- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 18,538
- Reaction score
- 14,429
Guy looks like he missed a critical stage of evolution
Somewhat resembles Frank Trigg, to me.
Guy looks like he missed a critical stage of evolution
According to US Governments Accountability Report (news site here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ove-americas-gun-laws/?utm_term=.0dac12d55790 ) in Mexico 70% of the guns recovered from crime scenes actually originate from the USA. So I don't buy that there are a zillion illegal guns crossing the border... except in the opposite direction that sometimes is asserted!
As for "criminals are less bold" in countries with more guns, I think you'll need some kind of citation. Compare it against another first world country and see how the US stands. I'm going to add the following for murder and non-negligent manslaughter (intentional homicide) per 100,000 citizens, taken in 2013. Note that these countries have open borders...
Austria: 0.42
Germany: 0.9
UK, England/Wales: 2.6
UK, Scotland: 4.66
USA: 4.5
Next is rape
Austria: 9
Germany: 9
UK, England/Wales: 18
UK, Scotland: 20
USA: 26.8
Next is robbery
Austria: 61
Germany: 64
UK, England/Wales: 157
UK, Scotland: 60
USA: 113
Next is Aggravated Assault
Austria: 47
Germany: 88
UK, England/Wales (not recorded)
UK, Scotland: 117
USA: 241
In addition:
According to a 2013 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), between 2005 and 2012, the average homicide rate in the U.S. was 4.9 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to the average rate globally, which was 6.2. However, the U.S. had much higher murder rates compared to other countries identified in the report as "developed", which all had average homicide rates of 0.8 per 100,000
So by this report you are over 6 times more likely to be murdered in the US than in other developed countries (on average). Remember, this is the country with the highest gun ownership in the world.
These figures come from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States and there are appropriate references at the bottom should you wish to look further.
What specifically about the abortion point lost you? His comparison of calling pro-gun legislators dupes or paid mouth pieces of the NRA is no different than saying pro-abortion legislators are dupes or paid mouth pieces of Planned Parenthood? His statement that Planned Parenthood spends more on lobbying than the NRA? That it servers no other purpose than to shame, silence and otherwise undermine ones opponent without having to engage their actual positions or facts with ones of your own in a civil manner?
"We would start to look at most of these shooters coming from broken homes. What sort of government policies have actually encouraged broken homes? You can look at left-leaning think tanks like the Brookings Institute, that will actually say that some of it can be attributed to various cultural changes that happened in the sixties, to include the abortion industry. "
He's citing the Brookings Institute. So your beef, if he's being genuine about what their findings suggest, is with them, not him.
Lol. No substantial industry backing them... till this Presidency they have the fucking government supporting them financially. They also have significant celebrity backing and donors, etc... The NRA has the backing of firearm manufactures and some politicians that's true.
The only reason its a bullshit comparison is because you personally believe that the NRA is evil and that Planned Parent is doing good work, great work, the best work.
Anti-abortion supporters view Pro-Abortion supporters as every bit as loathsome and misguided as Anti-Gun advocates view Pro-Gun supporters. And just as much as Pro-Abortion supporters don't want to negotiate with Anti-Abortionists, Pro-Gun supporters don't trust Anti-Gun supporters, their intentions or the limits they agree to not push beyond.
We are simply not going to agree on either his speech, its purpose, or a likely hypothetical solution to any of the various issues surrounding this subject. We just don't interpret it the same way and that's fine.
Oh I completely understand your ilk. I tend to have sympathies for both sides of both arguments.You aren't completely wrong, but lets not forget about my ilk, who support both.
so this guy is 'crying like a little girl'?
we just blatantly change the definitions of words now, and expect people to go along?
uh no
You an Idiot Out Wandering Around?
There's a middle man in that equation that you are leaving out. Some dude buys it at a gun show and sells it for a marked up price in Chicago. Eventually it finds its way into the hands of the criminal who never has to leave the city to find the gun he's going to use.
It's not like some Chicago criminal walks up to some gun show seller in Wisconsin and says "Hey man, let me buy that pistol off you. I need to kill someone."
As part of a broader argument that this and other social changes that led out of the 60's liberal movement have led to a more casual disregard for civility or respect for life it is. Not that he progressed that far, but given that whole point of his speech was about having such conversations and the attitude of mutual respect it would take to get there I think it's all relevant. If for no other reason than it can be addressed, discussed and dismissed if need be.No, the point that we need to look at abortion as one of the changes from the 60's that has led to this culture that creates these shootings.
I did not say anything about private citizens selling firearms at gun shows, and I never said anything about whether or not the original purchaser was the one committing the crime. What in the world are you talking about here?
Can you start over without a strawman? Or series of strawmen?
He also mentions entire countries instituting stricter laws and says it doesn't have the effect people are lead to believe. I don't know that's right or wrong, but it sure looks like you're the guy taking something out of context in order to fit your own narrative.
To me he's saying that people aren't going to follow the law if they don't want to. I think that's an easy thing to agree with. So no, this concept really hasn't been addressed other than one side theorizing that background checks on all gun purchases would solve the problem (as they see it) and the other side saying criminals will find a way to get them regardless.
If that's all there is to it then count me in the latter camp. We can't keep drugs out of prisons for Christ fuckin' sake. I'm also not so ignorant on guns and technology that I don't know what an 80% Glock lower or 80% AR lower is. 3D-printing tech is only gonna get better. It's gonna take a lot more than background checks on private sales, don't you think?
So, guess we need to answer these questions then before your statement can either be proven or disproved with any degree of factual, identifiable, statistic backed, reported evidence. Anything else is anecdotal at best.Spoken like someone on welfare from a broken home with a dangerous propensity for mass violence like all people from welfare and broken homes
Because that propped up mental image is entirely within the purpose of that speech's rhetoric
The vast majority of violence in Chicago is gang and drug related. It's not common law abiding folks who can't find a gun to protect themselves with being killed by clever armed criminals. That point is another silly talking point that really makes no sense the more you think about it.
This is what I mean though. It is a complicated discussion, that requires time and thought. Not some ass running through all his talking points without anybody to discuss the obvious holes with.
This is the main problem with the Left on this subject. It isn't you as an individual, and I don't mean to come off as insulting. You are so ill informed about the subject at hand that you think I'm creating strawmen. There are only two types of people who sell at gun shows, FFL licensed firearms dealers who make up the majority of gun show business, and a few private citizens. If you buy a gun from an FFL dealer, he is legally required to run a background check on you. He is legally required to ensure you are not a felon. Private citizens can't sell a firearm to someone they suspect may use it in the commission of a crime. If that firearm is used in the comission of a crime, (recovered by the Police) it can easily be tracked to the purchaser. He then has to explain, and can be held legally responsible in some cases, for that firearm. If he sold it, though not legally required to have an official record of it, he has to know who he sold it to, and so on down the line.
So you have criminals going around the law and regular folks disarmed, in that case he has a point. You want more people with guns and criminals without guns.