Discussion in 'The War Room' started by BearGrounds, Mar 7, 2018.
Lol how could you even strawman what he said into blaming planned parenthood for gun violence?
Indeed, he comes across as a complete moron
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 said something that doesn't reinforce with the Donohue–Levitt hypothesis - no wonder so many jimmies are being rustled.
You can't ever fuck with Freakonomics.
And when it's then traced to the person who bought it originally that person is guilty of a felony....
Army special forces and you're calling him a pussy because he believes in the 2nd amendment? What the hell is wrong with you?
Do we refuse to address Chrystal Meth, since you know, there are meth labs all over the place and the ingredients are available?
If you are unwilling to properly learn how to use your gun and take an exam to prove it, then you do not deserve to have a gun.
I don't think these politicians are all morons (some are), I just think that they recognize that their base is full of morons or people willing to act like morons to defend things that they like.
What is the motivation for a politician to speak on complex issues? Most voters do not want to hear anything complex, they want you recite their talking points for them. That's all.
Why is it that the vast majority of those firearms commit no crimes until they arrive at gun control "Utopias" like Chicago?
It's more convenient for these major cities to blame their problem on other people, then to have to address their own problem:
The people of Chicago's problem is that it appears their fellow Chicagoans want them dead. Their fellow Chicagoans are willing to violate any law that they put in place in order to make that a reality.
The people of those larger cities would like to blame their ills on those other communities far far away, rather than address why cities like Chicago have a seemingly baked in demand for crime guns.
Only you are responsible for your safety.
That's a basic axiomatic truth. No matter how much you don't like it, or home much you wish it wasn't so, that's the basic truth.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that the police are under no obligation to protect you.
So "Only you are responsible for your safety" isn't only a moral truth, but it's also codified into legal system of our secular Democracy.
Since you made the assertion, would you care to list how many mass shooters that don't come from broken homes?
If you find yourself either unable or unwilling to do it, then you really have to withdraw your statement.
No, he brought up atrocities commited by the Democratic party. Big difference.
Due to its disarmed population, Britain has to deal with several-fold more hot burglaries (burglaries where the occupants of the home are currently inside the house) than those in the United States.
By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleckdetermined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)
Source: Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.
The fact that Britain has a hot burglary rate of 45%, while the United States has a hot burglary rate of just under 13% shows the deterrent that an armed population can provide.
Here's is an excerpt from a study of Pennsylvania convicted burglars describing why they decided not to commit hot burglaries in the United States:
In studies involving interviews of felons, one of the reasons the majority of burglars try to avoid occupied homes is the chance of getting shot. (Increasing the odds of arrest is another.) A study of Pennsylvania burglary inmates reported that many burglars refrain from late-night burglaries because it's hard to tell if anyone is home, several explaining "That's the way to get shot." (Rengert G. and Wasilchick J., Suburban Burglary: A Time and a Place for Everything, 1985, Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas.)
Glad I could provide for you a study proving the deterrent factor of firearms.
...because that's where the gangs are.
This is all just nonsense. Cities are not blaming all of their problems on other places. On this one single point, the fact is that the guns in Chicago are not purchased in Chicago, and often are not even purchased in the state of Illonois. That is the statement here, and it is a fact.
James Holmes? Dylan Klebold? Eric Harris?
For what purpose?
Several people have completed missed this line.
So you completely ignored the part where he indicated he is open to discussion if both parties come from one of mutual respect?
Not sure if you’re just some troll I haven’t noticed before or you’re a genuine retard relying on your carer to log you in each week but your example there is a great one for why gun control doesn’t work. Oh just ban them all in America? what about the ones bought over the border from Mexico, which has strict gun laws? They’ll just buy them from Mexico and use them in cities with gun control.
You are a special kind of moron thanks for the laugh
You realize by "gun free zone" that applies to anyone but law enforcement don't you?
Talk about obvious hack-political point . . . there are gun control laws in place all across the US . . . some are less restrictive than others.
Way to completely miss the part where he asks for open discussion between all sides with some level of mutual respect . . . he's actually pointing out how those previous discussions were disingenuous and fruitless.
I own guns, I'm obviously not in favor of banning them all in America.
I can't believe you would stroll in here calling people "retards", Lol.
Gun free zones are obviously not gun free if there is paid security armed with firearms present. That seems like a misnomer if there ever was one.
But if that is how we are defining gun-free, then what is the alternative? Who is supposed to have firearms in a school building, besides the paid police officer?
The talking point is always that people attack places that are "gun free zones" because people can't defend themselves. How can they make that point without acknowledging the armed security?
I know, I am talking about varying levels of gun control. I'm sorry if that was not clear, I'm responding to about 5 different people at a time whenever I have a minute to do so.
He asks for an open discussion with mutual respect after laying out all of his talking points while ignoring all of the rebuttals that have already been made, and bringing up atrocities committed 100 years ago by Democrats. He also randomly brings up abortion?
Do you think that is the appropriate way of opening up a respectful discussion?
Because every gun free zone doesn't have armed security . . . some do, but not all. Makes the response time a big issue.
I think he was simply trying to make a point about how people immediately start blaming the NRA and similar organizations but completely ignore their own issues. Everyone of us does that on some level.
I think he said what needed to be said . . . and I have to take him at his word about the respectful discussion. Which hopefully happens next without all of the vitriol and hyperbole.
It's about where I stopped reading.
He starts off as though he has honest intentions then reels off a bunch of bullshit partisan talking points.
You guys don't need a debate, you need to repeal the dickey amendment and task the CDC with studying the various data to come up with bipartisan approaches to reducing the gun violence in America.
A hell of a lot of it wouldn't be even related to guns...
Simple one: more money for suicide prevention ( vast majority of gun deaths)
From what I understand the national body that investigates illegal sales of guns was reduced by 150 people not long ago.
Crazy idea but try funding the governing body that's in charge of putting black market gun sellers behind bars.
I think almost every public space that has hundreds of people should have armed security. Movie theaters, schools, malls, restaurant parks, etc. Most places that are considered "gun free zones" don't even advertise that.
For example, there is a mall near me that if you search their website you will find one line in the guidelines that says, "Firearms restricted on mall property."
Does anybody actually read that? Does anybody care? If you carried a concealed weapon in the mall, nobody would know. If anybody found out, you'd only be breaking mall rules and be asked to leave.
I really think the whole "gun free zones" thing is overplayed in a way. I can't imagine that anybody with a concealed weapon permit is looking through a movie theater's website to find out if they allow weapons on property. The weapon is concealed for a reason.
I think part of the problem is that most politicians are put in a situation where grandstanding is their only option.
I'd like to see this guy debate this topic with somebody who is not an imbecile from the Democratic party (however hard that will be to find), to discuss real ways to address the issues. But I think it will be hard to find a Democrat who is willing to be honest and not pander to the more anti-gun base, and it will be hard to find a Republican who is willing to be honest and not pander to the pro-gun base.
Separate names with a comma.