The Guns thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Taarna, Oct 9, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Taarna

    Taarna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2015
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems that the majority of the murders are in gun free zones where liberal politics rule. Urban areas that tend to vote heavily Democratic such as Baltimore, Detroit or Chicago have the biggest gun problems. They also have the strictest gun laws.

    This shows that areas, not gun laws are the biggest problem. Gun free zones are most prone to school shootings.

    We protect our Politicians, our Banks, Numerous out door events, and homes with guns. But not our children in schools in many cases. This makes no sense.
     
    #1
  2. Thundercrack85

    Thundercrack85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    21,675
    Likes Received:
    1
    Oh, Taarna.

    Yes. You're right. It's the zones. Let's get rid of that, and gun violence will just disappear. It's got nothing to do with socioeconomics, mental health, dubious laws, a complicated culture of violence and the fact that there are more than three hundred million guns in circulation.

    It's the fact that we can't all take a gun to school or into a movie theater.
     
    #2
  3. DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs

    DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    25,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Taarna, you keep making redundant threads. We already have a 2nd amendment thread where this topic is being discussed. Use the search feature or look through the threads before making a new one. When it comes to politics I gurantee you almost every topic already has a thread that can be bumped
     
    #3
  4. SV Fan

    SV Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    A yes the Myth of Chicago being the worst city in terms of gun violence that is pushed by gun nuts.

    https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...rime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/6tabledatadecpdf

    Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter(per 100k)

    New Orleans-Metairie, LA - 20.6
    Memphis, TN-MS-AR - 11.5
    Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI - 10.9
    Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD - 9.5
    Birmingham-Hoover, AL - 9.4
    Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD - 8.6
    Jacksonville, FL - 8.0
    Oklahoma City, OK - 8.0
    Kansas City, MO-KS - 7.7
    St. Louis, MO-IL - 7.3
    Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI - 7.1
    Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI - 6.9
    Richmond, VA - 6.8
    Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC - 6.8
    San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA - 6.5
    Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL - 6.3
    Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN - 6.2
    Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA - 6.1
    Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN - 6.0
    Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX - 5.7
    Tucson, AZ - 5.7
    Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ - 5.3
    Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN - 5.1
    San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX - 5.1
    Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA - 5.0
    Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL - 5.0

    Why don't the pro gun people talk about New Orleans or Memphis or Birmingham or Jacksonville or Oklahoma City or Kansas City and all the problem the gun laws there cause. It should be pointed out since the 70s Chicago has cut it's homicide rate in half and the majority of that drop has been in the past 10 years, how come that is never mentioned by the people trashing Chicago?
     
    #4
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2015
  5. KevanG

    KevanG Pragmatic Villain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    27,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    If we arm everyone, does that mean no more shootings? Less shootings? More shootings?

    I've heard of area where they have pretty much everyone armed all the time.

    They're called war zones. :o
     
    #5
  6. DarthSkywalker

    DarthSkywalker May the Force Be With You

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    86,206
    Likes Received:
    127
    Can someone be a victim of gun violence if there are no guns?
     
    #6
  7. KevanG

    KevanG Pragmatic Villain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    27,472
    Likes Received:
    0
    You could be threatened to be shot.

    Or use a ballistic knife like the Russian Spetznaz has. :o
     
    #7
  8. SV Fan

    SV Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/

    That lines up pretty much with the list I gave above, so better?

    If you want to even get more technical The original statistics I posted are unfair to Chicago, they were actually 21st in the country for gun murders(per 100k people) for the calendar year of 2012(I just wanted to post some numbers that give one a rough idea that show that the whole Chicago is the worst city for gun violence is a myth created by gun nuts). I guess one can argue Chicago does have the most actual gun murders in terms of people shot, but it's a bit unfair comparing a city that is close to 3M people to one that is like 400k or 500k when you comparing sheer numbers

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/22/most-dangerous-city-america_n_5863208.html

     
    #8
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  9. Charlatan

    Charlatan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,706
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Taarna

    Taarna Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2015
    Messages:
    811
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who said that! I was talking about let the cops or armed security people work at the schools.

    As for mental health, I am for those with issues not being allowed to have guns.

    -T
     
    #10
  11. Hello2016

    Hello2016 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    When I read stuff on gun debates, I see the same lines being used over and over from both sides. It gets tiresome and redundant.

    I worked with someone whose highly into guns and the 2nd amendement yet they weren't entirely supportive of the NRA... People that own guns need to be able to think for themselves as an individual. Don't let others tell you how to think.

    I look at school shootings and everytime it happens it's always: Wouldn't it be great if we could've just blown that little ****head away? That's reasonable enough. The thoughtline is why do I want to get shot when I didn't do anything? I think the greater question becomes what security measures can be put into place to make the perpetrator think twice about trying to make a name for themselves and instead be thinking about the embarrassment of their teacher blowing their head all over the chalkboard telling the other kids in the class they had **** for brains (apologies if this offends but I'm trying to get my point across).

    At the same time, I don't think we want the teacher becoming a George Zimmerman; a person who I think is an irresponsible gun owner perhaps seeking notoriety and confirmation of his status of not being a person to be messed with. Based on a linear thought structure perpetuated by both sides of the gun debate, a person like this can get away with murdering people.

    The second amendment needs to be supported and each man needs to think for himself. As for schools, I don't know where I fall on that... I don't like the thought of being a teenager with a teacher like George Zimmerman following me through the hallways. On the other hand, we need some security measures put in place at every school and college. This is a place where people have to be. Can the kids carry firearms as well as the teacher? It just opens up a lot. A public space where underage people HAVE to be may involve compromises but SAFETY is a must. This involves a lot of thinking. I don't have the answers so I don't know where I stand on this one...
     
