Guns

[SciFiAuthor]

I've always wondered why the question of gun control is even asked. The amount of guns per capita in the US is 89 per 100 people. Compare that to a warzone like Afghanistan, which is 4.6 per 100. You can't control that or even compare it to any other western country before they enacted their own gun laws. And what are we going to do? Write some laws so a healthy black market can develop? Well, when has that ever been combatable? Look at the pot black market.

Guns in the US are a fact of life. They can neither be controlled nor confiscated nor effectively tracked. They kill way less than our automobiles do and it's a flat out miracle that we have as LOW a rate of gun crime as we do given the numbers. Gun problems are cultural, and if you really want to solve them, then you should aim at the culture. But all we've done is make culture untouchable as an issue. Well, that makes it impossible to solve the problem, so we should just accept it, just like we accept horrific automobile death numbers without missing a step. Or motorcycles? In a climate where we seem to value safety and health above anything else, why the holy Jesus fuck haven't we illegalized those rampant death machines? It's because cultural whim says not to.

What's really going on is that we're obsessed in the US with stupid fucking causes that have more to do with fashionability than anything else. Instead of a 'what will be, will be' attitude about life, we have this certain percentage of people that obsess over making someone else alter their lifestyle. Thou shalt not smoke--because I don't like it. Thou shalt not have a gun--because I want to feel good for having banned them while I sip a latte in Starbucks and pat myself on the back for successfully intruding on everyone else's lives. Thou shalt have health insurance--because I say so. Thou shalt not eat transfat, thou shalt not drink more than X milliliters of pepsi, etc. etc. etc.

How about we instead encourage people to look up transfats or Edison lightbulbs or cigarettes and decide for themselves if they want to use them or not?

The best possible thing that could happen in the US is if we dropped this attitude that we MUST butt into each other's lives just so we can feel good about ourselves and our activism. The moment that happens, this would be America again instead of the degrading litigious rule-ridden over-criminalized shithole that's going to land us all in poverty when we get old that it currently is.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

The study also omits people that were shot and not killed.

[onan]

I've always wondered why the question of gun control is even asked. The amount of guns per capita in the US is 89 per 100 people. Compare that to a warzone like Afghanistan, which is 4.6 per 100. You can't control that or even compare it to any other western country before they enacted their own gun laws. And what are we going to do? Write some laws so a healthy black market can develop? Well, when has that ever been combatable? Look at the pot black market.

Guns in the US are a fact of life. They can neither be controlled nor confiscated nor effectively tracked. They kill way less than our automobiles do and it's a flat out miracle that we have as LOW a rate of gun crime as we do given the numbers. Gun problems are cultural, and if you really want to solve them, then you should aim at the culture. But all we've done is make culture untouchable as an issue. Well, that makes it impossible to solve the problem, so we should just accept it, just like we accept horrific automobile death numbers without missing a step. Or motorcycles? In a climate where we seem to value safety and health above anything else, why the holy Jesus fuck haven't we illegalized those rampant death machines? It's because cultural whim says not to.

What's really going on is that we're obsessed in the US with stupid fucking causes that have more to do with fashionability than anything else. Instead of a 'what will be, will be' attitude about life, we have this certain percentage of people that obsess over making someone else alter their lifestyle. Thou shalt not smoke--because I don't like it. Thou shalt not have a gun--because I want to feel good for having banned them while I sip a latte in Starbucks and pat myself on the back for successfully intruding on everyone else's lives. Thou shalt have health insurance--because I say so. Thou shalt not eat transfat, thou shalt not drink more than X milliliters of pepsi, etc. etc. etc.

How about we instead encourage people to look up transfats or Edison lightbulbs or cigarettes and decide for themselves if they want to use them or not?

The best possible thing that could happen in the US is if we dropped this attitude that we MUST butt into each other's lives just so we can feel good about ourselves and our activism. The moment that happens, this would be America again instead of the degrading litigious rule-ridden over-criminalized shithole that's going to land us all in poverty when we get old that it currently is.

