Numbers don't lie or have agendas [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Numbers don't lie or have agendas


greentriple
08-14-2012, 21:02
With the recent killings in Colorado, Wisconsin and most recently Texas, it seems the same old same old for advocates for and against gun regulation is void of reason and fat with ideology. Can their be a rational, civilized discussion? We know criminals don't care about laws and will do as they please, but until they killed, the suspects in he aforementioned killings were apparently law abiding citizens, who got guns through legal channels. Do we ignore this realty and continue as we are? Perhaps the following numbers can help guide a healthy conversation?

http://www.guns.com/npr-guns-101-10467.html


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

whoflungdo
08-14-2012, 21:08
With the recent killings in Colorado, Wisconsin and most recently Texas, it seems the same old same old for advocates for and against gun regulation is void of reason and fat with ideology. Can their be a rational, civilized discussion? We know criminals don't care about laws and will do as they please, but until they killed, the suspects in he aforementioned killings were apparently law abiding citizens, who got guns through legal channels. Do we ignore this realty and continue as we are? Perhaps the following numbers can help guide a healthy conversation?

http://www.guns.com/npr-guns-101-10467.html


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Then they should be punished if found guilty of their crimes appropriately and severely rather than making a new law that makes buying guns legally through legal means illegal...

Berto
08-14-2012, 21:09
Sure, more science and experiments could be utilized and more money spent to tell us **** 99% of us already know.

Lethaltxn
08-14-2012, 21:16
Then they should be punished if found guilty of their crimes appropriately and severely rather than making a new law that makes buying guns legally through legal means illegal...

This is really all that needs to be said.

rgregoryb
08-14-2012, 21:18
Medical mistakes kill 15,000 patients every month
Saturday, November 20, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030460_medical_msitakes_patients.html#ixzz23a6MqVp6

the numbers don't lie

JBnTX
08-14-2012, 21:32
Medical mistakes kill 15,000 patients every month...


Ain't that the truth.
I've got a doctor trying to kill me right now.

The Machinist
08-15-2012, 05:28
A useless article from a useless gun hater.

lethal tupperwa
08-15-2012, 05:40
Car Crashes Kill 40,000 in U.S. Every Year


cars should be outlawed?

When someone is killed by a drunk driver

do you say a Ford or Chevy killed them?

pipedreams
08-15-2012, 05:44
Do we ignore this realty and continue as we are? Perhaps the following numbers can help guide a healthy conversation?

http://www.guns.com/npr-guns-101-10467.html


This NPR!!!!! It seems that in most ever case their is a mental health issue. The country's mental health problems should be addresses rather than guns. Do we ignore this realty and continue as we are?

Jarhead247
08-15-2012, 05:44
Car Crashes Kill 40,000 in U.S. Every Year


cars should be outlawed?

When someone is killed by a drunk driver

do you say a Ford or Chevy killed them?

Or try & hold the brewery/distillery responsible??

series1811
08-15-2012, 05:45
With the recent killings in Colorado, Wisconsin and most recently Texas, it seems the same old same old for advocates for and against gun regulation is void of reason and fat with ideology. Can their be a rational, civilized discussion? We know criminals don't care about laws and will do as they please, but until they killed, the suspects in he aforementioned killings were apparently law abiding citizens, who got guns through legal channels. Do we ignore this realty and continue as we are? Perhaps the following numbers can help guide a healthy conversation?

http://www.guns.com/npr-guns-101-10467.html


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I think you got your bulletin boards mixed up.

This is Glocktalk, not DU.

We here, including myself, with 26 years of law enforcement in my background, believe that gun laws are completely ineffective in stopping gun crime.

I don't believe this because of what anyone has told me, but rather, because of what I have experienced, in dealing with criminals and crime, as my job.

But, thank you for reminding us that there are people like you out there, and that you know you need Obama as President, with a Democratic Congress, to get what you want.

happyguy
08-15-2012, 07:00
I have to ask the question, why didn't someone stand up and shoot these animals and stop their mayhem?

