Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Guns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by CardiacCoug View Post
    Agreed that guns aren't going away and that although most gun owners are responsible there are a lot that aren't. I talked to a guy a few weeks ago who said something like "Hell no I don't lock my guns up because what good is it if I need it quickly and it's locked up?" At the same time I think it's ridiculous for people who live and work in very safe environments to tell people who unfortunately have to live and/or work in much less safe environments that they can't defend themselves.

    To me the better point to be made out of this horrible tragedy and also the shooting of Gabby Giffords and others in Arizona is that we've got to improve mental health services in this country and find a better way to keep mentally disturbed people who haven't yet committed crimes from getting guns.
    Bingo.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by All-American View Post
      Thousand dollar tax on each abortion. That's the solution. (It will save more lives, too.)
      I'm OK with that if all the tax dollars go toward handing out free birth control on every street corner.
      That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

      http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
        Thousand-dollar tax on each bullet. That's the solution. Make bullets a luxury. And no one would mind spending 1000 dollars on a bullet if they are really defending their lives. In fact, the government could give a tax break if someone actually has to expend bullets while using their gun in self-defense.
        While you are at it you might as well advocate bringing back prohibition, the "noble experiment" that was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption and to solve social problems in America. As you may know, prohibition was a huge failure and simply made the problems it was attempting to solve worse. Your huge tax on bullets would most likely just create a new black market for criminals to exploit and more open killing fields (aka. "gun free zones") where only the criminals have guns. Of course, the government could try to control this bullet black market. In that case, I suspect your idea would work about as well as the war on drugs with similar costs to fight.
        "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
        "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
        "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
        GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Uncle Ted View Post
          While you are at it you might as well advocate bringing back prohibition, the "noble experiment" that was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption and to solve social problems in America. As you may know, prohibition was a huge failure and simply made the problems it was attempting to solve worse. Your huge tax on bullets would most likely just create a new black market for criminals to exploit and more open killing fields (aka. "gun free zones") where only the criminals have guns. Of course, the government could try to control this bullet black market. In that case, I suspect your idea would work about as well as the war on drugs with similar costs to fight.
          There are even simpler reasons why a thousand dollar tax on bullets (or abortions) is a silly idea. There are any number of restrictions we can tolerate so long as they advance important purposes, but you can't place a restriction on the exercise of a constitutional right when the sole purpose of the restriction is to prevent the exercise of that right.
          τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
            Thousand-dollar tax on each bullet. That's the solution. Make bullets a luxury. And no one would mind spending 1000 dollars on a bullet if they are really defending their lives. In fact, the government could give a tax break if someone actually has to expend bullets while using their gun in self-defense.
            [youtube]OuX-nFmL0II[/youtube]

            Comment


            • #21
              As if Republicans didn't already have enough self-inflicted wounds being on the wrong side of every other social issue, now this.

              http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...?smid=pl-share
              When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

              --Jonathan Swift

              Comment


              • #22
                Comparisons with Western Europe's low murder by gunfire rate are skewed because we are a multi-cultural post-colonial Empire nation.
                "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by wuapinmon View Post
                  Comparisons with Western Europe's low murder by gunfire rate are skewed because we are a multi-cultural post-colonial Empire nation.
                  Western European countries are multi-cultural. They are very culturally diverse.

                  Also, your comment that multi-culturalism leads to more domestic violence is offensive.

                  What a moranic comment.
                  When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                  --Jonathan Swift

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by SeattleUte View Post
                    Western European countries are multi-cultural. They are very culturally diverse. What a moranic comment.
                    I've been all over Western Europe, more than once. They have nothing approaching our level of mutli-culturalism. We are the most diverse nation on the friggin' planet AND we're post-colonial AND we're Empire. Having a few hundred thousand former colonials doesn't equate with having a community from every single nation on the earth, with being an Anglo-Saxon realm that's also the third most populous Spanish-speaking country in the world.

                    Your definition of multi-cultural and mine do not match up; don't get personally insulting.

                    [YOUTUBE]bVOPRCnc8r4[/YOUTUBE]
                    "Yeah, but never trust a Ph.D who has an MBA as well. The PhD symbolizes intelligence and discipline. The MBA symbolizes lust for power." -- Katy Lied

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SoonerCoug View Post
                      Wrong. Gun ownership correlates with successful suicide--not to mention accidents. You're right that it doesn't correlate with murder rate.
                      So I was not wrong, but right. You and I agree. I said "And the evidence doesn't seem to support the idea that taking them away makes us safer." Successful suicide rates have no effect on my, your, our safety.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Jacob View Post
                        So I was not wrong, but right. You and I agree. I said "And the evidence doesn't seem to support the idea that taking them away makes us safer." Successful suicide rates have no effect on my, your, our safety.
                        Major depression is a common enough problem that guns are still a huge safety issue for society in general.

                        The psychological and societal effects of mass shootings also shouldn't be disregarded, even if they don't have a big effect on the murder rate nationally.
                        That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. -C. Hitchens

                        http://twitter.com/SoonerCoug

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I feel like I'm up in the air on this issue. I'm not anxious to take anyones guns. But I also think that the utility of weapons that can unload a lot of ammunition in a short amount of time (so basically anything that is not a double barrel shotgun or bolt action and holds just a few rounds) is very, very low. And most of the justifications for them would apply equally to saren gas. I wonder where the middle ground is.

                          I think I'm also ready to say that while, again, I would never want to see all guns outlawed. I don't think the rationale behind the second amendment much exists in 2012.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by UtahDan View Post
                            I feel like I'm up in the air on this issue. I'm not anxious to take anyones guns. But I also think that the utility of weapons that can unload a lot of ammunition in a short amount of time (so basically anything that is not a double barrel shotgun or bolt action and holds just a few rounds) is very, very low. And most of the justifications for them would apply equally to saren gas. I wonder where the middle ground is.

                            I think I'm also ready to say that while, again, I would never want to see all guns outlawed. I don't think the rationale behind the second amendment much exists in 2012.
                            Why does the utility matter? Either banning them will increase our collective security or it won't. I am less than convinced it will, and IMO the burden of proof is on those who want the government to further regulate/control these things to prove that such action will lead to the intended benefit. Not to sit here and argue about the utility of the damn things. The issue, to at least me, boils down to whether or not somebody can convince me that a somewhat free society giving up a freedom, and admittedly not a freedom I am particularly inclined to exercise, will provide me the security promised and is worth that loss. It reminds me of the same mentality that led to the Patriot Act.
                            Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
                            -General George S. Patton

                            I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
                            -DOCTOR Wuap

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
                              Why does the utility matter? Either banning them will increase our collective security or it won't. I am less than convinced it will, and IMO the burden of proof is on those who want the government to further regulate/control these things to prove that such action will lead to the intended benefit. Not to sit here and argue about the utility of the damn things. The issue, to at least me, boils down to whether or not somebody can convince me that a somewhat free society giving up a freedom, and admittedly not a freedom I am particularly inclined to exercise, will provide me the security promised and is worth that loss. It reminds me of the same mentality that led to the Patriot Act.
                              Agreed.

                              Almost all mass killings have happend in sitting duck gun free zones. Gun free zones have been a spectacular failure in reducing gun violence. It's time to re-look at that, rather than depriving us of our liberties.

                              And for UD, a well-armed populace is the ultimate check on government tyranny. I'd say the 2A is more appropriate than ever.
                              Last edited by venkman; 12-18-2012, 12:28 PM.
                              "Remember to double tap"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The British have no gun rights. They are not allowed to carry knives either.

                                They still have a lot of people getting shot and stabbed though.

                                For years now, they have considered legislation to ban long kitchen knives due to all the stabbings.

                                http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

                                They probably need to consider banning forks and rocks too.
                                Last edited by Devildog; 12-18-2012, 12:34 PM.
                                "We should remember that one man is much the same as another, and that he is best who is trained in the severest school."
                                -Thucydides

                                "Study strategy over the years and achieve the spirit of the warrior. Today is victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men."
                                -Miyamoto Musashi

                                Si vis pacem, para bellum

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X