense and a well above average IQ.

We'll just call it a target hit.
...really? because I could have sworn that you just pulled something out of your butt and projected....

....and well above average IQ, eh ?....and oh, you forgot tall, dark and breath takingly handsome....

Cheers
 
The political agenda of the liberals defending tougher gun control is plain to see. Disarming the population because they fear a popular revolt!

In this critical era in which the liberal ideology is getting to an end, misery is going to spread more and more in America. 40+ million people under poverty threshold. It's going to end up in a popular revolt sooner or later. Obviously if the population is armed, it can be dangerous for the elite. It's not a coincidence if Maggie Thatcher tightened gun control in Britain. She knew how her ideology could bring more people to misery.

There are many things I may criticize about America. But certainly not the 2nd Amendment. And I'm gunless and wouldn't be able to use one in self-defence but I think it's normal that common people should be armed. If you are assaulted by a gang with some AK47 and you are disarmed, you'll be fine with your stupid principles. Weapons serving as deterrents is a fact. Studies in Florida proved it. All figures about criminality in America don't account for the fact that most murders have been committed by guns that are already controlled. Sandy Hook is already an example. Owning a Berretta or a hunting rifle is perfectly understandable (a hunting rifle as self-defence weapon, I mean, not for hunting animals).
 
Echoes said:
The political agenda of the liberals defending tougher gun control is plain to see. Disarming the population because they fear a popular revolt!

In this critical era in which the liberal ideology is getting to an end, misery is going to spread more and more in America. 40+ million people under poverty threshold. It's going to end up in a popular revolt sooner or later. Obviously if the population is armed, it can be dangerous for the elite. It's not a coincidence if Maggie Thatcher tightened gun control in Britain. She knew how her ideology could bring more people to misery.

There are many things I may criticize about America. But certainly not the 2nd Amendment. And I'm gunless and wouldn't be able to use one in self-defence but I think it's normal that common people should be armed. If you are assaulted by a gang with some AK47 and you are disarmed, you'll be fine with your stupid principles. Weapons serving as deterrents is a fact. Studies in Florida proved it. All figures about criminality in America don't account for the fact that most murders have been committed by guns that are already controlled. Sandy Hook is already an example. Owning a Berretta or a hunting rifle is perfectly understandable (a hunting rifle as self-defence weapon, I mean, not for hunting animals).
Put up the studies or STFU.

Yea, the State and its modern military apparatus should have a real hard time putting down a popular revolt armed with shotguns and pistols. :rolleyes:

What paranoia and nonesense. It's far more likely that the State risks succumbing to a military coup that once and for all sets up the type of authoritarian regime to which you, in your own willfully circumscribed, delusional and mentally confussed (bordering on psychosis) world, aspire.
 
Re:

mikeNphilly said:
*reads posts by people that have no clue how guns are bought, making posts about how to regulate how guns are bought*
People have opinons about the world that they live in. Shocking!!!!

I also have no clue how drugs are bought, so I should have no opinion about about drug laws?

Tell you what. You gun owners devise a way so that non-gun owners are never killed by your weapons and you can self-regulate to your heart's content. Until then, the rest of us have as much a stake in this discussion as you do.
 
Echoes said:
The political agenda of the liberals defending tougher gun control is plain to see. Disarming the population because they fear a popular revolt!

In this critical era in which the liberal ideology is getting to an end, misery is going to spread more and more in America. 40+ million people under poverty threshold. It's going to end up in a popular revolt sooner or later. Obviously if the population is armed, it can be dangerous for the elite. It's not a coincidence if Maggie Thatcher tightened gun control in Britain. She knew how her ideology could bring more people to misery.

There are many things I may criticize about America. But certainly not the 2nd Amendment. And I'm gunless and wouldn't be able to use one in self-defence but I think it's normal that common people should be armed. If you are assaulted by a gang with some AK47 and you are disarmed, you'll be fine with your stupid principles. Weapons serving as deterrents is a fact. Studies in Florida proved it. All figures about criminality in America don't account for the fact that most murders have been committed by guns that are already controlled. Sandy Hook is already an example. Owning a Berretta or a hunting rifle is perfectly understandable (a hunting rifle as self-defence weapon, I mean, not for hunting animals).
Silly and not possible. Nobody, liberal or right wind nut job has argued for disarming the populace. Can't be done anyway. Nobody knows who has the guns, obtained via background check or not.

