Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
Where did the President say if you banned all guns it would solve our woes?
He didn't, never has.
It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.
It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.
-spence
Again, since you continually ignore my replies, what is "reasonable control"? What is the statistical evidence to support any of the legislation being proposed in any state or at the federal level?
Care to support your claim that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control"?
65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports
"Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view. " (emphasis mine)
How about the Gallop poll? 51% against a new AWB. Guns
So, once again spence, how about putting away feel good terms like "reasonable control" and actually being explicit? Provide some support that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control".
Also, do you still disagree with Clinton and think it wasn't their gun control measures in '94 that beheaded the Democrats for almost a decade?
Again, since you continually ignore my replies, what is "reasonable control"? What is the statistical evidence to support any of the legislation being proposed in any state or at the federal level?
I don't ignore your replies, I'm just not paying attention.
But as for gun control, it's certainly been studied and found that more guns = more gun crimes and stricter gun laws employed in other country has indeed had a significant impact on gun violence.
The challenge in the US is that there are so many firearms to begin with...the AWB was too short and too full of loopholes to provide a dramatic impact. That being said, the Feinstein proposal does cite several studies of it's benefits.
Quote:
Care to support your claim that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control"?
65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny - Rasmussen Reports
"Not surprisingly, 72% of those with a gun in their family regard the Second Amendment as a protection against tyranny. However, even a majority (57%) of those without a gun in their home hold that view. " (emphasis mine)
I like how your last link cites 86% of Americans favoring stricter background checks
Also, they people don't think the government can ban guns in a broad sense does in no way counter public opinion that we need more comprehensive control.
Quote:
How about the Gallop poll? 51% against a new AWB. Guns
Are you reading your own polls? This one says 50% of people favor stricter laws. 51% are dissatisfied with current law, A slim majority favors passing new laws over enforcement of existing challenging your earlier claim.
Quote:
So, once again spence, how about putting away feel good terms like "reasonable control" and actually being explicit? Provide some support that "public opinion is heavy on reasonable control".
See above.
Quote:
Also, do you still disagree with Clinton and think it wasn't their gun control measures in '94 that beheaded the Democrats for almost a decade?
But as for gun control, it's certainly been studied and found that more guns = more gun crimes
I know there are some studies that make that statement, but when one examines them, you see all manner of massaging and imprecise data being cobbled together.
To me, "more guns = more gun crimes" is a very simple premise that demands a simple proof. Once you read those studies and find you need to consider subjective controls and regression coefficient or internalizing externality, you have moved past being able to present that simple premise to us regular clods at face value.
When one actually examines the numbers we find "more guns = more gun crimes" really can't be argued at all, even with all the econometric funny business.
In 1986 13,029 people out of a population of 240,133,048 were killed with a gun.
In 2006 12,791 people out of a population of 298,754,819 were killed with a gun.
20 years + 60,000,000 people + 80,000,000 guns = FEWER HOMICIDES?
How can that be?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
and stricter gun laws employed in other country has indeed had a significant impact on gun violence.
Those nations that have strict gun control (usually Britain without Ireland, wink, wink is cited) have had it for centuries and it was enacted and enforced for political reasons not crime control.
That a subservient, obedient, well mannered population doesn't commit much murder isn't so noteworthy. The laws that have been more recently enacted in response to crime have not been all that effective. Trying to control criminals with an over representation of recent immigrant Eastern European and Jamaicans, who have no allegiance to the British traditions and live in separate criminal syndicate enclaves from the British people, is not an easy task no matter how strict the laws are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
the Feinstein proposal does cite several studies of it's benefits.
I am very interested in this never before known attribute of AR-15 rifles the Evil Queen herself was talking about today.
"The more you have these weapons, these military style weapons, that with a single slide stock on the AR-15 can be made fully automatic, the minute you have that, in like the Sandy Hook killer's hands, you have a devastating weapon."
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Sunday, January 27, 2013
CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley", @ 6:20 mark (until it is scrubbed)
Between the Evil Queen's full auto stock slide and McCarthy's "stock thing that goes up" barrel shroud, I think these two could go on the road, doing an Abbott and Costello act about these amazing fantasmagorical Chitty Chitty Bang Bang AR-15's.
Idiots, absolute idiots taking charge over our rights . . .
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
It's one of the fundamental problems with the entire gun debate. The gun advocates are pushing against a total ban to give them energy...while public opinion is heavy on reasonable control.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943)
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Hybrid Mode