Why didn't several people stand up and and put a stop to these sickening rampages?

Many (mostly liberal) Americans have been conditioned to believe it is more noble to let the animals win than to do what is necessary to protect their own lives. (Well, maybe it's OK to run and hide.)

Add to that the attitude that it is someone elses job to keep them safe and they are easy pickin's.

None of the monsters should have gotten off more than a round or two before they were shot to the ground by good people who refuse to quietly lie down and die.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

sbhaven
08-15-2012, 07:57
Yep, numbers don't lie...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
• Heart disease: 599,413
• Cancer: 567,628
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
• Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
• Diabetes: 68,705
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/
"In 2008, there were 14,800 prescription painkiller deaths."

Preventable Medical Errors – The Sixth Biggest Killer in America (http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/8677.htm)
"The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion.1 If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. 2"

There are those who naively think having a "healthy conversation" with their stated goal of enacting more gun laws that ONLY infringe on the rights of those who follow the law will somehow prevent a person from harming another with a firearm.

The reality is that most laws are meant to punish after the fact, not prevent a crime from occurring in the first place. Short of going kicking in door to kicking in door, violating a whole host of individual rights in the process, to confiscate all firearms, there is no way to prevent what Progressives call "gun crimes" by those who choose to intentionally harm another human being with a firearm.

series1811
08-15-2012, 08:00
Yep, numbers don't lie...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
• Heart disease: 599,413
• Cancer: 567,628
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
• Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
• Diabetes: 68,705
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/
"In 2008, there were 14,800 prescription painkiller deaths."

Preventable Medical Errors – The Sixth Biggest Killer in America (http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/8677.htm)
"The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion.1 If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. 2"

There are those who naively think having a "healthy conversation" with their stated goal of enacting more gun laws that ONLY infringe on the rights of those who follow the law will somehow prevent a person from harming another with a firearm.

The reality is that most laws are meant to punish after the fact, not prevent a crime from occurring in the first place. Short of going kicking in door to kicking in door, violating a whole host of individual rights in the process, to confiscate all firearms, there is no way to prevent what Progressives call "gun crimes" by those who choose to intentionally harm another human being with a firearm.

Those are the real numbers. Your chances of being a victim of a firearms related crime, are slim to start with, and go down even more if you are ready to deal with it if it occurs (like many other possibly fatal incidents).

Gunnut 45/454
08-15-2012, 12:51
Yep the debate that needs to be had = No more infringements on the 2nd! It's not the firearms killing people it's the people behind those firearms! Would we be having this discussion if they had used a knife, car, or a bomb?:faint:

Kablam
08-15-2012, 12:58
The article states that it's about saving lives...apparently regardless of what that pesky Constitution says. If it was really about saving lives, how about considering the 1.3 million (give or take) lives taken by abortion in this country every year. I'm not taking a stand on abortion...no agenda...but numbers don't lie.

IvanVic
08-15-2012, 13:39
Car accidents and medical mistakes are just that, mistakes. Murder is not a mistake - so the comparison is pretty useless. Let's not reduce ourselves to the level of foolishness shown by the anti-gun crowd by using these senseless comparisons.

The bottom line is that gun control has been proven to be ineffective - you don't need comparisons to articulate that point.

sbhaven
08-15-2012, 14:20
Car accidents and medical mistakes are just that, mistakes. Murder is not a mistake - so the comparison is pretty useless. Let's not reduce ourselves to the level of foolishness shown by the anti-gun crowd by using these senseless comparisons.
Senseless comparisons? Does not the government have thousands of pages of rules, regulations, and laws that are supposedly aimed at reducing car accidents and medical mistakes?
The bottom line is that gun control has been proven to be ineffective - you don't need comparisons to articulate that point.
Your preaching to the choir for the most part, well except maybe the OP. Anyone who takes an honest look at the statistics and what the politicians claimed the gun laws were supposed to do when passed, know that most gun laws are ineffective at preventing crime or murder.