It's 'normal' because there are so many guns around. You need to re-read the historical foundation of the second amendment. It has little to do with personal defense against a robber, or something. You are confusing the BS about the 2nd amendment and today's mess.

Adam Lanza's mother got the gun legally, he didn't. His mental state was well known and documented. His mother should NOT have been allowed to have guns in her huse.
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Echoes said:
The political agenda of the liberals defending tougher gun control is plain to see. Disarming the population because they fear a popular revolt!

In this critical era in which the liberal ideology is getting to an end, misery is going to spread more and more in America. 40+ million people under poverty threshold. It's going to end up in a popular revolt sooner or later. Obviously if the population is armed, it can be dangerous for the elite. It's not a coincidence if Maggie Thatcher tightened gun control in Britain. She knew how her ideology could bring more people to misery.

There are many things I may criticize about America. But certainly not the 2nd Amendment. And I'm gunless and wouldn't be able to use one in self-defence but I think it's normal that common people should be armed. If you are assaulted by a gang with some AK47 and you are disarmed, you'll be fine with your stupid principles. Weapons serving as deterrents is a fact. Studies in Florida proved it. All figures about criminality in America don't account for the fact that most murders have been committed by guns that are already controlled. Sandy Hook is already an example. Owning a Berretta or a hunting rifle is perfectly understandable (a hunting rifle as self-defence weapon, I mean, not for hunting animals).
Since it is the season, this post should win the Nobel award for sheer ignorance.

Note that I refer to the post, not the poster.
 
It is interesting that no one has mentioned the chaos that the House GOP caucus has descended into. When you think they have hit rock bottom, they break through and dive ever lower into the abyss. At least it is keeping the beltway media entertained.

From a LOL standpoint, McCarthy's word salads will be missed. It would've been something to have a Speaker of the House who can barely compose and speak a grammatically correct sentence.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
Jagartrott said:
'Ignore the problem', he says.
I think that's your problem right there.
Nope.

My position is really the opposite of a progressive one. I'm interested in attacking the problem and I don't give a **** about a band aid solution for the symptom.

We have lots of gun laws now. Oddly, criminals, bangers and the mentally ill don't follow the law. Someday you guys might figure that out.
Lots of gun laws that don't amount to jack-sh!t. The guy that did the last lil ditty owned 14 guns.

This is really simple. There are too many f-ing guns in private hands in the country. In the United States of America there is a greater concentration of firearms privately owned than in any other time or place in the history of civilization. 50%! of privately owned guns are in a country with just 4% of the world's population. That's complete insanity. The incidences of mass murder and single murder and suicides with guns being in the league of Mexico (whose drug cartel is, unsurprisingly, armed with US weapons bought with money from drug sales to Americans), are thus a statistical inevitability.

Saying, therefore, that all these guns are merely symptomatic of the "problem" is an idiocy beyond comprehension and one so colored with a vapid ideology that it doesn't even bear thinking about. Saying that mental health is the problem is equally stupid. You can't forecast who 'sane' today buys an arsenal of guns is going to go insane tomorrow and use them in the next mass murder at a school. What are you going to do screen the entire population? Mental health is today being treated much more than it ever has, but viewed as effective prevention is quixotic scheming at best. There are too many forms, not all are manifestly evident and there is no way of knowing who and when someone that might be affected with it becomes a social danger. Besides in most cases these folks are already armed! So it's already too late. The costs alone of such an operation, in a health system that is already exasperated, also makes this option senseless. Besides the more stringent controls on private lives and personal freedom you guys are always getting so riled up about, goes against the concept of individual liberty. Let's not control guns, let's control people. :rolleyes:

No, the only logical and reasoned conclusion is that the country has a problem with guns and that if this problem isn't even addressed, let alone tackled, the instances of mass murder are destined not only to continue but augment.

