[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Because I know who got sent to do the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's always the question though; whether or not we should go there to fight wars instead of waiting to defend here. In the latter instance, an armed populace outnumbering the military forces 6-1 would be instrumental in national defense. Otherwise yes, with a large and well-provisioned standing army the odds of going abroad to fight appear to be greater.

[Waragainstsleep]

Gun Control Whoop-de-doo on Vimeo

[Shaddim]

Of the types of guns that were banned in Oz, it was 1 in 20 Aussies who had such a weapon... we have 9 times that, per capita. Howevver, you really are 3x less likely to be a victim of gun violence over there, but 3x more likely to be fatally wounded in a stabbing.

Then there's our Constitution, which doesn't allow for the fascist types of search and seizure that they practice in the name of "public safety". They think you may have an illegal firearm? They go in without a warrant and check out your home from top to bottom. They have no rights or real privacy if they're suspected of being a gun owner.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Of the types of guns that were banned in Oz, it was 1 in 20 Aussies who had such a weapon... we have 9 times that, per capita. However, you really are 3x less likely to be a victim of gun violence over there, but 3x more likely to be fatally wounded in a stabbing.

And they have more of the top 10 most dangerous animals there as well. But really, WTF does that have to do with gun control? Don't bring up stabbings when the subject is gun control. Any stabbings of 20 children in an elementary school since the gun ban?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Then there's our Constitution, which doesn't allow for the fascist types of search and seizure that they practice in the name of "public safety". They think you may have an illegal firearm? They go in without a warrant and check out your home from top to bottom. They have no rights or real privacy if they're suspected of being a gun owner.

Elian Gonzalez? Ever heard of him?

The same people that rant and rave about government interference/Patriot Act etc are the ones that are talking about the 2nd protecting you from the big bad government. Do you honestly believe that if you ban all firearms (rifles, pistols and shotguns) and you make it an automatic 10 years in prison if you commit a crime with a firearm (or replica), your crime rate will go up?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

The same people that rant and rave about government interference/Patriot Act etc are the ones that are talking about the 2nd protecting you from the big bad government. Do you honestly believe that if you ban all firearms (rifles, pistols and shotguns) and you make it an automatic 10 years in prison if you commit a crime with a firearm (or replica), your crime rate will go up?

I think the question you'll need to answer is whether or not your pursuit of a nerf world is worth running roughshod over the Bill of Rights.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I'm saying that it will have no effect on the actual crime rate. And so we'd be giving up an important check on the government for no benefit.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think the question you'll need to answer is whether or not your pursuit of a nerf world is worth running roughshod over the Bill of Rights.

Your past governments already have. No change there then. Except for the 3rd (afaik) every other amendment has not in the past always been respected.

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I'm saying that it will have no effect on the actual crime rate. And so we'd be giving up an important check on the government for no benefit.

In certain cities you already have, including your capital.

Strange how those that argue for the 2nd sound so similar to those that are against teaching Darwin in schools.

Just no possible benefit to banning guns, at all, ever, no matter what. And of course don't even try that 'If it saves one life' bullshit !!!

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Your past governments already have. No change there then. Except for the 3rd (afaik) every other amendment has not in the past always been respected.



In certain cities you already have, including your capital.

Strange how those that argue for the 2nd sound so similar to those that are against teaching Darwin in schools.

Just no possible benefit to banning guns, at all, ever, no matter what. And of course don't even try that 'If it saves one life' bullshit !!!

Last time I looked there was still crime in DC and NYC despite the gun bans. How is this evidence in you're favor?

[cgc]

You could look at statistics around the world that prove gun bans or gun-free zones do nothing to limit crimes with guns, quite the contrary. In regions in Europe and the United States that ban guns there are generally more gun crimes committed.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Last time I looked there was still crime in DC and NYC despite the gun bans. How is this evidence in you're favor?

