Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Debate about Gun Control
(06-20-2017, 11:58 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(06-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Mikebert Wrote: They are *still* talking about that shooting at the baseball field.  What is the big deal? These things happen all the time.

There was another one the same day, another two days after than and then again yesterday:

Saturday: http://www.10tv.com/article/police-ident...-nightclub
Thursday: https://www.abqjournal.com/1018851/death...spree.html
Same day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lates...s-48036675

We average more than three of these a week,

I agree, but who are we?  This one gets noticed because it's in one of our media capitals and it involves a celebrity of sorts.  There is also some irony here, and the media loves that.

There may also be a difference between an attempted assassination versus a run of the mill deranged shooting.
Reply
(06-20-2017, 06:46 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:
(06-20-2017, 11:58 AM)David Horn Wrote:
(06-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Mikebert Wrote: They are *still* talking about that shooting at the baseball field.  What is the big deal? These things happen all the time.

There was another one the same day, another two days after than and then again yesterday:

Saturday: http://www.10tv.com/article/police-ident...-nightclub
Thursday: https://www.abqjournal.com/1018851/death...spree.html
Same day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lates...s-48036675

We average more than three of these a week,

I agree, but who are we?  This one gets noticed because it's in one of our media capitals and it involves a celebrity of sorts.  There is also some irony here, and the media loves that.

There may also be a difference between an attempted assassination versus a run of the mill deranged shooting.

Yes I think that's a huge difference.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
One noted pundit or writer was quoted in the media yesterday advocating repeal of the Second Amendment as the ultimate solution to guns. I am glad to see it. Of course, such a move would take care of Bob Butler's objections on constitutional grounds. Of course, however, America is so gun happy that such a move is extremely unlikely in our lifetime or even the lifetimes of our living descendants, despite the slippery slope arguments used by the gun nuts and gun advocates. No proposals being made today in congress come even close to repeal, but merely require what the Supreme Court has allowed, and resemble licensing for such things as cars, which are not even weapons designed solely to kill people, as many guns are.

But suppose the amendment were repealed, and a confiscation program was begun to accompany a buy-back program? Would civil war result? Well, these days, a civil war could result even from the modest gun control programs being proposed today. In the future though, we may not be so divided. Our current Divided States of America dates from our recent Awakening, and has gotten more severe since then, but might disappear in the next 1T or in future saecula. Or we may even be two or more nations by then. A blue nation would have no problem with gun control, or maybe even repeal eventually.

Today according to one poll, 42% of Americans own guns. Probably the majority of them are white Republicans, according to the poll as reported. That's too many to confiscate today. I imagine most gun owners would not be part of a resistance army, though. Under a confiscation program, duly passed by law, most gun owners would comply. However, I imagine that for the foreseeable future, the threat of such an army of resistance among some gun owners would remain. But someday, if the USA becomes a sane and responsible nation, which it is not today, a confiscation program might actually work. So, the slippery slope exists, but the slope can probably be measured in centuries and saecula, well beyond the lifetimes of gun owners and their children today.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(06-18-2017, 11:33 AM)Mikebert Wrote: They are *still* talking about that shooting at the baseball field.  What is the big deal? These things happen all the time.

There was another one the same day, another two days after than and then again yesterday:

Saturday: http://www.10tv.com/article/police-ident...-nightclub
Thursday: https://www.abqjournal.com/1018851/death...spree.html
Same day: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/lates...s-48036675

We average more than three of these a week,

The big deal was that the target was of the political elites, not one of us random rabble.
Reply
(10-09-2017, 09:21 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: One noted pundit or writer was quoted in the media yesterday advocating repeal of the Second Amendment as the ultimate solution to guns. I am glad to see it. Of course, such a move would take care of Bob Butler's objections on constitutional grounds. Of course, however, America is so gun happy that such a move is extremely unlikely in our lifetime or even the lifetimes of our living descendants, despite the slippery slope arguments used by the gun nuts and gun advocates. No proposals being made today in congress come even close to repeal, but merely require what the Supreme Court has allowed, and resemble licensing for such things as cars, which are not even weapons designed solely to kill people, as many guns are.