Unfortunately this problem should have been addressed long ago, but the f-ing NRA wields too much political powerful (which is an appalling commercial and business issue, beyond a tragic cultural one), and so now it's probably too late to do much about effective gun control.
Mental illness isn't the only problem and it's no where near the biggest problem. You guys are filed about mass shooting and don't give a wit about what happens everyday in inner cities. It strikes me as something less than sincere when you roll in and talk about gun control when you see a political opportunity only. People get shot and killed on a daily basis in every big city in the country and the problem there has much more to do with liberal policy than with too many guns. To that end I'd suggest that's why you dare discuss the topic now but somehow won't bring it up when fifty people are shot on any given weekend in Shitcago.

Further, your logic is downright stupid. If the problem was the sheer number of weapons then the carnage would be soooo much higher. There something like 60 million gun owners in the U.S. How many of those people are committing mass shootings?

It not to late to change liberal utopia. Changing that will have far more impact to gun violence than any new law you can imagine.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,463
0
0
Re:

djpbaltimore said:
It is interesting that no one has mentioned the chaos that the House GOP caucus has descended into. When you think they have hit rock bottom, they break through and dive ever lower into the abyss. At least it is keeping the beltway media entertained.

From a LOL standpoint, McCarthy's word salads will be missed. It would've been something to have a Speaker of the House who can barely compose and speak a grammatically correct sentence.
It has been reported that a couple of ugly skeletons were in McCarthy's closet and once it looked like he would get personally trashed he dropped out. The GOP is probably sensing some high level of doom with Trumps current and past behavior Dr. Ben suggesting that shooting victims were kind of whimpy by not rushing the shooter and even after he tried to explain it...he laughed about the deaths like some kind of pyscho teenager.
As was posted here a couple of times....there is a threat from the government if US folks didn't have weapons...pretty remote that a guy with a .22 would make much difference if he was hit with a bunker busting cluster bomb..but he may get in a lucky shot.
Dr.Ben also said that he thinks kindergarten teachers may need guns in the classroom...the GOP better hurry the -uck up or Hillary will just need to change offices and parking spots at the White House.
John Boehner will need to stick around until the GOP finds a replacement for him that has not had sex with a robot. Reagan said "tear down that wall" current guys say "lets build a really big one". Reagan said " I believe in amnesty" current bunch says "lets deport everybody!". But all the GOP clods quote Reagan any chance they get..?
If nothing else good comes of any of this, at least we had a couple of guys say they smoked pot and inhaled...now that is Republican progress.
and if things couldn't get any worse the Dems have a chance to get some new video and audio of GOP lawmakers saying why they won't vote for gun control and why...possible political gold for the Dems seeing that there was another shooting at N Arizona U..sad but true
 
Mar 13, 2009
2,373
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
Jagartrott said:
'Ignore the problem', he says.
I think that's your problem right there.
Nope.

My position is really the opposite of a progressive one. I'm interested in attacking the problem and I don't give a **** about a band aid solution for the symptom.

We have lots of gun laws now. Oddly, criminals, bangers and the mentally ill don't follow the law. Someday you guys might figure that out.
Lots of gun laws that don't amount to jack-sh!t. The guy that did the last lil ditty owned 14 guns.

This is really simple. There are too many f-ing guns in private hands in the country. In the United States of America there is a greater concentration of firearms privately owned than in any other time or place in the history of civilization. 50%! of privately owned guns are in a country with just 4% of the world's population. That's complete insanity. The incidences of mass murder and single murder and suicides with guns being in the league of Mexico (whose drug cartel is, unsurprisingly, armed with US weapons bought with money from drug sales to Americans), are thus a statistical inevitability.

Saying, therefore, that all these guns are merely symptomatic of the "problem" is an idiocy beyond comprehension and one so colored with a vapid ideology that it doesn't even bear thinking about. Saying that mental health is the problem is equally stupid. You can't forecast who 'sane' today buys an arsenal of guns is going to go insane tomorrow and use them in the next mass murder at a school. What are you going to do screen the entire population? Mental health is today being treated much more than it ever has, but viewed as effective prevention is quixotic scheming at best. There are too many forms, not all are manifestly evident and there is no way of knowing who and when someone that might be affected with it becomes a social danger. Besides in most cases these folks are already armed! So it's already too late. The costs alone of such an operation, in a health system that is already exasperated, also makes this option senseless. Besides the more stringent controls on private lives and personal freedom you guys are always getting so riled up about, goes against the concept of individual liberty. Let's not control guns, let's control people. :rolleyes:

No, the only logical and reasoned conclusion is that the country has a problem with guns and that if this problem isn't even addressed, let alone tackled, the instances of mass murder are destined not only to continue but augment.