The problem is those who advocate for more gun laws are operating on emotion and refuse to have an honest debate about gun laws. They use terms like having a "healthy conversation" when in reality they will not budge from their position, and expect the other side to cave in to their "reasonable" "common sense" gun control laws. When has an anti ever seriously advocated for less gun laws?

Anti's tend to be statists who see more laws (and rules) and growing the size of the government as the solution to all problems, real or imagined.

Fortunately, the anti's have been loosing ground both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion as of late.

jakebrake
08-15-2012, 14:55
A useless article from a useless gun hater.

sadly, machinist....useless seems a little to tame for either of the above.

IvanVic
08-15-2012, 15:22
Does not the government have thousands of pages of rules, regulations, and laws that are supposedly aimed at reducing car accidents and medical mistakes?


Yes, and they're not the least bit comparable to a firearm. The government also has laws that attempt to reduce robbery, murder and arson - those are also not comparable to firearms. The argument against gun control is plenty sound enough to stand on its own - it is also very hard to draw a valid comparison because it's such a unique subject.

Gunnut 45/454
08-15-2012, 16:06
IvanVic
It's unique only because we have let the left drive the agenda! Now that we have taken it back and shoved it in there face that they will not take our God given rights away they are making it an issue about saving lives. Legal gun ownership has save MILLIONS from death. Just think what the world would look like if the Free Armed nations of the world hadn't stood up to Nazi Germany and Japan in WWII. What would the world look like if we as a people hadn't had the tools of revolution to free ourselves from English rule! To say the gun is an evil thing is to forget it is also a tool for free people to stay free! And anyone who try's to take those tools of freedom away are the enemy and we can't allow that to happen -ever!:supergrin:

concretefuzzynuts
08-15-2012, 16:17
Car accidents and medical mistakes are just that, mistakes. Murder is not a mistake - so the comparison is pretty useless. Let's not reduce ourselves to the level of foolishness shown by the anti-gun crowd by using these senseless comparisons.

The bottom line is that gun control has been proven to be ineffective - you don't need comparisons to articulate that point.

I would say drunk driving is not a mistake, a person knows they are drunk and they drive anyway. Also some medically related deaths related to poor diet and lack of exercise for example, You can't tell me the couch potato who eats a Wendy's Triple burger every day doesn't know better.

ConcealedG23
08-15-2012, 17:26
I would say drunk driving is not a mistake, a person knows they are drunk and they drive anyway. Also some medically related deaths related to poor diet and lack of exercise for example, You can't tell me the couch potato who eats a Wendy's Triple burger every day doesn't know better.

I'm with IvanVic on this one. A drunk driver that ends up killing someone is, indeed, a mistake. Before they got it the car, it is assumed that they did not have the intent to kill anyone. The same can be said with with medical misadventures. The patient is receiving a treatment without the intent to kill them. The very intent of the gun violence that is all to often cited is killing. To sum it up:
drunk driving intent = to commute somewhere
medical intent = treatment
shooting spree intent = killing
You're comparing apples to oranges.

D

rgregoryb
08-15-2012, 18:31
where is the trolling liberal atty ?

JW1178
08-15-2012, 19:16
Guns have been in our society for a long time and these crazy shootings that have no reason behind them is rather new. It's getting worse because even the Colombine monsters had a "reason" to go on their shooting spree. No, not justified but they had a reason, they hated everyone and decided to kill everyone. Some of these more recent shootings such as a few of the Omaha mall shooting, Giffords Shooting, and this Theater shooting there was really no reason behind it that came from any realistic view. None. That's what is so scary.

So guns aren't the problem, the problem is in society. We now have this age of mental health where characteristic and behavior has a name behind it and these people are just the way they are and they can't help it so instead of criticising or really trying to correct the problem, we just let them be the way they are. If they do anything, they just medicate them which can make the worse.