The gun control question is asked, like other issues, because we live in a free society that wishes to discuss the subject. It is just a fact of life that someone isn't going to be comfortable while another is comfortable. That isn't rocket science. It does seem wearisome to those that don't want to talk about the issue.

To some, and I do see the merit, the public health issue with gun related deaths is a perfectly good discussion to have, and keep having until the number of deaths by guns are more in line with other countries. To suggest that there are other issues that cause death does in no way take this issue off the table.

Live and let live is all good until it isn't. Part of social responsibility and the democratic process it to engage in conversation, not quell it. To even suggest smoking as a health hazard is merely a "fashionable" position is boggling. But to guns and gun deaths, there will continue to be debates until there are no more senseless acts of violent murders, count on a continued discussion.

[Quick Karl]

Thou shalt not have a gun--because I want to feel good for having banned them while I sip a latte in Starbucks and pat myself on the back for successfully intruding on everyone else's lives. Thou shalt have health insurance--because I say so. Thou shalt not eat transfat, thou shalt not drink more than X milliliters of pepsi, etc. etc. etc.

There, in a nut shell, is the cause for 95% of the turmoil in America.

[Quick Karl]

...there will continue to be debates until there are no more senseless acts of violent murders.

Yeah, that'll happen.

For the first 200-years of this country's existence people seemed far more capable of controlling their impulses - now, suddenly, as if like magic, in the last 38-years, guns developed minds of their own and need to be CONTROLLED.

Meanwhile, the hysterics crowd is scared to death to have one of them open, intellectual-like discussions, on the REAL reasons for the decline in civility - social engineering policies based on childhood fairytales.

[NowhereInTime]

I've always wondered why the question of gun control is even asked. The amount of guns per capita in the US is 89 per 100 people. Compare that to a warzone like Afghanistan, which is 4.6 per 100. You can't control that or even compare it to any other western country before they enacted their own gun laws. And what are we going to do? Write some laws so a healthy black market can develop? Well, when has that ever been combatable? Look at the pot black market.

Guns in the US are a fact of life. They can neither be controlled nor confiscated nor effectively tracked. They kill way less than our automobiles do and it's a flat out miracle that we have as LOW a rate of gun crime as we do given the numbers. Gun problems are cultural, and if you really want to solve them, then you should aim at the culture. But all we've done is make culture untouchable as an issue. Well, that makes it impossible to solve the problem, so we should just accept it, just like we accept horrific automobile death numbers without missing a step. Or motorcycles? In a climate where we seem to value safety and health above anything else, why the holy Jesus fuck haven't we illegalized those rampant death machines? It's because cultural whim says not to.

What's really going on is that we're obsessed in the US with stupid fucking causes that have more to do with fashionability than anything else. Instead of a 'what will be, will be' attitude about life, we have this certain percentage of people that obsess over making someone else alter their lifestyle. Thou shalt not smoke--because I don't like it. Thou shalt not have a gun--because I want to feel good for having banned them while I sip a latte in Starbucks and pat myself on the back for successfully intruding on everyone else's lives. Thou shalt have health insurance--because I say so. Thou shalt not eat transfat, thou shalt not drink more than X milliliters of pepsi, etc. etc. etc.

How about we instead encourage people to look up transfats or Edison lightbulbs or cigarettes and decide for themselves if they want to use them or not?

The best possible thing that could happen in the US is if we dropped this attitude that we MUST butt into each other's lives just so we can feel good about ourselves and our activism. The moment that happens, this would be America again instead of the degrading litigious rule-ridden over-criminalized shithole that's going to land us all in poverty when we get old that it currently is.