But suppose the amendment were repealed, and a confiscation program was begun to accompany a buy-back program? Would civil war result? Well, these days, a civil war could result even from the modest gun control programs being proposed today. In the future though, we may not be so divided. Our current Divided States of America dates from our recent Awakening, and has gotten more severe since then, but might disappear in the next 1T or in future saecula. Or we may even be two or more nations by then. A blue nation would have no problem with gun control, or maybe even repeal eventually.

Today according to one poll, 42% of Americans own guns. Probably the majority of them are white Republicans, according to the poll as reported. That's too many to confiscate today. I imagine most gun owners would not be part of a resistance army, though. Under a confiscation program, duly passed by law, most gun owners would comply. However, I imagine that for the foreseeable future, the threat of such an army of resistance among some gun owners would remain. But someday, if the USA becomes a sane and responsible nation, which it is not today, a confiscation program might actually work. So, the slippery slope exists, but the slope can probably be measured in centuries and saecula, well beyond the lifetimes of gun owners and their children today.

Well, yes, we are all free to imagine weird futures.

I'm still willing to close most to all loopholes.  The hard part is enforcing a prohibition style law.

In the Las Vegas case, we perhaps should ban external mods to a firearm the same as an internal mod.  They should not have let that one slip.  Other than that, the shooter's secrecy and lack of joining problematic groups makes solving the problem with enforceable laws hard.  Anyone care to propose anything new?  Even if one accepts that the right to own and carry firearms is protected, how does owning more than a few weapons protect one more???  If the object of the NRA is to sell guns, the latter could go no where.

I would like to see the Constitution worth the paper it is printed on.  What the founding fathers wrote and intended is very clear.  The Constitution should not mean what five people says it means.  There is a well defined mechanism to handle a values change.  Many daydream about using it well ahead of the values change.
Reply
It seems like the Constitution says that it does mean that. It has jurisdiction over all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution and the laws of the USA, and all that arise in law or in fact, subject to regulations by congress. Article 3, section 2.

What is weird, is certainly the current state of affairs, especially politically; not the future I imagined. Currently, the future I imagined is very improbable, sure! (as I said) But that's because of the weird state of affairs that exists.

After 40 years of needless obstruction and delay, we have our hands full with passing the proposals that have been around that long or longer, and should have been enacted that long ago!
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
Liberal Democrat and Hillary supporter Roy Rigordaeva says: "There's more than enough guns in this country to supply every man woman and child with one. But it's important to note that 3% of the population owns 50% of those firearms. America is under attack by a crazed gun nut death cult." He might have a point if his numbers are right. Of course the leaders of this cult are the leaders of the NRA, who have throttled our congress from acting in order to preserve their own financial interest.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
Interesting point of view. I don't entirely agree that today's proposals are feckless; the AR-15 can be called an assault rifle because it's a rapid fire weapon. Details about differences are meaningless, although many T4T fans have argued otherwise on the forums. 1/5 of gun owners buying without a background check is still a lot. That's about all we can hope for now in today's America, so that's why liberals push it. It's interesting that he points out the guns recovered from a crime are rarely in the hands of their legal owners. That's what I have pointed out as one reason guns in the possession of "law-abiding" gun owners means nothing. Their guns get stolen. And if a "law-abiding" gun owner is tempted by the convenience of the gun to use it to murder his wife or personal enemy, then presto-chango that gun owner is no longer law-abiding.

But, maybe it's time for gun opponents to push harder. Aim high and far, and we might get farther. Just like "single-payer" seems to be going farther nowadays. Conservatives take stands and don't mince words, and that works for them. Liberals are timid in the face of conservative passion, and that's why we lose today. At least, that's possible. Right now, many conservatives seem to do better the more conservative they get, while liberal Democrats have been in retreat. On the other hand, Trump may be too wacky, and this is fueling some Democratic successes at the polls. Tea Party wackos have lost some senate races too. So arguably there's a limit, even among some conservatives, on how wacky radical or reactionary each side can get.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Repeal the Second Amendment
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/op...gle.com%2F


OCTOBER 5, 2017
Bret Stephens

I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.