Reminds me of I went to dinner with a girl's family years ago. Her little brother would try to grab food off people's plates and if anyone did anything he didn't like or he didn't get his way he would hit and scream. He was pretty extreme. However, nobody would even tell him he was wrong or being bad, they would just let him do as he pleased and if anything, coddel him. So of course he acts this way even more so because he's never been told it's wrong. He knew what he was doing, you could easily tell. He would think about things and then go do it. Mentally deficient people CAN learn. We all have to learn to control our impulses. When you have someone who has a real problem with their impulses and you do nothing to correct it, you have a real issue on your hands. What is going to happen (and I am sure now it has) is society isn't going to accept him, and screaming and hitting will not be tolerated so it will be diverted to another path. One day, he will be angry by the society that has rejected him and want to lash out, and he gets a hold of a gun....

There is probably less child abuse today, but what's worse than abuse is neglect, and I think children are more neglected today than ever. It used to be you could take a belt or a switch and welt up a child's rear end and it was okay. Well, that was obsessive but now you have children that have never known what it is to face an consequence. They do what they please and anyone telling them they are wrong is the bad guy.

Perhaps people who are being treated or have been treated for mental disorders should be barred from buying guns? Perhaps you should be able to pass a mental evaluation by a licensed phychologist to buy a gun? This COULD be a tool used to basically disqualify everyone BUT at least something that says you are not off your rocker. I don't know if this is a good idea or not but one thing is for sure and that is that people who shouldn't be able to have a gun are getting them, legally. The Democrats and gun control people just want to make it hard for everyone. Kind of like chemo to fight cancer, which like chemo it doesn't cure it, just puts the problem in remmisision but Gun Control doesn't even do that.

Also, more needs to be done to keep the guns out of criminal's hands instead of disarming the legal owners.

janice6
08-15-2012, 19:19
The numbers don't lie. The lie occurs when the numbers are manipulated to further an agenda.

greentriple
08-15-2012, 21:31
Medical mistakes kill 15,000 patients every month
Saturday, November 20, 2010 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/030460_medical_msitakes_patients.html#ixzz23a6MqVp6

the numbers don't lie

Yes but we have extensive regulations and safeguards in palace to prevent or mitigate them, not to mention training and schooling before people can engage in medical practices.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
08-15-2012, 21:35
Car Crashes Kill 40,000 in U.S. Every Year


cars should be outlawed?

When someone is killed by a drunk driver

do you say a Ford or Chevy killed them?

No they don't, however we have extensive regulations and practices to reduce such deaths. Further people must get licenses and pass tests both written and practical before being allowed to drive. There are many, many more cars in use every day and many studies and regulations to make that use as safe as possible. Cars serve a much greater utilitarian and communal function than privately owned guns.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
08-15-2012, 21:40
Yep, numbers don't lie...
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm/
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
• Heart disease: 599,413
• Cancer: 567,628
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
• Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
• Diabetes: 68,705
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/
"In 2008, there were 14,800 prescription painkiller deaths."

Preventable Medical Errors – The Sixth Biggest Killer in America (http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/8677.htm)
"The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion.1 If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America. 2"

There are those who naively think having a "healthy conversation" with their stated goal of enacting more gun laws that ONLY infringe on the rights of those who follow the law will somehow prevent a person from harming another with a firearm.

The reality is that most laws are meant to punish after the fact, not prevent a crime from occurring in the first place. Short of going kicking in door to kicking in door, violating a whole host of individual rights in the process, to confiscate all firearms, there is no way to prevent what Progressives call "gun crimes" by those who choose to intentionally harm another human being with a firearm.

True, but we work diligently to regulate and educate on these. Further, natural illness is an irrelevant comparison as guns and the deaths caused by some who use them are not genetic.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gunnut 45/454
08-16-2012, 01:08
JW1178
Could it be the Moral degradation of the society! Gee I think so! No one wants to nor takes any responsibility for there actions. We as a society don't make them pay a price for there deeds! Without consequences for ones actions people think they can get away with anything-including gunning down people! These are the products of the PC world we have allowed! No body fails everyone gets rewarded for subpar work etc. As I said before it's not the tool its the person behind the tool! A person with no moral compass has no problem in commiting such acts- cause they don't think it's wrong!:whistling:

series1811
08-16-2012, 04:46
No they don't, however we have extensive regulations and practices to reduce such deaths. Further people must get licenses and pass tests both written and practical before being allowed to drive. There are many, many more cars in use every day and many studies and regulations to make that use as safe as possible. Cars serve a much greater utilitarian and communal function than privately owned guns.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Well, at least it is refreshing to have one Obama supporting liberal to come here and admit they are for more gun control.