The fundamental flaw is that you assume that this is about someone else telling you what you can or cannot do. The behavior you speak of regards how it impacts others.  Too often you conservatives feel you should be able to make any decision you want, consequences be damned.
"I want to smoke!"  Ok, fine, but not in a public place (like a bar or restaurant) where your habit places others at risk . "If they don't like it,  they should seek employment elsewhere!" - well now you requiring someone else to accommodate you.
Conservatives never understand that it isn't about the primacy of You.   How about when you get emphysema or cancer from smoking? Should fellow insurance customers (assuming adequate coverage) have to bear the costs of your treatment for a useless, destructive habit?
Same goes to any behavior that can impact others.  "I want to buy a .50 caliber rifle!" For Heaven's sake why? Do you plan to shoot a T-72? Why should society have to accommodate your request?
People pillory Mike Bloomberg as the Nanny but look at the numbers in New York.  Crime, especially homicide,  way down and smoking rates are lowest in decades. Really,  at what sacrifice?

[Little Hater]

I've always wondered why the question of gun control is even asked. The amount of guns per capita in the US is 89 per 100 people. Compare that to a warzone like Afghanistan, which is 4.6 per 100. You can't control that or even compare it to any other western country before they enacted their own gun laws. And what are we going to do? Write some laws so a healthy black market can develop? Well, when has that ever been combatable? Look at the pot black market.

Guns in the US are a fact of life. They can neither be controlled nor confiscated nor effectively tracked. They kill way less than our automobiles do and it's a flat out miracle that we have as LOW a rate of gun crime as we do given the numbers. Gun problems are cultural, and if you really want to solve them, then you should aim at the culture. But all we've done is make culture untouchable as an issue. Well, that makes it impossible to solve the problem, so we should just accept it, just like we accept horrific automobile death numbers without missing a step. Or motorcycles? In a climate where we seem to value safety and health above anything else, why the holy Jesus fuck haven't we illegalized those rampant death machines? It's because cultural whim says not to.

What's really going on is that we're obsessed in the US with stupid fucking causes that have more to do with fashionability than anything else. Instead of a 'what will be, will be' attitude about life, we have this certain percentage of people that obsess over making someone else alter their lifestyle. Thou shalt not smoke--because I don't like it. Thou shalt not have a gun--because I want to feel good for having banned them while I sip a latte in Starbucks and pat myself on the back for successfully intruding on everyone else's lives. Thou shalt have health insurance--because I say so. Thou shalt not eat transfat, thou shalt not drink more than X milliliters of pepsi, etc. etc. etc.

How about we instead encourage people to look up transfats or Edison lightbulbs or cigarettes and decide for themselves if they want to use them or not?

The best possible thing that could happen in the US is if we dropped this attitude that we MUST butt into each other's lives just so we can feel good about ourselves and our activism. The moment that happens, this would be America again instead of the degrading litigious rule-ridden over-criminalized shithole that's going to land us all in poverty when we get old that it currently is.

Advocating for freedom and liberty in the BellGab Politics forum? Jesus, don't you take enough shit for your half-hearted defense of Noory?

[Quick Karl]

Advocating for freedom and liberty in the BellGab Politics forum? Jesus, don't you take enough shit for your half-hearted defense of Noory?

Man you are going to get it now - you uttered the word Jesus! Don't you know that, according to a few folks on this forum, Jesus is the cause for everything that is wrong in the world?

[onan]

Yeah, that'll happen.

For the first 200-years of this country's existence people seemed far more capable of controlling their impulses - now, suddenly, as if like magic, in the last 38-years, guns developed minds of their own and need to be CONTROLLED.

Meanwhile, the hysterics crowd is scared to death to have one of them open, intellectual-like discussions, on the REAL reasons for the decline in civility - social engineering policies based on childhood fairytales.

I didn't say you would like it. But you can expect it. Freedom of speech and all that.

I have been a gun owner for more than 45+ years. No one has ever asked me to give any of them up.
I agree the decline in civility has or at least seems to be more of a concern. Just take note of this or other threads in the politics section.

[Quick Karl]

I agree the decline in civility has or at least seems to be more of a concern. Just take note of this or other threads in the politics section.

That works both ways.

[Yorkshire pud]

Man you are going to get it now - you uttered the word Jesus! Don't you know that, according to a few folks on this forum, Jesus is the cause for everything that is wrong in the world?