What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.

Given all of this, why do liberals keep losing the gun control debate?

Maybe it’s because they argue their case badly and — let’s face it — in bad faith. Democratic politicians routinely profess their fidelity to the Second Amendment — or rather, “a nuanced reading” of it — with all the conviction of Barack Obama’s support for traditional marriage, circa 2008. People recognize lip service for what it is.

Then there are the endless liberal errors of fact. There is no “gun-show loophole” per se; it’s a private-sale loophole, in other words the right to sell your own stuff. The civilian AR-15 is not a true “assault rifle,” and banning such rifles would have little effect on the overall murder rate, since most homicides are committed with handguns. It’s not true that 40 percent of gun owners buy without a background check; the real number is closer to one-fifth.

The National Rifle Association does not have Republican “balls in a money clip,” as Jimmy Kimmel put it the other night. The N.R.A. has donated a paltry $3,533,294 to all current members of Congress since 1998, according to The Washington Post, equivalent to about three months of Kimmel’s salary. The N.R.A. doesn’t need to buy influence: It’s powerful because it’s popular.

Nor will it do to follow the “Australian model” of a gun buyback program, which has shown poor results in the United States and makes little sense in a country awash with hundreds of millions of weapons. Keeping guns out of the hands of mentally ill people is a sensible goal, but due process is still owed to the potentially insane. Background checks for private gun sales are another fine idea, though its effects on homicides will be negligible: guns recovered by police are rarely in the hands of their legal owners, a 2016 study found.

In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.


There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

Donald Trump will likely get one more Supreme Court nomination, or two or three, before he leaves office, guaranteeing a pro-gun court for another generation. Expansive interpretations of the right to bear arms will be the law of the land — until the “right” itself ceases to be.

Some conservatives will insist that the Second Amendment is fundamental to the structure of American liberty. They will cite James Madison, who noted in the Federalist Papers that in Europe “the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” America was supposed to be different, and better.

I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today, when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War. My guess: Take the guns—or at least the presumptive right to them—away. The true foundation of American exceptionalism should be our capacity for moral and constitutional renewal, not our instinct for self-destruction.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
[Image: 22310169_119586048736517_117985929472214...e=5A7A2FBA]
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(10-11-2017, 04:51 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [Image: 22310169_119586048736517_117985929472214...e=5A7A2FBA]

Technically, 9/11 was an act of war. Still not close.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack. The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government. An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic. As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so. Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.
Reply
(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

Yeah, because Europeans are so oppressed and all that.   Rolleyes
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Reply
(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.
Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.
Reply
(10-16-2017, 04:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

Yeah, because Europeans are so oppressed and all that.   Rolleyes
Compared to Americans, the Europeans are oppressed.
Reply
(10-16-2017, 11:57 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 04:30 PM)David Horn Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

Yeah, because Europeans are so oppressed and all that.   Rolleyes
Compared to Americans, the Europeans are oppressed.

They are just oppressed by different people. Europeans still have the vestiges of a class system, and just as much resentment against immigrants and foreigners; but Americans are oppressed by businessmen. Europeans pay more taxes, which red-state and red-county Americans call "oppression," but it's not oppression, because (unlike in America) they DO get something for their money; like free health care and education, and wonderful transportation systems. Some European countries have less stringent safeguards for free speech and religion and such (no constitution or bill of rights), but on the other hand they have up to date parliamentary systems instead of the elected (or selected) king that we have; and by the way their elections are not as dominated by money, and they don't go on forever like ours do. And they are ahead of us in caring for their environment, which is ourselves, and our lives. And, of course, they don't have maniacs on the street killing people everywhere, without restriction and without the people giving a damn about it, as is happening here. Red/purple state/county Americans call their gun laws "oppression," but it's not, because the government is not thereby given permission to imprison or shoot them, as Americans fear-- BUT as does happen here in America all the time even with our permissive gun laws. And Americans consider gun laws to be "oppression," but it means more freedom to walk the streets and go to concerts. And their businessmen are not as cheap and mean as American businessmen are; workers get 3 or 4 times more time off, and flexible work schedules.