Most try and convince us it won't happen or that the Democrats are our friends when it comes to that and Republicans are worse.

Thanks for at least admitting the truth.

happyguy
08-16-2012, 06:47
The numbers should show that by far the majority of those people who were killed with firearms were unarmed. Hmmmmm....

Of those killed who were armed I suspect the majority were criminals who were engaging in pursuit of their chosen profession. Hmmmmmm....

Regards,
Happyguy :)

greentriple
08-16-2012, 07:29
JW1178
Could it be the Moral degradation of the society! Gee I think so! No one wants to nor takes any responsibility for there actions. We as a society don't make them pay a price for there deeds! Without consequences for ones actions people think they can get away with anything-including gunning down people! These are the products of the PC world we have allowed! No body fails everyone gets rewarded for subpar work etc. As I said before it's not the tool its the person behind the tool! A person with no moral compass has no problem in commiting such acts- cause they don't think it's wrong!:whistling:

Not sure how your quote is on topic, but thanks foe sharing.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
08-16-2012, 07:32
Well, at least it is refreshing to have one Obama supporting liberal to come here and admit they are for more gun control.

Most try and convince us it won't happen or that the Democrats are our friends when it comes to that and Republicans are worse.

Thanks for at least admitting the truth.

Do you support a constitutional interpretation that finds and protects a right to privacy?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

whoflungdo
08-16-2012, 07:47
Do you support a constitutional interpretation that finds and protects a right to privacy?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Why don't you address my point and stay on topic? Inferring privacy from the Constitution has nothing to do with gun control.

greentriple
08-16-2012, 08:11
Why don't you address my point and stay on topic? Inferring privacy from the Constitution has nothing to do with gun control.

Yes it does. If you believe that the 4 corners of the constitution prevent any infringement on gun possession and that it is unconstitutional to read regulation into the document, yet you believe privacy is constitutionally protected, there would seem to be a disconnect in the honesty of your position.

But onto your point. Well, I read your punishment sentence and I'm unclear as to how it relates to the article I posted.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

series1811
08-16-2012, 08:14
Do you support a constitutional interpretation that finds and protects a right to privacy?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Define "privacy". It means different things to different people.

And, what other rights of others, should a right of "privacy" suspercede?

For example, does your right to "privacy" supercede someone else's right to due process?

greentriple
08-16-2012, 08:16
Guns have been in our society for a long time and these crazy shootings that have no reason behind them is rather new. It's getting worse because even the Colombine monsters had a "reason" to go on their shooting spree. No, not justified but they had a reason, they hated everyone and decided to kill everyone. Some of these more recent shootings such as a few of the Omaha mall shooting, Giffords Shooting, and this Theater shooting there was really no reason behind it that came from any realistic view. None. That's what is so scary.

So guns aren't the problem, the problem is in society. We now have this age of mental health where characteristic and behavior has a name behind it and these people are just the way they are and they can't help it so instead of criticising or really trying to correct the problem, we just let them be the way they are. If they do anything, they just medicate them which can make the worse.

Reminds me of I went to dinner with a girl's family years ago. Her little brother would try to grab food off people's plates and if anyone did anything he didn't like or he didn't get his way he would hit and scream. He was pretty extreme. However, nobody would even tell him he was wrong or being bad, they would just let him do as he pleased and if anything, coddel him. So of course he acts this way even more so because he's never been told it's wrong. He knew what he was doing, you could easily tell. He would think about things and then go do it. Mentally deficient people CAN learn. We all have to learn to control our impulses. When you have someone who has a real problem with their impulses and you do nothing to correct it, you have a real issue on your hands. What is going to happen (and I am sure now it has) is society isn't going to accept him, and screaming and hitting will not be tolerated so it will be diverted to another path. One day, he will be angry by the society that has rejected him and want to lash out, and he gets a hold of a gun....