Oh that's disingenuous claptrap. Jesus isn't the cause for everything wrong in the world at all. I'm an atheist so have no axe to grind with any religion against another. No; what's wrong with religion is the perverse why it's used to ensure compliance. The way that the threat of eternal damnation (often on children!) is inflicted to make damn sure that those who are subject to it, will do as they're told. Or else.
Meanwhile in the USA you have entire channels dedicated to excreting money from the exploitable in a very un-Christian manner to ensure the fiscal solvency of charlatans who 'praise the lord'. Bollox. They're crooks. They should be taken out and tried for larceny.

You keep spouting about how you detest being told what you should or shouldn't do; yet never say a thing against anyone who might mention they live by the bible (including your supplier of duck callers-Phil the beard)..If he or anyone lived by the testaments, we'd have executions on a daily basis. We'd have slavery as a way of life, we'd have women killed for not wanting to be raped.

You need to decide what 'rules' you want before denouncing them in full.

[Quick Karl]

... what's wrong with religion is the perverse why it's used to ensure compliance. The way that the threat of eternal damnation (often on children!) is inflicted to make damn sure that those who are subject to it, will do as they're told. Or else.

You just described your religion of socialism - did you forget your Xanax this morning?

[Yorkshire pud]

You just described your religion of socialism - did you forget your Xanax this morning?

Jesus was a socialist. What does that make you? I've no idea what Xanax is, presumably some pharmaceutical product. Starting with X is a giveaway.

Incidentally; you haven't qualified the OP with anything to back it up. I think you're losing your way Karl...still;, when you move to SC and go and march on DC with your new buddies you'll be shown. Take stout walking boots, you don't want blisters.

[Quick Karl]

Jesus was a socialist.

You trying to co-opt the teachings of Jesus to support your hatred? Maybe you should start reading the Bible, Nancy.

[Yorkshire pud]

You trying to co-opt the teachings of Jesus to support your hatred? Maybe you should start reading the Bible, Nancy.

Hatred? I haven't hated anything in my life. Where did Jesus mention anything? Please point to where there is a direct quote. You clearly haven't read it that closely.

But he was a socialist; Put it this way, he wasn't a conservative capitalist.

Quack quack.

[RealCool Daddio]

... - social engineering policies based on childhood fairytales.

You mean the bible and it's followers,like the dude in your avatar? 

[SciFiAuthor]

The gun control question is asked, like other issues, because we live in a free society that wishes to discuss the subject. It is just a fact of life that someone isn't going to be comfortable while another is comfortable. That isn't rocket science. It does seem wearisome to those that don't want to talk about the issue.

To some, and I do see the merit, the public health issue with gun related deaths is a perfectly good discussion to have, and keep having until the number of deaths by guns are more in line with other countries. To suggest that there are other issues that cause death does in no way take this issue off the table.

Live and let live is all good until it isn't. Part of social responsibility and the democratic process it to engage in conversation, not quell it. To even suggest smoking as a health hazard is merely a "fashionable" position is boggling. But to guns and gun deaths, there will continue to be debates until there are no more senseless acts of violent murders, count on a continued discussion.

No, it's asked because some talking head jackass on the left made it fashionable to talk about as a social wedge issue at some point. That's really what it comes down to. If we're willing to put so much emphasis on one form of death, such as gun death, yet totally ignore automobile deaths--which are greater in number and a more solvable problem--then it reveals that our priorities are screwy. Why do we spend so little money, comparatively, on heart disease research as opposed to AIDS research? It's because of the underlying wedge social issues driving the allocation of money. You should know about that one. What do we do for schizophrenics? Well, we let them wander around untreated until they hurt someone. Other than that they freeze to death or whatnot despite having a treatable illness. What do we do for smokers? Beat the ever living shit out of them with restrictions, taxes, public health warnings, penalties, laws over a lung cancer rate that really isn't all that high in comparison to that of consuming processed foods.