As stated in previous posts, those that seek to buy guns who live in DC goto a nearby state where guns are available. If you have a nationwide gun ban, then this would not be done, one would have to cross a national border to get a gun.

And, where do you get your information from?

Violent crime in New York City has been dropping since 1990.[1][2] In 2012, there were 414 homicides, the lowest number since at least 1963 when reliable statistics were first kept.[2][3] Crime rates spiked in the 1980s and early 1990s as the crack epidemic hit the city.[4][5]

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Thats due to an increase in law enforcement. You have to be careful because there are allot of variables in these kinds of situations.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by cgc 

You could look at statistics around the world that prove gun bans or gun-free zones do nothing to limit crimes with guns, quite the contrary. In regions in Europe and the United States that ban guns there are generally more gun crimes committed.

Show me. Some of what you report as fact is contradicted by this article at Wikipedia.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Thats due to an increase in law enforcement. You have to be careful because there are allot of variables in these kinds of situations.

So, nothing to do with gun bans or not then?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Thats due to an increase in law enforcement. You have to be careful because there are allot of variables in these kinds of situations.

Its also been attributed to the legalisation of abortion.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Your past governments already have. No change there then. Except for the 3rd (afaik) every other amendment has not in the past always been respected.

Women are not always respected, this doesn't mean we should abandon the virtue of respecting them. No government has lived up to the standards it has set for itself and again, that's not a suitable reason for abandoning standards.

Just no possible benefit to banning guns, at all, ever, no matter what. And of course don't even try that 'If it saves one life' bullshit!!!

Blast! This means I can't use that claim in defending the right of gun ownership either.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

And they have more of the top 10 most dangerous animals there as well. But really, WTF does that have to do with gun control? Don't bring up stabbings when the subject is gun control. Any stabbings of 20 children in an elementary school since the gun ban?

The point is, some people are animals no matter what weapon they can get their hands on. Why should sane, decent people lose their civil liberties or erode them even further, just to account for a relatively tiny number of nutjobs? Solve the issues with the crazies, via better mental health systems, provide better education on gun safety, and you fix the root cause

The same people that rant and rave about government interference/Patriot Act etc are the ones that are talking about the 2nd protecting you from the big bad government. Do you honestly believe that if you ban all firearms (rifles, pistols and shotguns) and you make it an automatic 10 years in prison if you commit a crime with a firearm (or replica), your crime rate will go up?

So, might as well pile on more erosion of our freedoms, while we're at it. That's what you're saying. It's already 8-15 years for armed robbery in most jurisdictions.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Solve the issues with the crazies, via better mental health systems, provide better education on gun safety, and you fix the root cause

There is a case to be made that your country's attitude to guns is a factor in the craziness. Tough to say which is the cause and which the effect though.

The truth is that if solving national mental health issues were easy, we'd be advocating that instead, but it isn't simple or cheap to implement that kind of fix to an educational system that is still plagued with the teaching of creationism as scientific fact. Banning guns is simple to understand, simple to do and we know it works. Thats why currently its a better option than mental healthcare and education reform. If you all went without the guns for a couple of generations, they'd probably be less of a problem if you reintroduced them again. Just need people to get used to living without worrying about them so much.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The point is, some people are animals no matter what weapon they can get their hands on. Why should sane, decent people lose their civil liberties or erode them even further, just to account for a relatively tiny number of nutjobs? Solve the issues with the crazies, via better mental health systems, provide better education on gun safety, and you fix the root cause

You accept speed limits, smoking bans, pollution laws (as well as noise pollution), etc. for the 'public good'. My personal opinion is that the public (in general) would be better off without guns. Especially those 20 kids in an elementary school.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, might as well pile on more erosion of our freedoms, while we're at it. That's what you're saying. It's already 8-15 years for armed robbery in most jurisdictions.

Yup.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Women are not always respected, this doesn't mean we should abandon the virtue of respecting them. No government has lived up to the standards it has set for itself and again, that's not a suitable reason for abandoning standards.