There is probably less child abuse today, but what's worse than abuse is neglect, and I think children are more neglected today than ever. It used to be you could take a belt or a switch and welt up a child's rear end and it was okay. Well, that was obsessive but now you have children that have never known what it is to face an consequence. They do what they please and anyone telling them they are wrong is the bad guy.

Perhaps people who are being treated or have been treated for mental disorders should be barred from buying guns? Perhaps you should be able to pass a mental evaluation by a licensed phychologist to buy a gun? This COULD be a tool used to basically disqualify everyone BUT at least something that says you are not off your rocker. I don't know if this is a good idea or not but one thing is for sure and that is that people who shouldn't be able to have a gun are getting them, legally. The Democrats and gun control people just want to make it hard for everyone. Kind of like chemo to fight cancer, which like chemo it doesn't cure it, just puts the problem in remmisision but Gun Control doesn't even do that.

Also, more needs to be done to keep the guns out of criminal's hands instead of disarming the legal owners.

Interesting post. Maybe an IQ test, less than 100 = no gun. Even police departments have psychological tests b4 giving guns out.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
08-16-2012, 08:18
where is the trolling liberal atty ?

Waiting for you to make a reasoned un-emotional point that contains logic and not ideological rhetoric.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
08-16-2012, 08:20
Define "privacy". It means different things to different people.

And, what other rights of others, should a right of "privacy" suspercede?

For example, does your right to "privacy" supercede someone else's right to due process?

See statement just above your lady post.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

series1811
08-16-2012, 08:39
See statement just above your lady post.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

My lady post? Okay, you got me on that one. No idea what you are talking about.

Lethaltxn
08-16-2012, 08:43
True, but we work diligently to regulate and educate on these. Further, natural illness is an irrelevant comparison as guns and the deaths caused by some who use them are not genetic.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

So you are for more regulation even though the numbers shown, which as you say are heavily regulated, are greater?

whoflungdo
08-16-2012, 08:50
Yes it does. If you believe that the 4 corners of the constitution prevent any infringement on gun possession and that it is unconstitutional to read regulation into the document, yet you believe privacy is constitutionally protected, there would seem to be a disconnect in the honesty of your position.

But onto your point. Well, I read your punishment sentence and I'm unclear as to how it relates to the article I posted.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Your OP and the statistics link imply that we should "do" something to reduce the crime.

Laws don't stop the criminals. Punishing those that didn't commit these crimes doesn't prevent them. These types of incidences can rarely be detected in time to prevent them. One cannot be punished until a crime has been committed.

My point is directly related to your OP and the link.

NMG26
08-16-2012, 08:53
Interesting post. Maybe an IQ test, less than 100 = no gun. Even police departments have psychological tests b4 giving guns out.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


HS.

Maybe anyone who has ever posted one of these :eric: .....no gun.




.

series1811
08-16-2012, 10:11
Interesting post. Maybe an IQ test, less than 100 = no gun. Even police departments have psychological tests b4 giving guns out.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Maybe an IQ test, less than 100 = no voting. That would probably solve most of our problems. Stupid people voting have caused way more problems than stupid people shooting.

Gunnut 45/454
08-16-2012, 11:02
greentriple
It's right ontarget -getting to the root cause of the problem. It's not guns as you anti's like to say it is ! It's the people behind the guns! The gun is just a tool. You anti's just want to take the tool away without fixing the root cause of the problem. So the root cause will just find a different tool to preform there deeds! Like always liberals trying to fix a problem with emotional decisions! Never works, never fixes the root cause.:faint:

OctoberRust
08-16-2012, 11:25
No they don't, however we have extensive regulations and practices to reduce such deaths. Further people must get licenses and pass tests both written and practical before being allowed to drive. There are many, many more cars in use every day and many studies and regulations to make that use as safe as possible. Cars serve a much greater utilitarian and communal function than privately owned guns.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


You're wrong. You don't need a license to operate a vehicle on private property. Hell, you don't even need to be a certain age.