Why do we want everyone to live to 90 anyway? Why is public health, as a social responsibility, a question of making everyone live long enough to be gripped by Alzheimer's and old age infirmities? We ceaselessly attack the smokers, and now even the e-smokers, taking their enjoyment away more and more, while we promote legalized pot smoking (which contains fundamentally the same carcinogens) and even call it a medicine. Why is it a tragedy when someone drops dead at 45 from a heart attack because they ate too much bacon? The natural human lifespan is 35 in nature. Why is our response, invariably, a lobby to take everyone's bacon away?

The rational consistency just isn't there, and it's because our discourse is handed to us complete with talking points by the media. We're told what to discuss and how to do it. I'd be fine with all of this if we had all ideas flowing into it, but we don't, we have the Huffington Post and Sean Hannity's ideas and priorities, and we just parrot away and write legislation over it without ever asking the underlying questions that created the issue in the first place.

If we really wanted to solve gun violence, we'd ask why that violence is occurring. That question is out of bounds in the public discourse, so we just pick the next best thing and talk about gun control as though we can come anywhere close to anything resembling Britain. We are culturally not the same, therefore we cannot be them. 

[FallenSeraph]

Once when I was living in Mesa, Ariz., a sound woke me up in the middle of the night. It took me a minute to figure out that the sound was someone messing with the door to my apartment. I looked out the peephole and saw a creepy-looking guy trying to pick my lock at 2 a.m. I grabbed my phone, called 911, flipped on my porch light and screamed at the guy that I was on the phone with the cops. Instead of leaving, he started body-slamming my door as hard as he could, trying to break it down.

The 911 operator told me to stay on the phone with her but find somewhere in the apartment to hide or to go lock myself in the room farthest from the door (my master bathroom). Sheeezus it was horrible. I kept thinking, "If that guy gets through the door, I'm dead." He didn't get through the door. He ran when the cops showed up and they caught him.

Ten years later, I still replay that scene in my head sometimes. In the new version in my head, instead of freaking out with the worst fear I've ever experienced in my life, I'm sitting calmly on my couch across from the door with a gun pointed at it and pulling the trigger when he busts through it.

I like guns now, albeit accompanied by permits, classes and regular practice at shooting ranges.

That's really all I have to say about guns. You think differently about them when some crazed psycho is trying to break in your apartment in the middle of the night and you have absolutely nothing to protect you and the best a 911 operator can say is "hide."

[SciFiAuthor]

The fundamental flaw is that you assume that this is about someone else telling you what you can or cannot do. The behavior you speak of regards how it impacts others.  Too often you conservatives feel you should be able to make any decision you want, consequences be damned.
"I want to smoke!"  Ok, fine, but not in a public place (like a bar or restaurant) where your habit places others at risk . "If they don't like it,  they should seek employment elsewhere!" - well now you requiring someone else to accommodate you.
Conservatives never understand that it isn't about the primacy of You.   How about when you get emphysema or cancer from smoking? Should fellow insurance customers (assuming adequate coverage) have to bear the costs of your treatment for a useless, destructive habit?
Same goes to any behavior that can impact others.  "I want to buy a .50 caliber rifle!" For Heaven's sake why? Do you plan to shoot a T-72? Why should society have to accommodate your request?
People pillory Mike Bloomberg as the Nanny but look at the numbers in New York.  Crime, especially homicide,  way down and smoking rates are lowest in decades. Really,  at what sacrifice?

Well, first of all, I'm not a conservative. I'm a pragmatist and I'm fully capable of going a hundred times more progressive than a liberal can--but only if the idea will work. I simply don't believe in approaching a problem with a hammer when you really need a wrench. We need to be asking why people are shooting each other. We don't, because part of that would involve the motivations behind inner city crime and violent video games and other taboo subjects. Instead we're interested in superficially mitigating the problem with some law or another so we can feel good about ourselves. That's neither a solution, nor effective. It's just liberals sipping their lattes patting themselves on the back for foisting some bullshit on someone else while the gun deaths continue away with formerly legal guns.