Unfortunately this problem should have been addressed long ago, but the f-ing NRA wields too much political powerful (which is an appalling commercial and business issue, beyond a tragic cultural one), and so now it's probably too late to do much about effective gun control.
Mental illness isn't the only problem and it's not no where near the biggest problem. You guys are filed about mass shooting and don't give a wit about what happens everyday in inner cities. It strikes me as something less than sincere when you roll in and talk about gun control when you see a political opportunity only. People get shot and killed on a daily basis in every big city in the country and the problem there has much more to do with liberal policy than with too many guns. To that end I'd suggest that's why you dare discuss the topic now but somehow won't bring it up when fifty people are shot on any given weekend in Shitcago.

Further, your logic is downright stupid. If the problem was the sheer number of weapons then the carnage would be soooo much higher. There something like 60 million gun owners in the U.S. How many of those people are committing mass shootings?

It not to late to change liberal utopia. Changing that will have far more impact to gun violence than any new law you can imagine.
Legitimate question: how many of the 50 people shot on a typical Chicago weekend are armed thugs themselves? I think this is important information. Not that I condone idiots shooting themselves up, but that could be considered less serious than innocent children being shot and killed in their classrooms. I think it is understandable that school shootings attract more attention and indignation than gang shoot-outs.

I think France can be considered significantly more "liberal" than the US (I put "liberal" in parentheses because over here "liberal" has pretty much the opposite meaning as over there - go figure) yet people don't get "shot and killed on a daily basis", or if they do it is an infinitesimal proportion compared to the US.
 
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
Jagartrott said:
'Ignore the problem', he says.
I think that's your problem right there.
Nope.

My position is really the opposite of a progressive one. I'm interested in attacking the problem and I don't give a **** about a band aid solution for the symptom.

We have lots of gun laws now. Oddly, criminals, bangers and the mentally ill don't follow the law. Someday you guys might figure that out.
Lots of gun laws that don't amount to jack-sh!t. The guy that did the last lil ditty owned 14 guns.

This is really simple. There are too many f-ing guns in private hands in the country. In the United States of America there is a greater concentration of firearms privately owned than in any other time or place in the history of civilization. 50%! of privately owned guns are in a country with just 4% of the world's population. That's complete insanity. The incidences of mass murder and single murder and suicides with guns being in the league of Mexico (whose drug cartel is, unsurprisingly, armed with US weapons bought with money from drug sales to Americans), are thus a statistical inevitability.

Saying, therefore, that all these guns are merely symptomatic of the "problem" is an idiocy beyond comprehension and one so colored with a vapid ideology that it doesn't even bear thinking about. Saying that mental health is the problem is equally stupid. You can't forecast who 'sane' today buys an arsenal of guns is going to go insane tomorrow and use them in the next mass murder at a school. What are you going to do screen the entire population? Mental health is today being treated much more than it ever has, but viewed as effective prevention is quixotic scheming at best. There are too many forms, not all are manifestly evident and there is no way of knowing who and when someone that might be affected with it becomes a social danger. Besides in most cases these folks are already armed! So it's already too late. The costs alone of such an operation, in a health system that is already exasperated, also makes this option senseless. Besides the more stringent controls on private lives and personal freedom you guys are always getting so riled up about, goes against the concept of individual liberty. Let's not control guns, let's control people. :rolleyes:

No, the only logical and reasoned conclusion is that the country has a problem with guns and that if this problem isn't even addressed, let alone tackled, the instances of mass murder are destined not only to continue but augment.

Unfortunately this problem should have been addressed long ago, but the f-ing NRA wields too much political powerful (which is an appalling commercial and business issue, beyond a tragic cultural one), and so now it's probably too late to do much about effective gun control.
Mental illness isn't the only problem and it's not no where near the biggest problem. You guys are filed about mass shooting and don't give a wit about what happens everyday in inner cities. It strikes me as something less than sincere when you roll in and talk about gun control when you see a political opportunity only. People get shot and killed on a daily basis in every big city in the country and the problem there has much more to do with liberal policy than with too many guns. To that end I'd suggest that's why you dare discuss the topic now but somehow won't bring it up when fifty people are shot on any given weekend in Shitcago.