Of course it is. It was 'standard' to have slaves at one time. It was 'standard' not to allow women to vote. As (most of us) evolve, we adapt our laws to the times. The 21st century <> the 18th century.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Blast! This means I can't use that claim in defending the right of gun ownership either.

You didn't read what I wrote.

Is this the standard operating procedure of 2nd amendment fans? Bring up "what is", "no we can't", "but there's this case where" type arguments so that those in favour of restricting weapons just give up and go away?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Of course it is. It was 'standard' to have slaves at one time. It was 'standard' not to allow women to vote. As (most of us) evolve, we adapt our laws to the times. The 21st century <> the 18th century.

Now we're talking past one another. I'm referring to standards as in a level of quality or attainment and why I also used the word virtue for context. What you're indicating is how norms were abandoned as they were found not to be virtuous and while that's a valuable sociological exercise, it's not relevant to my point. We shape rights from the Bill of Rights to be certain, I don't know that we've ever wholesale abandoned them. In fact, we haven't. What you're advocating would be a wholesale abandonment of the 2nd amendment.

You didn't read what I wrote.

Of course I did. You're saying gun bans would save lives. I'm telling you that guns save lives. You employed sarcasm and I employed sarcasm.

Is this the standard operating procedure of 2nd amendment fans? Bring up "what is", "no we can't", "but there's this case where" type arguments so that those in favour of restricting weapons just give up and go away?

I may want you to lose in seeking legislation that would ban all firearms, but this doesn't mean you should give up or go away. We just disagree and I'm okay with that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There is a case to be made that your country's attitude to guns is a factor in the craziness. Tough to say which is the cause and which the effect though.

It's really not as crazy as you think. This strikes me as a smidgen xenophobic.

The truth is that if solving national mental health issues were easy, we'd be advocating that instead, but it isn't simple or cheap to implement that kind of fix to an educational system that is still plagued with the teaching of creationism as scientific fact.

Creationism? I live in the Bible-believing midwest United States of America and there is no teaching of Creationism in the public schools. And to be clear, no more so than there is the teaching of human embryonic gill slits. Let's all try to remain reasonable here.

Banning guns is simple to understand, simple to do and we know it works.

Simpleton logic often works for simpletons true, but it does not address the more complex reality. i.e. It does not work as an equalizer for women or the elderly who happen to live in higher crime areas. It does not work for store owners or others in vulnerable situations with criminals who haven't kept their promise to come at you in single file waiting for you to swing baseball bats at them (assuming you can). Guns save lives and they are a great equalizer.

Thats why currently its a better option than mental healthcare and education reform. If you all went without the guns for a couple of generations, they'd probably be less of a problem if you reintroduced them again. Just need people to get used to living without worrying about them so much.

You seemed to have fashioned a picture something akin to the Old West where cowboys are running around with six-shooters on their hips, drunk on cheap whiskey waiting to shoot it out with the sheriff. i.e. we really don't worry about them as much as you think.

[Shaddim]

Since banning guns isn't, and will not be on the table, ever, we need to fix the actual problem.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

You accept speed limits, smoking bans, pollution laws (as well as noise pollution), etc. for the 'public good'. My personal opinion is that the public (in general) would be better off without guns. Especially those 20 kids in an elementary school.

Emotional plea, really? Live how you want in your country, but it isn't the USA. And no, I don't always obey speed limits or smoking bans.

Yup.

Nope. Like millions of other US citizens, I'll directly say that no one is taking my firearms, and I'll use lethal force to ensure that, if necessary. That's what I've told my elected officials in the state capitol and in DC, and I won't back down.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Thats due to an increase in law enforcement. You have to be careful because there are allot of variables in these kinds of situations.

Actually not true; law enforcement personnel numbers across America have steadily declined for at least a decade, and still are. It isn't up to the police to protect me. They only respond after the fact.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

That was specifically in Dc and NYC.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

Show me. Some of what you report as fact is contradicted by this article at Wikipedia.