The smokers are hit with far more than just non-smoking establishments. They're hit with penalties to discourage smoking created by people that want to foist their views on other people. Don't believe me? Light a cigarette in a tobacco store and see if a guy with a gun doesn't show up and arrest and fine you regardless of the views of the owner of the tobacco store. Yet the same people that would vote cigarette smokers out of existence would consider someone a hero for sparking up a joint in a government building "in protest" of marijuana laws. That's fundamentally consistent thinking?

Ok, so if we're willing to restrict smoking on the basis of insurance costs, and we're willing to make a bar a non-smoking establishment (but not a casino) even though it's inherently damaging to the profitability of the bar, then can we do the same for pot smoking? It's the same carcinogens. It's going to be found that pot smoke causes lung cancer as the proper research is done. But will it be ok, on the left, for an insurance company to raise the rates of pot smokers? You can bet your ass it won't be ok.

How many people were killed last year with 50-calibre rifles? None. It's not likely to ever exist as a problem because they're huge, expensive and impractical. So . . . you want to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Why?

[Quick Karl]

Hatred? I haven't hated anything in my life. Where did Jesus mention anything? Please point to where there is a direct quote. You clearly haven't read it that closely.

But he was a socialist; Put it this way, he wasn't a conservative capitalist.

Quack quack.

I really, really try, to be nice, but when I read fucking stupid comments like this, it's really hard to do.

Some fucking blistering moron douche bag that bashes Christianity at every fucking opportunity - probably because daddy wanted you to grow up and be a man and you couldn't and daddy went to church so Christianity is evil -, and you come on here and make the absurd statement that Jesus was a socialist because he preached goodness (something you lack unless bullshit counts), to try like an emotionally stunted child, to justify your whimsical and clueless blathering against America and Constitutional principles.

You fucking make me sick.

[SciFiAuthor]

Advocating for freedom and liberty in the BellGab Politics forum? Jesus, don't you take enough shit for your half-hearted defense of Noory?

LOL. What can I say, I'm an intellectual masochist. But that's only because I'm usually right.

[onan]

No, it's asked because some talking head jackass on the left made it fashionable to talk about as a social wedge issue at some point. That's really what it comes down to. If we're willing to put so much emphasis on one form of death, such as gun death, yet totally ignore automobile deaths--which are greater in number and a more solvable problem--then it reveals that our priorities are screwy. Why do we spend so little money, comparatively, on heart disease research as opposed to AIDS research? It's because of the underlying wedge social issues driving the allocation of money. You should know about that one. What do we do for schizophrenics? Well, we let them wander around untreated until they hurt someone. Other than that they freeze to death or whatnot despite having a treatable illness. What do we do for smokers? Beat the ever living shit out of them with restrictions, taxes, public health warnings, penalties, laws over a lung cancer rate that really isn't all that high in comparison to that of consuming processed foods.

Why do we want everyone to live to 90 anyway? Why is public health, as a social responsibility, a question of making everyone live long enough to be gripped by Alzheimer's and old age infirmities? We ceaselessly attack the smokers, and now even the e-smokers, taking their enjoyment away more and more, while we promote legalized pot smoking (which contains fundamentally the same carcinogens) and even call it a medicine. Why is it a tragedy when someone drops dead at 45 from a heart attack because they ate too much bacon? The natural human lifespan is 35 in nature. Why is our response, invariably, a lobby to take everyone's bacon away?

The rational consistency just isn't there, and it's because our discourse is handed to us complete with talking points by the media. We're told what to discuss and how to do it. I'd be fine with all of this if we had all ideas flowing into it, but we don't, we have the Huffington Post and Sean Hannity's ideas and priorities, and we just parrot away and write legislation over it without ever asking the underlying questions that created the issue in the first place.