Further, your logic is downright stupid. If the problem was the sheer number of weapons then the carnage would be soooo much higher. There something like 60 million gun owners in the U.S. How many of those people are committing mass shootings?

It not to late to change liberal utopia. Changing that will have far more impact to gun violence than any new law you can imagine.
Scott you brought up the issue of mental health not being addressed as problematical of something for which getting killed by guns is only "symptomatic." Since it isn't the "guns fault," but the people who use them nonsense. It's patently obviously that a gun without a shooter is a benign object, however, the problem is that the gargantuan quantity of guns in circulation has inevitably increased exponentially the probability that they shall find a shooter. Mental health aside, the more guns the more deaths by guns.

Consequently it's sheer stupidity that you think I haven't taken issue with all the inner city crime and high US murder rates in the slums, which are naturally the corollaries of what was just mentioned above and the culture of violence this has bred. But this is your problem to live with in the home of the free and the brave, as I left the barbarians behind just in time. It is only that this discussion has been predicated upon the latest mass murder tragedy, though there is an ongoing killing spree in the various Chicagos I'm aware. The murder rates in the US are significantly higher than in any other developed country, in which gun ownership is significantly lower. I know basic logic escapes you, but try to make the connection anyway.

I have no aspirations of creating a liberal utopia, however, I'm convinced that the repubs want to create one of the own. As things stand they're a hell of a lot closer to realizing it, given that any real fight of so-called liberalism, has been far less aggressive than the increasingly radicalized conservative agenda over the last 30 years. The most vocal and dangerous in expressing their discontent have been the right wing loons for some time now, and it is they who have gotten much more of what they want and stand for. Other than a liberal utopia.

Where do you come up with this crapola?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Re:

Scott SoCal said:
If all motorized vehicles are confiscated we can then eliminate all traffic fatalities attributed to their use. Side benefit is about 5,000 pedestrians and 1,000 cyclists are killed every year by being hit by a car which is utterly outrageous and many, many times higher than mass shootings.

Of course there's no Velo selective outrage about this just yet.
This bulls**t again? We make cars as safe as possible to reduce the chances of death in an accident. We introduce pedestrian walkways and bike lanes to make pedestrians and cyclists safer. Co-pilot takes over a plane by locking the pilot out, we take steps to prevent it from happening again. Gun violence? We - well, no, not we, people like you - shrug your shoulders and say, eh, whatever, stuff happens, then we loosen gun restrictions even more. For whatever bizarre reason when it comes to guns, and guns alone, we do the *exact opposite* of what we do for any other situation. Lots of accidents at an intersection? Put in traffic lights. 25 kids killed in a school? Loosen gun restrictions. It's insane.

Tell you what, Scott, you identify who is mentally ill - should someone on anti-depressants be barred from gun ownership? Cause that's about half the country right there - and then you identify the handful of those who are "mentally ill" who will go on a shooting spree before they go on a shooting spree and then you prove that you prevented something that didn't happen, 'k? Cause that's what you're expecting doctors and the government to be able to do, and it's pretty funny that you have so much faith in government all of a sudden.

Like I say, maybe when cons stop rationalizing gun violence, which is all you're doing, we might actually get around to doing something about it.

Also your paranoia is shining through again, Scott. No one but you has ever said anything about confiscation.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,638
0
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
Jagartrott said:
'Ignore the problem', he says.
I think that's your problem right there.
Nope.

My position is really the opposite of a progressive one. I'm interested in attacking the problem and I don't give a **** about a band aid solution for the symptom.

We have lots of gun laws now. Oddly, criminals, bangers and the mentally ill don't follow the law. Someday you guys might figure that out.
Lots of gun laws that don't amount to jack-sh!t. The guy that did the last lil ditty owned 14 guns.

This is really simple. There are too many f-ing guns in private hands in the country. In the United States of America there is a greater concentration of firearms privately owned than in any other time or place in the history of civilization. 50%! of privately owned guns are in a country with just 4% of the world's population. That's complete insanity. The incidences of mass murder and single murder and suicides with guns being in the league of Mexico (whose drug cartel is, unsurprisingly, armed with US weapons bought with money from drug sales to Americans), are thus a statistical inevitability.