    #11
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  12. SV Fan

    SV Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    All I ask is what does the constitution say about bullets?
     
    #12
  13. DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs

    DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    25,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm sure the men who built this nation clearly had the idea of semi-automatic and automatic weapons in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment
     
    #13
  14. Thundercrack85

    Thundercrack85 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    21,675
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well two of those men were Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson...
     
    #14
  15. Hello2016

    Hello2016 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Same thing. It's antiquated but should still stand as far as individual freedoms go as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others I feel. I would say (what hardcore constitutionalists would disagree with) there are certain high tech pieces of weaponry that shouldn't be allowed in public places such as probes, cannons, personalized rocket launchers, flamethrowers, or more accurately automatic weaponry that can fire rounds in mass volumes to take out 30-100 people in devastating enough fashion that no one else (who doesn't have the element of surprise) would be able to respond in enough time to stop the threat. Common sense needs to be employed. Not just verbatim nonsense.

    Edit: One thing I would like to add is that 3D printers can be made to manufacture basic handguns. Therefore, if some internet troll is able to manufacture some devastating automatic weapon that can go way beyond what other people have at home then it automatically becomes a debate on why other people shouldn't be able to possess them. It's all about preventative measures and some constructive thinking needed from our government (whose supposed to represent the people as opposed to suppress them) to work with the people towards a resolution on a continuous basis with steps taken that reasonable people can measure and see. I will tell you this, if every person possessed a nuclear bomb we definitely would've had more than a few go off since Hiroshima... Therefore, some things are complicated and difficult to resolve to everyone's satisfaction.
     
    #15
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  16. SV Fan

    SV Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Can you tell me where exactly it mentions the word "bullet" in the constitution because I don't see it in the 2nd amendment.
     
    #16
  17. Hello2016

    Hello2016 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    What do you think the right to bear arms implies?
     
    #17
  18. SV Fan

    SV Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Technically arms would be the Gun itself. I guess one could make an argument arms is any weapon but if that is the case why can't I own a bomb
     
    #18
  19. Hello2016

    Hello2016 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly. That's why everyone uses taglines or argues wording whenever it comes to gun debates. In my opinion I think it all comes down to common sense (something I was trying to get at with my earlier post concerning bombs). I don't think a lot of people out there are good people. There are more people willing to take you or me out without any emotional afterthought (in fact maybe a **** grin or double entendre afterwords or maybe some self-righteous indulgence in which they try to label you or me as worth getting shot posthumously). I just look around the neighborhood and see the indifferent way people regard each other and know each person needs to stand on their own. We owe it to ourselves and the people around us. I'm saying one should decide how to bear their arms and choose how they wish to be prepared.

    Edit: I will say as far as the government goes, they do have access to any kind of weaponry... We need amendments in place so they don't use it against us.
     
    #19
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  20. Anita18

    Anita18 DANCE FOR ME, FUNNY MAN!

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    25,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    My opinion is that the 2nd Amendment has been outdated for at least half a century and needs to be revisited, honestly. Not to mention we outright ignore the "well regulated militia" part of it. There's more to battle than just being able to shoot a gun.

    Nothing is going to stop the White House from taking over a state now if they really wanted to. It was all over once nuclear weapons were invented. They ain't gonna care about even an entire city armed with machine guns. Unless "the right to bear arms" includes all the billion-dollar high tech weaponry our national forces have access to, which no state can afford or maintain.

    And it's FAR more likely that the state would use those fancy toys to terrorize its own citizens than to "keep the security of a free state" from a power-hungry federal government. (See: Ferguson.)

    The Founding Fathers are undoubtedly rolling in their graves with all of these mass shootings in schools. Their intent in writing the 2nd Amendment didn't involve that at all.
     
    #20
  21. Anita18

    Anita18 DANCE FOR ME, FUNNY MAN!

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    25,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you, sir, need to move.
     
    #21
  22. SV Fan

    SV Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    I just think the 2nd amendment is poorly worded. One could argue that the right to bear arms means we should be able to kill bears for their arms. lol

    [​IMG]

    Why the hell didn't they just make it simpler and spell out exactly what we should and shouldn't be able to use?
     
    #22
  23. Hello2016

    Hello2016 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the 2nd amendment stands as is. Interpretation or additions to it make things more complicated. Active problem solving in the present day is what's needed.

    Hard when there's a lease and limited options sir. I haven't had any confrontations yet physical or life threatening situations personally so that's a plus.

    I agree with your state vs. people summarization but in the end it's the government who represents the populace not the populace who is under the government godlike entity. The populace is hard to move it seems. That's why I value individual thought and freedom as it creates at least a small ripple before homogenizing into a bucket of tranquil bliss at least.
     
    #23
  24. SV Fan

    SV Fan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,061
    Likes Received:
    1
    Problem is we do interpret the 2nd amendment. We have an imaginary line which weapons are fair game and not. It also doesn't have rules around purchasing those weapons or if we can create gun registries
     
    #24
  25. Hello2016

    Hello2016 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    744
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is your interpretation of right to bear arms then? Right to bear arms kind of hard to discriminate certain people from that unless we use mental health evaluation (which only a gross level would work I think) or criminal records. Doesn't discount a lot of people who are just fed up sick of everything and just decide to pop off. How do we discount people based on attitudes without impinging on right to bear arms?
     
    #25
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"