When I get a chance I'll cite my US Gov't sources...Wikipedia is all you got though? It'd be nice to see something more respected/reputable.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Emotional plea, really? Live how you want in your country, but it isn't the USA. And no, I don't always obey speed limits or smoking bans.

If you can't even obey a speed limit or a smoking ban, then why should you be allowed to have a gun?

BTW, I'm a US citizen. Lived there, paid the taxes, still fill in the right forms etc etc.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by mattyb 

If you can't even obey a speed limit or a smoking ban, then why should you be allowed to have a gun?

BTW, I'm a US citizen. Lived there, paid the taxes, still fill in the right forms etc etc.

"Allowed"? That's probably why you like living over there, I would guess. Personally, I don't hold my breath waiting for any state or federal agency to tell me what I can or can't do. I'm selective about where and when I exceed the posted speed limits, and restrict it to non-residential areas and places I am very familiar with, at times when traffic is at a minimum. My pipe smoking is where and when I want, but not around concentrations of non-smokers. Typically I only frequent establishments which still allow smoking in some areas (my favorite eatery is pipe friendly). Interestingly enough, most ordinances where I live directly target cigs, and often cigars, but don't say anything about pipes. All of this is called being personally responsible, and as long as I pay attention and use my common sense, I rarely come into conflict with anyone.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's really not as crazy as you think. This strikes me as a smidgen xenophobic.

I wish I could say I love that every slightest hint I drop gets take as a blanket statement against an entire nation but I really don't.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Creationism? I live in the Bible-believing midwest United States of America and there is no teaching of Creationism in the public schools. And to be clear, no more so than there is the teaching of human embryonic gill slits. Let's all try to remain reasonable here.

Its an issue in parts of your country and it shouldn't be. Deny it all you want.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Simpleton logic often works for simpletons true, but it does not address the more complex reality. i.e. It does not work as an equalizer for women or the elderly who happen to live in higher crime areas. It does not work for store owners or others in vulnerable situations with criminals who haven't kept their promise to come at you in single file waiting for you to swing baseball bats at them (assuming you can). Guns save lives and they are a great equalizer.

We have some common ground here actually. The one thing that would worry me the most in the US did ban a whole bunch of firearms (particularly handguns I guess) is women. Again this is more to do with attitudes to women in the US. This is one is more of a blanket statement but its based on your rate of sexual assaults which last time I saw it said something like 1/3 of all women in the US would be sexually assaulted during their lifetime. Truly shameful if thats correct.

Incidents involving robbery and burglary would likely spike after a gun ban but would eventually drop significantly as illegal weapons were removed from circulation, but I think it might spell (even more) trouble for women, especially those living alone.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You seemed to have fashioned a picture something akin to the Old West where cowboys are running around with six-shooters on their hips, drunk on cheap whiskey waiting to shoot it out with the sheriff. i.e. we really don't worry about them as much as you think.

I don't think your country is like the old west. I do think a lot of you wish it still was.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Since banning guns isn't, and will not be on the table, ever, we need to fix the actual problem.

Like it or not, it will be on the table sooner or later. Maybe not this decade, maybe not within your lifetime, but it will.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

"Allowed"? That's probably why you like living over there, I would guess. Personally, I don't hold my breath waiting for any state or federal agency to tell me what I can or can't do. I'm selective about where and when I exceed the posted speed limits, and restrict it to non-residential areas and places I am very familiar with, at times when traffic is at a minimum. My pipe smoking is where and when I want, but not around concentrations of non-smokers. Typically I only frequent establishments which still allow smoking in some areas (my favorite eatery is pipe friendly). Interestingly enough, most ordinances where I live directly target cigs, and often cigars, but don't say anything about pipes. All of this is called being personally responsible, and as long as I pay attention and use my common sense, I rarely come into conflict with anyone.

Like it or not, civilised societies have laws. This was considered significant social progress a few thousand years ago, most of us still believe that now.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Like it or not, it will be on the table sooner or later. Maybe not this decade, maybe not within your lifetime, but it will.

Time will tell, empires rise and fall, and they usually collapse right around the time the common man is no longer allowed to defend himself.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Like it or not, civilised societies have laws. This was considered significant social progress a few thousand years ago, most of us still believe that now.

I break them, you break them. The difference is, I'm upfront about it. Once you establish your own code of conduct, the lines you will not cross, it just becomes a matter of whether you feel the juice is worth the squeeze.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I break them, you break them. The difference is, I'm upfront about it. Once you establish your own code of conduct, the lines you will not cross, it just becomes a matter of whether you feel the juice is worth the squeeze.

I absolutely do break them, yes but there is a fundamental difference in attitude. I ignore the ones which I don't think should apply to anybody, you seem to ignore all the ones you don't think should apply to you. I've said it before, I could absolutely be trusted to own guns without ever killing anyone, but I understand that there are many, many people in my country that cannot and laws have to apply to everyone or no-one so I don't go into my workshop and make my own guns, but I do break speed limits that were only reduced to make some dead idiot's family feel better about the stretch of road he crashed his car on (whilst drunk, high, not wearing his seatbelt and doing 50% over the old speed limit).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I wish I could say I love that every slightest hint I drop gets take as a blanket statement against an entire nation but I really don't.

And I wish I didn't have to be cynical about your posts, but...

Its an issue in parts of your country and it shouldn't be. Deny it all you want.

There's nothing for me to deny. Rogue teachers are going to do what rogue teachers are going to do up to and including the teaching of human embryonic gill slits. This idea that it is only fundamentalist Christians who would bastardize science in an attempt to indoctrinate impressionable young minds and that they should own the failures of an overwhelmingly liberal sanctuary is absurd. I live in this "part of the country" and I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about and that it's no more pervasive an issue than the zealous teachings of what have essentially become religions all their own. i.e. it is not only Christians who've attempted to pit science against religion unnecessarily. What most are up in arms about is the ideal that we'd put a sticker in a textbook reiterating the importance of critical analysis, no teaching of creationism at all.

We have some common ground here actually. The one thing that would worry me the most in the US did ban a whole bunch of firearms (particularly handguns I guess) is women. Again this is more to do with attitudes to women in the US. This is one is more of a blanket statement but its based on your rate of sexual assaults which last time I saw it said something like 1/3 of all women in the US would be sexually assaulted during their lifetime. Truly shameful if thats correct.

Yes and it's my understanding that rapes per 100,000 people in the UK is essentially double that of the US. Astounding and shameful indeed. Y'all need to hand out the handguns. Why are the attitudes toward women so much worse in the UK than in the US?

Incidents involving robbery and burglary would likely spike after a gun ban but would eventually drop significantly as illegal weapons were removed from circulation, but I think it might spell (even more) trouble for women, especially those living alone.

This is pure speculation and it doesn't do a thing toward leveling the playing field for a man against two men, a woman against a man, the elderly against an attacker, or store owner standing behind a register full of cash... Again, guns save lives. I know it's difficult to know this because the instances are, by virtue of a positive outcome, not newsworthy. But the fact is there are countless stories across the US on a daily basis of guns being used to deter crime and criminals.

You don't stop guns, you stop the Breiviks.

I don't think your country is like the old west. I do think a lot of you wish it still was.

IMO, not nearly to the extent that the xenophobic would presume.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes and it's my understanding that rapes per 100,000 people in the UK is essentially double that of the US. Astounding and shameful indeed. Y'all need to hand out the handguns. Why are the attitudes toward women so much worse in the UK than in the US?

Show me where you get your information from.

[Waragainstsleep]

It seems that figures for any kind of sexual assault or rape are wildly variable and completely unreliable so on that basis, I withdraw my previous opinion that America has less respect for women than Britain does. I now suspect there is very little difference, but all of us should be utterly ashamed of the prevailing treatment of women in both our countries. And most of the rest of the world.

[subego]

I'd guess America has less respect for women on the whole than the UK, but more than the French.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I absolutely do break them, yes but there is a fundamental difference in attitude. I ignore the ones which I don't think should apply to anybody, you seem to ignore all the ones you don't think should apply to you.

There is a difference in attitude, you should always be adhering to traffic laws, given what you said in your post.

I've said it before, I could absolutely be trusted to own guns without ever killing anyone, but I understand that there are many, many people in my country that cannot and laws have to apply to everyone or no-one so I don't go into my workshop and make my own guns, but I do break speed limits that were only reduced to make some dead idiot's family feel better about the stretch of road he crashed his car on (whilst drunk, high, not wearing his seatbelt and doing 50% over the old speed limit).

I don't believe in withholding a basic right for the vast majority, just because a few can't handle a responsibility. That sounds like lazy grammar school-style punishment, to me.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, not nearly to the extent that the xenophobic would presume.

What's funny to me is the old west is somewhat of a misnomer for rampant firearms use. In the old west, town by town, there were in many cases stricter gun laws than we have today. You can thank Hollywood for the widely (and wildly) inaccurate pictures you and I have of the "Wild West".

Guns in the Wild West
Gun Control in the "Wild West"
Shootout at OK Corral happened because of gun control

[Snow-i]

Iraq War vet armed with rifle thwarts gas station break-in, police say | Fox News

Those evil Ar-15s!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Iraq War vet armed with rifle thwarts gas station break-in, police say | Fox News

Those evil Ar-15s!

What is your point?

Nobody would say that people with guns can't be a good thing in some situations, it just depends on the person, there are a lot of weird disturbed people out there. Some would say that all dangerous weapons should be regulated for all people regardless of their mental condition, but apparently Congress can't even agree upon reforming background checks, putting the focus on the people rather than the weapons (which seemed to be the heart of the Republican argument) despite overwhelming public support for this, and this is largely on the Republicans since they generally seem like more common bedfellows with the NRA.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What is your point?

Nobody would say that people with guns can't be a good thing in some situations, it just depends on the person, there are a lot of weird disturbed people out there. Some would say that all dangerous weapons should be regulated for all people regardless of their mental condition, but apparently Congress can't even agree upon reforming background checks, putting the focus on the people rather than the weapons (which seemed to be the heart of the Republican argument) despite overwhelming public support for this, and this is largely on the Republicans since they generally seem like more common bedfellows with the NRA.

I've yet to see a citation for the "overwhelming public support" for the bill that failed in the Senate. Could you kindly provide one? As I've pointed out, it's hogwash - nothing more than propaganda to advance an agenda.

The point is that the 2nd is there for a reason, this being an example. Happens everyday and by now is hardly newsworthy.

And what is exactly is on the Republicans? Enforcing the laws we already have? That's on this administration. Drafting new laws to...make it harder for this fellow to operate his business?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I've yet to see a citation for the "overwhelming public support" for the bill that failed in the Senate. Could you kindly provide one? As I've pointed out, it's hogwash - nothing more than propaganda to advance an agenda.

Gallup polling, for one:

Gallup.Com - Polling Matters by Frank Newport: Senate Defeats Background Check Measure, Which 91% of Public Supports. Why?

The point is that the 2nd is there for a reason, this being an example. Happens everyday and by now is hardly newsworthy.

And what is exactly is on the Republicans? Enforcing the laws we already have? That's on this administration. Drafting new laws to...make it harder for this fellow to operate his business?