Saying, therefore, that all these guns are merely symptomatic of the "problem" is an idiocy beyond comprehension and one so colored with a vapid ideology that it doesn't even bear thinking about. Saying that mental health is the problem is equally stupid. You can't forecast who 'sane' today buys an arsenal of guns is going to go insane tomorrow and use them in the next mass murder at a school. What are you going to do screen the entire population? Mental health is today being treated much more than it ever has, but viewed as effective prevention is quixotic scheming at best. There are too many forms, not all are manifestly evident and there is no way of knowing who and when someone that might be affected with it becomes a social danger. Besides in most cases these folks are already armed! So it's already too late. The costs alone of such an operation, in a health system that is already exasperated, also makes this option senseless. Besides the more stringent controls on private lives and personal freedom you guys are always getting so riled up about, goes against the concept of individual liberty. Let's not control guns, let's control people. :rolleyes:

No, the only logical and reasoned conclusion is that the country has a problem with guns and that if this problem isn't even addressed, let alone tackled, the instances of mass murder are destined not only to continue but augment.

Unfortunately this problem should have been addressed long ago, but the f-ing NRA wields too much political powerful (which is an appalling commercial and business issue, beyond a tragic cultural one), and so now it's probably too late to do much about effective gun control.
Mental illness isn't the only problem and it's not no where near the biggest problem. You guys are filed about mass shooting and don't give a wit about what happens everyday in inner cities. It strikes me as something less than sincere when you roll in and talk about gun control when you see a political opportunity only. People get shot and killed on a daily basis in every big city in the country and the problem there has much more to do with liberal policy than with too many guns. To that end I'd suggest that's why you dare discuss the topic now but somehow won't bring it up when fifty people are shot on any given weekend in Shitcago.
Yes, Scott, it's called "gun control", affects everyone, even your thugs in Shitcago.

Further, your logic is downright stupid. If the problem was the sheer number of weapons then the carnage would be soooo much higher. There something like 60 million gun owners in the U.S. How many of those people are committing mass shootings?
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/560/media/images/64891000/gif/_64891158_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif

One country sure does stand out. Wonder what separates it from all the others? Huh.

It not to late to change liberal utopia. Changing that will have far more impact to gun violence than any new law you can imagine.
Man you are one paranoid little dude.
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
If all motorized vehicles are confiscated we can then eliminate all traffic fatalities attributed to their use. Side benefit is about 5,000 pedestrians and 1,000 cyclists are killed every year by being hit by a car which is utterly outrageous and many, many times higher than mass shootings.

Of course there's no Velo selective outrage about this just yet.
This bulls**t again? We make cars as safe as possible to reduce the chances of death in an accident. We introduce pedestrian walkways and bike lanes to make pedestrians and cyclists safer. Co-pilot takes over a plane by locking the pilot out, we take steps to prevent it from happening again. Gun violence? We - well, no, not we, people like you - shrug your shoulders and say, eh, whatever, stuff happens, then we loosen gun restrictions even more. For whatever bizarre reason when it comes to guns, and guns alone, we do the *exact opposite* of what we do for any other situation. Lots of accidents at an intersection? Put in traffic lights. 25 kids killed in a school? Loosen gun restrictions. It's insane.

Tell you what, Scott, you identify who is mentally ill - should someone on anti-depressants be barred from gun ownership? Cause that's about half the country right there - and then you identify the handful of those who are "mentally ill" who will go on a shooting spree before they go on a shooting spree and then you prove that you prevented something that didn't happen, 'k? Cause that's what you're expecting doctors and the government to be able to do, and it's pretty funny that you have so much faith in government all of a sudden.

Like I say, maybe when cons stop rationalizing gun violence, which is all you're doing, we might actually get around to doing something about it.

Also your paranoia is shining through again, Scott. No one but you has ever said anything about confiscation.
This bulls**t again? We make cars as safe as possible to reduce the chances of death in an accident.
As safe as possible? Totally meaningless. "As safe as possible" would be either 1. no vehicles on the road, or 2. vehicles on the road that could never be in an accident. I think what you mean to say is "as safe as is reasonable" of "safer than they used to be."