If we really wanted to solve gun violence, we'd ask why that violence is occurring. That question is out of bounds in the public discourse, so we just pick the next best thing and talk about gun control as though we can come anywhere close to anything resembling Britain. We are culturally not the same, therefore we cannot be them.

You say potato.

Yeah, listen Scifi, everything you have posted has been said by me and others.

I get annoyed when anyone suggests they have the answer, if only others would listen to their wisdom.

Of course gun violence has other root causes. But don't dismiss the gun part.

Digging in with the mantra "from my cold dead hands" just makes you sound like a nut. Which ups the ante.

It is pretty obvious to me, you see only one side ratcheting up the rhetoric, which isn't the case. I prefer rational debate to talking points. You may not like the fact that some think firearms are more threat than benefit, but there are many that think that. And of course they are all stupid.

[b_dubb]

Arms control in America isn't even feasible at this point.  Guns are everywhere.  You would have an easier time disarming the populace of Iraq than you would America. 

I'm for requiring everyone to join the military at 18 where they'd learn gun safety and self defense.  Then everyone would get a sidearm when they were finished with their service.

But before you do that let me do two things: 1) buy stock in a mutual fund that invests in firearm manufacturers and 2) move to Europe.

I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic here.  I think so.  Maybe?

[Quick Karl]

Arms control in America isn't even feasible at this point.  Guns are everywhere.  You would have an easier time disarming the populace of Iraq than you would America. 

I'm for requiring everyone to join the military at 18 where they'd learn gun safety and self defense.  Then everyone would get a sidearm when they were finished with their service.

But before you do that let me do two things: 1) buy stock in a mutual fund that invests in firearm manufacturers and 2) move to Europe.

I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic here.  I think so.  Maybe?

I'm for the electric chair for any crime with a gun, and, I'm NOT being sarcastic.

[Ben Shockley]

Some fucking blistering moron douche bag that bashes Christianity at every fucking opportunity - probably because daddy wanted you to grow up and be a man and you couldn't and daddy went to church so Christianity is evil -, and you come on here and make the absurd statement that Jesus was a socialist because he preached goodness (something you lack unless bullshit counts), to try like an emotionally stunted child, to justify your whimsical and clueless blathering against America and Constitutional principles.
You fucking make me sick.

Didn't you claim to be a Jew before, Charlie?  Or do you claim whatever religion lets you act like Mr. Insulted Dignity at any moment?
Why don't you show us any passages from the supposed Jeshua Ben Josef -- you know: if that was his name-- that would suggest that he would not support a socialist economic system; or better yet, show us quotes that indicate that he would support modern capitalism OR the current platform of the U.S. Republican Party.  He was a little more specific that "just goodness," or didn't you get that at the Christian church that you --no doubt!-- so proudly went to with your daddy?
Or if you aren't the insulted Christian you want to look like in this last post, you might get your rabbi to help you, because rabbis (like "Jeshua") are known for mostly being right-wingers who study Heritage Foundation tracts as if they're the Talmud and can surely deconstruct all this dangerous, dangerous anti-capitalist nonsense before someone who believes it comes over to your hovel and does whatever you think they will do to you.
Right?

[DanTSX]

Guns are cool.

This is me shooting a submachine gun.  72 rounds out of Finnish drum mag.

Yes it's legal owned by an individual.

http://youtu.be/_D_5CFZWRd0

Freedom is scary sometimes.  But a SMG sure makes it easier to handle.

[NowhereInTime]

...We don't, because part of that would involve the motivations behind inner city crime and violent video games and other taboo subjects. Instead we're interested in superficially mitigating the problem with some law or another so we can feel good about ourselves. That's neither a solution, nor effective. It's just liberals sipping their lattes patting themselves on the back for foisting some bullshit on someone else while the gun deaths continue away with formerly legal guns.

The smokers are hit with far more than just non-smoking establishments. They're hit with penalties to discourage smoking created by people that want to foist their views on other people. Don't believe me? Light a cigarette in a tobacco store and see if a guy with a gun doesn't show up and arrest and fine you regardless of the views of the owner of the tobacco store. Yet the same people that would vote cigarette smokers out of existence would consider someone a hero for sparking up a joint in a government building "in protest" of marijuana laws. That's fundamentally consistent thinking?

Ok, so if we're willing to restrict smoking on the basis of insurance costs, and we're willing to make a bar a non-smoking establishment (but not a casino) even though it's inherently damaging to the profitability of the bar, then can we do the same for pot smoking? It's the same carcinogens. It's going to be found that pot smoke causes lung cancer as the proper research is done. But will it be ok, on the left, for an insurance company to raise the rates of pot smokers? You can bet your ass it won't be ok.

How many people were killed last year with 50-calibre rifles? None. It's not likely to ever exist as a problem because they're huge, expensive and impractical. So . . . you want to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Why?

Precisely because it does exist.  I am always fascinated by the response having something to do with "inner city" violence or something like that.  Paper*Boy is always on about that. I'm not talking about New Haven, I'm talking about Sandy Hook where today,  on my way home from my brother's I passed the firehouse next to what was the school adorned with 26 lighted angels. Newtown doesn't even plow Dickinson anymore. The school was in a cul de sac and it is completely razed.
Why did Nancy Lanza need an AR 15? Why does anyone? Why can't there be a reasoned set of what guns may be kept for hunting, target, and self defense?
Even though I am overall happy to see Bill DeBlasio become mayor of New York,  the police work of the NYPD (and stop and frisk) has cut the murders in a city of 8 million to less than 350. Why not adopt better enforcement standards like NYPD to keep people safe?

[SciFiAuthor]

You say potato.

Yeah, listen Scifi, everything you have posted has been said by me and others.

I get annoyed when anyone suggests they have the answer, if only others would listen to their wisdom.

Of course gun violence has other root causes. But don't dismiss the gun part.

Digging in with the mantra "from my cold dead hands" just makes you sound like a nut. Which ups the ante.

It is pretty obvious to me, you see only one side ratcheting up the rhetoric, which isn't the case. I prefer rational debate to talking points. You may not like the fact that some think firearms are more threat than benefit, but there are many that think that. And of course they are all stupid.

Yeah, and you're nefariously glancing past the content of my posts because you can't think of an answer. Let's not get into the stupid "cold dead hands" shit that I never said. I'd ban guns tomorrow if it would work. It wont. I won't act like it worked like we all were supposed to do during the Clinton's round of gun control that was promised solve all this back then. I want rationality, and that's why I asked why we're even discussing it in the first place. If it's not going to work, and it flat out can't, then why spend time banging on about it and instead confront the taboo subjects that are actually causing people to shoot each other.

Nothing about our national debate is rational. It's a little fake dance that we do so conservatives can complain and liberals can pat themselves on the back for successfully getting into everyone's business. That's all it is. If it weren't, we'd be hitting on the actual causes instead of the symptoms.

[onan]

I'm for the electric chair for any crime with a gun, and, I'm NOT being sarcastic.

You and I are not far apart on that point.

[onan]

Yeah, and you're nefariously glancing past the content of my posts because you can't think of an answer. Let's not get into the stupid "cold dead hands" shit that I never said. I'd ban guns tomorrow if it would work. It wont. I won't act like it worked like we all were supposed to do during the Clinton's round of gun control that was promised solve all this back then. I want rationality, and that's why I asked why we're even discussing it in the first place. If it's not going to work, and it flat out can't, then why spend time banging on about it and instead confront the taboo subjects that are actually causing people to shoot each other.

Nothing about our national debate is rational. It's a little fake dance that we do so conservatives can complain and liberals can pat themselves on the back for successfully getting into everyone's business. That's all it is. If it weren't, we'd be hitting on the actual causes instead of the symptoms.

Just like you glanced by the statement that you have said nothing new. Like it or not, irrational or not, lots of people see it differently than you or I do. I am willing, since they also have a voice, to listen to them. Yeah, there are those that just want to stir the pot, so do many in the NRA.