You're shifting the focus here. My comment was about politicians claiming that the answer is focusing on the people not the weapons, and then not being in favor of background check reform. Was there some specific aspect to the background check reformation that people were against?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

"Overwhelming public support" is irrelevant, we live in a republic not a democracy just for these situations were the public would make a knee jerk reaction to a situation. We'll see how important it is to the public during the next election cycle.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

"Overwhelming public support" is irrelevant, we live in a republic not a democracy just for these situations were the public would make a knee jerk reaction to a situation. We'll see how important it is to the public during the next election cycle.

I realize that public support is technically irrelevant, but when public support of something is 91% and Congress votes against these interests, to me it just means that the onus is even more so on politicians to have a good reason for doing what they did. I realize that 91% of the public does not make legislation righteous or flawed, but it does suggest a greater need for accountability.

If there is a good reason for voting against the background checks, fine, I'll shut up, but it sure smells of pretty bad corruption to me.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I realize that public support is technically irrelevant, but when public support of something is 91% and Congress votes against these interests, to me it just means that the onus is even more so on politicians to have a good reason for doing what they did. I realize that 91% of the public does not make legislation righteous or flawed, but it does suggest a greater need for accountability.

If there is a good reason for voting against the background checks, fine, I'll shut up, but it sure smells of pretty bad corruption to me.

Public support isn't irrelevant. It just can't be flash in the pan. It needs to be sustained. Otherwise beenie babies would be the national toy or something equally silly.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't believe in withholding a basic right for the vast majority, just because a few can't handle a responsibility. That sounds like lazy grammar school-style punishment, to me.

Funny, you always struck me as the sort of chap who would appreciate grammar school-style punishments. Perhaps I don't entirely follow what you mean in this case.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If there is a good reason for voting against the background checks, fine, I'll shut up, but it sure smells of pretty bad corruption to me.

I know you're not doing this intentionally, but you're moving the goalposts halfway through this sentence. The poll is about "background checks" in the abstract, while the bill that was voted on was a specific, complex, and obviously flawed implementation of "background checks." It's like comparing a poll asking "do you support patriotism" with "the patriot act." The bill allowed loopholes in the background checks for criminals' girlfriends to buy guns for them (and then eventually be threatened or killed by those criminals with those same guns). Straw sales are believed to be one of the leading ways criminals get guns (alongside "they steal them"), and for a criminal, pressuring a female acquaintance to be their straw-buyer is probably the most obvious and convenient way to do it. For a proposed implementation to completely ignore this problem, that's a fine reason for voting against that implementation. And it has nothing to do with opposing background checks.

Background checks is an admirable goal, but it's going to be a difficult implementation. You can expect most implementations to come up far short, in any situation like that. So for the same person to be in favor of the goal but reject any random given implementation is not a contradiction, and it's not indicative of corruption.

[rambo47]

Ironically, one of the biggest proponents of banning all guns was columnist Carl Rowan. And for what was Rowan arrested? Illegal possession of a handgun. Even the advocates of banning guns can't seem to do without them.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know you're not doing this intentionally, but you're moving the goalposts halfway through this sentence. The poll is about "background checks" in the abstract, while the bill that was voted on was a specific, complex, and obviously flawed implementation of "background checks." It's like comparing a poll asking "do you support patriotism" with "the patriot act." The bill allowed loopholes in the background checks for criminals' girlfriends to buy guns for them (and then eventually be threatened or killed by those criminals with those same guns). Straw sales are believed to be one of the leading ways criminals get guns (alongside "they steal them"), and for a criminal, pressuring a female acquaintance to be their straw-buyer is probably the most obvious and convenient way to do it. For a proposed implementation to completely ignore this problem, that's a fine reason for voting against that implementation. And it has nothing to do with opposing background checks.

Background checks is an admirable goal, but it's going to be a difficult implementation. You can expect most implementations to come up far short, in any situation like that. So for the same person to be in favor of the goal but reject any random given implementation is not a contradiction, and it's not indicative of corruption.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see what the Republicans would be willing to get behind. Obviously something needs to be done.