We introduce pedestrian walkways and bike lanes to make pedestrians and cyclists safer.
And yet cars kill about 5,000 pedestrians and cyclists each year while maiming many thousands of others. Where is your outrage???? We'll just call it "car violence."

Gun violence? We - well, no, not we, people like you - shrug your shoulders and say, eh, whatever, stuff happens, then we loosen gun restrictions even more. For whatever bizarre reason when it comes to guns, and guns alone, we do the *exact opposite* of what we do for any other situation.
Well, yes. Why? Because most grown ups realize controlling the inanimate object would not yield acceptable results. Most grown ups understand that the causational issues are what needs to change - unless one's ideology is challenged. Then all that can be done is go after the object, which is the symptom, which doesn't solve the problem, which really was never the goal.

Loosen gun restrictions
I'm not sure who's arguing this.

Tell you what, Scott, you identify who is mentally ill
While mentally illness is certainly part of the problem it's a pimple on the ass of it.

someone on anti-depressants
That's a big problem in the Psych field isn't it? Psych drugs really haven't been the panacea hoped for, have they?

Cause that's what you're expecting doctors and the government to be able to do, and it's pretty funny that you have so much faith in government all of a sudden.
I have very little faith in government.

Also your paranoia is shining through again, Scott. No one but you has ever said anything about confiscation
Two things: 1. ***, 2. Then you will never stop gun violence. Since you deem car deaths acceptable why don't you fill me in on how many mass shootings and gun deaths are acceptable to you?
 
Nov 8, 2012
11,640
0
0
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Scott SoCal said:
rhubroma said:
Scott SoCal said:
Jagartrott said:
'Ignore the problem', he says.
I think that's your problem right there.
Nope.

My position is really the opposite of a progressive one. I'm interested in attacking the problem and I don't give a **** about a band aid solution for the symptom.

We have lots of gun laws now. Oddly, criminals, bangers and the mentally ill don't follow the law. Someday you guys might figure that out.
Lots of gun laws that don't amount to jack-sh!t. The guy that did the last lil ditty owned 14 guns.

This is really simple. There are too many f-ing guns in private hands in the country. In the United States of America there is a greater concentration of firearms privately owned than in any other time or place in the history of civilization. 50%! of privately owned guns are in a country with just 4% of the world's population. That's complete insanity. The incidences of mass murder and single murder and suicides with guns being in the league of Mexico (whose drug cartel is, unsurprisingly, armed with US weapons bought with money from drug sales to Americans), are thus a statistical inevitability.

Saying, therefore, that all these guns are merely symptomatic of the "problem" is an idiocy beyond comprehension and one so colored with a vapid ideology that it doesn't even bear thinking about. Saying that mental health is the problem is equally stupid. You can't forecast who 'sane' today buys an arsenal of guns is going to go insane tomorrow and use them in the next mass murder at a school. What are you going to do screen the entire population? Mental health is today being treated much more than it ever has, but viewed as effective prevention is quixotic scheming at best. There are too many forms, not all are manifestly evident and there is no way of knowing who and when someone that might be affected with it becomes a social danger. Besides in most cases these folks are already armed! So it's already too late. The costs alone of such an operation, in a health system that is already exasperated, also makes this option senseless. Besides the more stringent controls on private lives and personal freedom you guys are always getting so riled up about, goes against the concept of individual liberty. Let's not control guns, let's control people. :rolleyes:

No, the only logical and reasoned conclusion is that the country has a problem with guns and that if this problem isn't even addressed, let alone tackled, the instances of mass murder are destined not only to continue but augment.

Unfortunately this problem should have been addressed long ago, but the f-ing NRA wields too much political powerful (which is an appalling commercial and business issue, beyond a tragic cultural one), and so now it's probably too late to do much about effective gun control.
Mental illness isn't the only problem and it's not no where near the biggest problem. You guys are filed about mass shooting and don't give a wit about what happens everyday in inner cities. It strikes me as something less than sincere when you roll in and talk about gun control when you see a political opportunity only. People get shot and killed on a daily basis in every big city in the country and the problem there has much more to do with liberal policy than with too many guns. To that end I'd suggest that's why you dare discuss the topic now but somehow won't bring it up when fifty people are shot on any given weekend in Shitcago.
Yes, Scott, it's called "gun control", affects everyone, even your thugs in Shitcago.