No, I'd say the Europeans are still well ahead of Americans when it comes to freedom and oppression. We could learn from them, instead of insulting them as Republicans do.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(10-16-2017, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.
Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.

You can thank the fact that you live in a blue state of long-standing, with more advanced social support than most other states. I am thankful too for where *I* live. Minnesota gets a C grade on gun control by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

California gets an A-

According to their latest map, Minnesota moved up to a C+ and is ranked #12 in the nation, and California moved up to an A and is ranked #1.

[Image: us-map-2016.png]
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/...p-2016.png

Note that the states with the worst gun death rates are all deep red states (except New Mexico, now turning blue) with an F grade for gun control.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
(10-17-2017, 11:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.
Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.

You can thank the fact that you live in a blue state of long-standing, with more advanced social support than most other states. I am thankful too for where *I* live. Minnesota gets a C grade on gun control by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

California gets an A-

According to their latest map, Minnesota moved up to a C+ and is ranked #12 in the nation, and California moved up to an A and is ranked #1.

[Image: us-map-2016.png]
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/...p-2016.png

Note that the states with the worst gun death rates are all deep red states (except New Mexico, now turning blue) with an F grade for gun control.
I know the number of gun related deaths that occur in the south side of Chicago (Chicago is a Democratic stronghold) is probably higher (figuring off the top of my head) than entire state of Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota combined. Minnesota doesn't have a major issue with gun violence despite its slightly above average grade pertaining to its gun laws. Minnesota has a few areas that have an issue with high levels of gun violence. The bulk of the states gun violence occurs in Minneapolis and St Paul (BTW, the Twin Cities are also Democratic strongholds).
Reply
(10-17-2017, 01:15 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(10-17-2017, 11:53 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 11:48 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
(10-16-2017, 03:39 PM)noway2 Wrote: In this so called "unified" United States, the rights enumerated (not granted, simply expressed, as their already inherent) under the constitution are already under attack.  The founding fathers had enough wisdom to realize that an armed populace is going to be much harder to railroad by a tyrannical, out of control, government.  An armed populace actually has the option of force for when reason inevitably fails.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the by the end of this 4th turning the United States may very well be broken up into a form of confederacy of regions or states and will no longer be the federal republic.  As Eric points out, the "blue" regions would have no issues enacting gun restrictions and would undoubtedly do so.  Of course, the denizens will quickly realize what happens in a society when only the government has a monopoly on force and the quislings, such as the media pundits, will quickly learn how badly they've been played.

We are being "railroaded" by an armed populace of crazy nutcases who like to shoot people in theaters, concert venues, ballrooms, schools, shopping centers, army depots, office buildings, freeways, and countless other places in this violent society.
Actually, the actions of the crazy nutcases haven't been able to railroad us (the armed populace/red-purple America) at all. I don't live in a violent society. I live in a rather peaceful society which has some very violent/sick people that exist within it. America is largely peaceful.

You can thank the fact that you live in a blue state of long-standing, with more advanced social support than most other states. I am thankful too for where *I* live. Minnesota gets a C grade on gun control by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

California gets an A-

According to their latest map, Minnesota moved up to a C+ and is ranked #12 in the nation, and California moved up to an A and is ranked #1.

[Image: us-map-2016.png]
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/...p-2016.png

Note that the states with the worst gun death rates are all deep red states (except New Mexico, now turning blue) with an F grade for gun control.
I know the number of gun related deaths that occur in the south side of Chicago (Chicago is a Democratic stronghold) is probably higher (figuring off the top of my head) than entire state of Minnesota, Iowa, North and South Dakota combined. Minnesota doesn't have a major issue with gun violence despite its slightly above average grade pertaining to its gun laws. Minnesota has a few areas that have an issue with high levels of gun violence. The bulk of the states gun violence occurs in Minneapolis and St Paul (BTW, the Twin Cities are also Democratic strongholds).

But isn't it interesting that overall, despite all the hype about Chicago guns and murders, Illinois has a good record on gun laws AND gun violence. Yes, a few urban areas where poor people are still concentrated, thanks to our inadequate federal social programs and low taxes, have more murders, more drug gangs and more criminals who can go next door to a red state and buy or steal as many guns as they want with their drug money, thanks to our drug wars and opioid epidemics. I wouldn't want to live in a black ghetto. But virtually all urban areas in the USA are "Democratic strongholds" today, because urban areas are urbane, well-informed, diverse, and not parochial deserts locked into traditionalist delusions and capitalist, self-reliance memes that blame blacks and poor people for their low taxes (but too high according to them). 

Urban Democratic governments, you could well say, should do better to help their poor citizens, if they could (which they can't, according to Republicans, because that perpetuates dependence). Supposedly urbane but poor cities and their violence, you say, proves Democratic Party policies don't work.

But how much can urban mayors and councils do by themselves? The fact is, blue states are far better off than red states, because they vote Democratic, have social programs, make investments in education, health and infrastructure, have gun control, and have regulations on pollution and mistreatment of workers and consumers. Blue states are safer and more prosperous than red states. That makes our urban areas and blue states much better places to live, and consequently also more expensive to live in, because they are the desirable places. So, because people have to pay more, although they also earn more, in order to live in blue states, and give more to the federal government than red states do, but get less back, resources are limited for these cities to do ALL that should be possible for all their people. But, they do better than the red states do at that. Parts of Chicago may be in trouble, but look at New York, near the top in gun laws and near the bottom in gun deaths; who wouda thot back in 1970 that New York City would be one of the safest places to live? Maybe Chicago will get there too, if they keep on the blue path. And Los Angeles too. Illinois is rated 8th in gun laws, and has the 12th best rate of gun violence. Illinois' slightly higher level and rank in gun violence compared to its gun law rating would be entirely due to the lax gun laws and huge exports from red state Indiana next door. Even so, Indiana's rank for gun violence is slightly worse than its gun law ranking. You see a similar problem in Maryland, which has some new strict gun laws, but Maryland criminals have easy access to guns from the red and purple states to the south and west.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

But thanks for the discussion and your views; it gives me a good basis for responding as best I can. And maybe the truth emerges sometimes from discussions.

And I'm so proud of my state on this issue Smile
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
Blue and red states and their gun control ratings:

Blue states

Hawaii A-
California A
New York A-
Massachusetts A-
Connecticut A-
Rhode Island B+
Vermont F
Maryland A-
New Jersey A-
Illinois B+
Minnesota C+
New Mexico F
Oregon C
Washington B


Red states:

Idaho F
Montana F
Wyoming F
Utah F
North Dakota F
South Dakota F
Nebraska D
Kansas F
Oklahoma F
Texas F
Louisiana F
Arkansas F
Missouri F
Mississippi F
Alabama F
Georgia F
South Carolina F
Tennessee F
Kentucky F
West Virginia F
Indiana D-
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Bipartisan Senate group proposes ‘no fly, no buy’ gun measure nebraska 1,204 171,351 06-06-2020, 06:13 PM
Last Post: Tavo5
  debate TheNomad 9 203 03-17-2020, 03:56 AM
Last Post: Bob Butler 54
  Hawaii bill would allow gun seizure after hospitalization nebraska 17 2,917 05-05-2019, 10:05 AM
Last Post: misswali
  The dangers of government control nebraska 0 597 01-29-2018, 08:28 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Gov. Malloy Asks Legislature to Expand Gun Control and Ban 'Bump Stocks' nebraska 0 688 01-22-2018, 05:56 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  U.S. moving toward more control by government nebraska 0 568 01-20-2018, 11:16 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  In DACA talks, Trump angers both sides of immigration debate nebraska 0 496 01-11-2018, 07:42 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Rep. Ing Introduces Rent Control Bill nebraska 0 466 12-27-2017, 10:21 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  U.S. moving toward more control by government nebraska 0 493 12-27-2017, 09:51 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Political Polarity To Reverse On Gun Control, States' Rights? Anthony '58 21 8,246 02-04-2017, 05:51 AM
Last Post: Galen

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)