You know what's funnier? Cars aren't even protected by the constitution!!!!!!!!

I think you better first look into requiring background checks for cars, limiting fuel tanks to 2.5 galons, (so police chases can only last so long, and less risk to public)

Limit the engines to 1.6 liter 4 cylinders, and truck engines to 3 liter v6. (so they can't accelerate super fast, I mean who needs all that extra power? :crying:)

And require each car to come with an extra "steering wheel lock".


Once you advocate all these laws, and get them signed federally, then let's talk gun laws. For now, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, probably just to troll GT, and from the looks of your posts, you don't seem to give a hoot about the Constitution.

greentriple
08-16-2012, 11:41
My lady post? Okay, you got me on that one. No idea what you are talking about.

Sorry, last post. My bad.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
08-16-2012, 11:44
greentriple
It's right ontarget -getting to the root cause of the problem. It's not guns as you anti's like to say it is ! It's the people behind the guns! The gun is just a tool. You anti's just want to take the tool away without fixing the root cause of the problem. So the root cause will just find a different tool to preform there deeds! Like always liberals trying to fix a problem with emotional decisions! Never works, never fixes the root cause.:faint:

So, what's the root cause of the problem?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
08-16-2012, 11:45
You're wrong. You don't need a license to operate a vehicle on private property. Hell, you don't even need to be a certain age.

You know what's funnier? Cars aren't even protected by the constitution!!!!!!!!

I think you better first look into requiring background checks for cars, limiting fuel tanks to 2.5 galons, (so police chases can only last so long, and less risk to public)

Limit the engines to 1.6 liter 4 cylinders, and truck engines to 3 liter v6. (so they can't accelerate super fast, I mean who needs all that extra power? :crying:)

And require each car to come with an extra "steering wheel lock".


Once you advocate all these laws, and get them signed federally, then let's talk gun laws. For now, you're making a mountain out of a molehill, probably just to troll GT, and from the looks of your posts, you don't seem to give a hoot about the Constitution.

Huh? Put down the bottle.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
08-16-2012, 11:56
Your OP and the statistics link imply that we should "do" something to reduce the crime.

Laws don't stop the criminals. Punishing those that didn't commit these crimes doesn't prevent them. These types of incidences can rarely be detected in time to prevent them. One cannot be punished until a crime has been committed.

My point is directly related to your OP and the link.

Western history shows that punishment is not a deferent to crime. And clearly those who violate the law intentionally do so regardless of the consequence, most that violate assume they will not be apprehended. Any regulation on the acquisition of firearms will likely have little or no effect on criminal use, see Mexico where guns are illegal. However, assuming law abiding citizens, with clean metal health and reasonable cognitive function should have unregulated possession of arms why not crate specific requirements to try and prevent firearms from being possessed by citizens other that those previously defined?

Once you "qualify" there is no restriction on the number of guns, the amount of ammunition, the size of magazines or the frequency OB guns you my have, use or purchase. Every certain number of years you must "re-qualify" which should be easy for levelheaded, undisturbed, law abiding Americans. If you are denied you may appeal, with representation, and the burden is on the govt. to prove you do not qualify. The same goes for CCW.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

whoflungdo
08-16-2012, 11:59
Maybe an IQ test, less than 100 = no voting. That would probably solve most of our problems. Stupid people voting have caused way more problems than stupid people shooting.

Now that idea I like...

whoflungdo
08-16-2012, 12:04
Western history shows that punishment is not a deferent to crime. And clearly those who violate the law intentionally do so regardless of the consequence, most that violate assume they will not be apprehended. Any regulation on the acquisition of firearms will likely have little or no effect on criminal use, see Mexico where guns are illegal. However, assuming law abiding citizens, with clean metal health and reasonable cognitive function should have unregulated possession of arms why not crate specific requirements to try and prevent firearms from being possessed by citizens other that those previously defined?

Once you "qualify" there is no restriction on the number of guns, the amount of ammunition, the size of magazines or the frequency OB guns you my have, use or purchase. Every certain number of years you must "re-qualify" which should be easy for levelheaded, undisturbed, law abiding Americans. If you are denied you may appeal, with representation, and the burden is on the govt. to prove you do not qualify. The same goes for CCW.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

When I see you advocating the same type of restrictions on the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the Amendments, and the Constitution, then we can discuss this further. Until then, you are just pissing up a rope...

For the record, I'm not for restricting any rights. Until YOU use the same logic and reasoning to restrict those rights, you are wasting your time trying to convince me these restrictions on the 2A are necessary.

rgregoryb
08-16-2012, 14:23
Yes but we have extensive regulations and safeguards in palace to prevent or mitigate them, not to mention training and schooling before people can engage in medical practices.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

and that doesn't work out so well, does it. especially in a palace

series1811
08-16-2012, 14:44
Listening to the resident liberals/centrists/whatever try and carry water for gun regulation quickly illuminates why the Democrats have left this issue alone for so long. Even they know what they are saying doesn't really make sense. :supergrin:

Bren
08-16-2012, 14:52
With the recent killings in Colorado, Wisconsin and most recently Texas, it seems the same old same old for advocates for and against gun regulation is void of reason and fat with ideology. Can their be a rational, civilized discussion? We know criminals don't care about laws and will do as they please, but until they killed, the suspects in he aforementioned killings were apparently law abiding citizens, who got guns through legal channels. Do we ignore this realty and continue as we are? Perhaps the following numbers can help guide a healthy conversation?

http://www.guns.com/npr-guns-101-10467.html


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Numbers don't lie or have agendas

But the people who use them sure do.

In that particular article notice how they seleected groups of years for their graphs - to show that firearm ownership has declined they use 1960 to 2010, which shows a slight decline. On the other hand, they used 1999 to 2010 to show a slight increase in "firearm deaths" - apparently a much smaller increase than the increase in gun ownership would have been, had they used those same years for the previous graph. Finally, they fall back on "gun deaths" as if all "gun deaths" are equal and bad, an assumption people will usually make...but not a true one.

Numbers may not lie, but the people at NPR apparently can use numbers to lie.

Anti-gunners tend to use only the anti-gun "numbers" and ignore the pro-gun numbers, or redefine the statistics, to get the result that matches their agenda. As in the OP's article, it's pretty transparent if you look close.

sbhaven
08-16-2012, 14:59
Listening to the resident liberals/centrists/whatever try and carry water for gun regulation quickly illuminates why the Democrats have left this issue alone for so long. Even they know what they are saying doesn't really make sense. :supergrin:
In the gun forum on DU more than a few liberal gun owners make the same plea to their fellow Progressives members of their party. They constantly plead for Progressives to drop the desire for another federal AWB and other anti gun desires from the party plank. Those pleas fall on deaf ears. Anti gun progressives operate on the assumption that their failed anti gun policies can be made to work, next time. A very smart man once said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result...
:rofl:

concretefuzzynuts
08-16-2012, 15:41
For a guy so pro gun restrictions and regulation (close to anti-gun), Greentripe Posted this:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19047932&postcount=122

In this tread:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1424703

I suppose it's ok for an elitist to protect himself and his family, just not the lower class low IQ people.

dbcooper
08-16-2012, 20:36
Car Crashes Kill 40,000 in U.S. Every Year


cars should be outlawed?

When someone is killed by a drunk driver

do you say a Ford or Chevy killed them?

No just some "common sense" car control laws. A governor on every existing vehicle and new cars made so that neither one can go faster than 10 miles an hour. Noone has a right to travel quickly and if it saves just one child.......

OctoberRust
08-17-2012, 08:46
Huh? Put down the bottle.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


That's all you can come up with?

I'm giving you sensible restrictions we can place on cars, no different than what you advocate placing on guns, yet you're making false accusations of me abusing alcohol?