Further, your logic is downright stupid. If the problem was the sheer number of weapons then the carnage would be soooo much higher. There something like 60 million gun owners in the U.S. How many of those people are committing mass shootings?
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/560/media/images/64891000/gif/_64891158_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif

One country sure does stand out. Wonder what separates it from all the others? Huh.

It not to late to change liberal utopia. Changing that will have far more impact to gun violence than any new law you can imagine.
Man you are one paranoid little dude.
it's called "gun control", affects everyone, even your thugs in Shitcago.
Some of the toughest gun laws in the country right there in Shitcago. Own it dude.

Man you are one paranoid little dude
Pointing out the fallacy of your world view isn't paranoia. Sorry.
 
I'm curious what happens if or when Paul Ryan changes his stance from "no", to "maybe" (where it is now apparently), to "yes". I personally think he's the logical choice. As he's both managed to reach across the aisle to get things done, but still appeases many tea party members. But does he enough, extreme enough? Ryan did vote to default on the debt, which seems to be a key sticking point to the TP. Lynn Westmoreland is mulling a run. He's considered one of the most true TP extreme conservatives, and he voted to default as well.

I do however wonder if the party isn't thinking so much about that, but scrambling to find someone without baggage, who can move forward post-Donald, or God forbid, Trump gets elected. Who would work well within the direction Trump is taking the party?
 
Re: Re:

Mental illness isn't the only problem and it's not no where near the biggest problem. You guys are filed about mass shooting and don't give a wit about what happens everyday in inner cities. It strikes me as something less than sincere when you roll in and talk about gun control when you see a political opportunity only. People get shot and killed on a daily basis in every big city in the country and the problem there has much more to do with liberal policy than with too many guns. To that end I'd suggest that's why you dare discuss the topic now but somehow won't bring it up when fifty people are shot on any given weekend in Shitcago.[/quote]Yes, Scott, it's called "gun control", affects everyone, even your thugs in Shitcago.

Further, your logic is downright stupid. If the problem was the sheer number of weapons then the carnage would be soooo much higher. There something like 60 million gun owners in the U.S. How many of those people are committing mass shootings?
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/560/media/images/64891000/gif/_64891158_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif

One country sure does stand out. Wonder what separates it from all the others? Huh.

It not to late to change liberal utopia. Changing that will have far more impact to gun violence than any new law you can imagine.
Man you are one paranoid little dude.[/quote]

it's called "gun control", affects everyone, even your thugs in Shitcago.

Some of the toughest gun laws in the country right there in Shitcago. Own it dude.


Man you are one paranoid little dude
Pointing out the fallacy of your world view isn't paranoia. Sorry.[/quote]

These "toughest" gun laws though were spawn from a murder rate that was already through the roof, connected naturally with the socio-economic crisis in the ghettos. Sure let's invest in their future, but that seems to be the farthest thing from your agenda. In the meantime the killing spree goes on. At any rate evidently those "toughest" laws are insufficient Scott, also because it is evident that their exists a culture of violence and general level of acceptance that works unremittingly against more civil forms of coexistance. Not to mention the socio-economic problem previously cited.

The only real solution is disarmament, not more apologies. I know disarmament is impossible though and so I guess people living in the US can continue to delude themselves into feeling that more weapons makes them safer and secure. It's a vicious cycle entirely made in the USA. In the meantime you can keep ranting on about how much we all love car deaths. :rolleyes:
 
Feb 23, 2014
6,543
1
0
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
These "toughest" gun laws though were spawn from a murder rate that was already through the roof, connected naturally with the socio-economic crisis in the ghettos. Sure let's invest in their future, but that seems to be the farthest thing from your agenda. In the meantime the killing spree goes on. At any rate evidently those "toughest" laws are insufficient Scott, also because it is evident that their exists a culture of violence and general level of acceptance that works unremittingly against more civil forms of coexistance. Not to mention the socio-economic problem previously cited.

The only real solution is disarmament, not more apologies. I know disarmament is impossible though and so I guess people living in the US can continue to delude themselves into feeling that more weapons makes them safer and secure. It's a vicious cycle entirely made in the USA. In the meantime you can keep ranting on about how much we all love car deaths. :rolleyes:
And you can keep ranting on about how much conservatives love gun related deaths. :rolleyes:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY