Another school shooting

[Dugout DickStone]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

If you're a liberal, that number is apparently in the billions when it comes to producing and shipping DDT to Africa where almost a million people, 90% under 5 years old, die of malaria every year.  When it comes to banning guns, that number is about 20.

Why does Africa need us to make them DDT?

[Barry McCockner]

I'd start by asking the UK and Australia how they did it.

Guns aren't banned in either of those places.

[MakeItRain]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

If you're a liberal, that number is apparently in the billions when it comes to producing and shipping DDT to Africa where almost a million people, 90% under 5 years old, die of malaria every year.  When it comes to banning guns, that number is about 20.

Hey look someone else who can't debate the topic at hand so they employ the two wrongs make a right argument.  Start a thread about malaria, I'll start talking about heart disease, pediatric aids, or some other crap

[8manpick]

Of course banning guns will reduce GUN VIOLENCE. I am willing to listen to arguments that banning guns will cause an increase in TOTAL VIOLENCE.

Perhaps that would be better suited for another thread.

Violent crime in the UK: Includes all violence against the person, sexual offences, and robbery as violent crime


Handguns were banned and other strict gun control measures were enacted in 1997.  Correlation doesn't necessitate causation, but it is certainly interesting.

[Dugout DickStone]

Banning handguns seems to have worked to lower violence

[8manpick]

Also, we were having this same discussion 4 months ago, with the same people making the same points.  Nothing is changing so I don't know why we bother. 

[Barry McCockner]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

If you're a liberal, that number is apparently in the billions when it comes to producing and shipping DDT to Africa where almost a million people, 90% under 5 years old, die of malaria every year.  When it comes to banning guns, that number is about 20.

Why does Africa need us to make them DDT?

I have no idea, but the libs have banned it's use and production in the US and severely restricted it's use worldwide, all in the name of some species none of us would even know were gone if they went extinct tomorrow.  We could virtually end malaria within a few years if we wanted to, but apparently African lives are worth 1/1000000th of Connecticut lives.  If that's not the case, explain the media sensation 26 deaths have caused compared to the 2000+ malaria deaths that occur every day?

Why not return to prohibition?  Alcohol related deaths are FAR more prevalent than gun related deaths, and alcohol serves no useful purpose.  You ok with that, or are you going to adhere to the usual double standard?

[MakeItRain]

I'd start by asking the UK and Australia how they did it.

Guns aren't banned in either of those places.

heavily restricted, which is a great starting place for us

also I've said non-sporting about a dozen times, its been established that's what we're discussing here

[Barry McCockner]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

If you're a liberal, that number is apparently in the billions when it comes to producing and shipping DDT to Africa where almost a million people, 90% under 5 years old, die of malaria every year.  When it comes to banning guns, that number is about 20.

Hey look someone else who can't debate the topic at hand so they employ the two wrongs make a right argument.  Start a thread about malaria, I'll start talking about heart disease, pediatric aids, or some other crap

Just pointing out the usual liberal double standard, which you fell nicely in to.  Thanks for your cooperation.

[michigancat]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

If you're a liberal, that number is apparently in the billions when it comes to producing and shipping DDT to Africa where almost a million people, 90% under 5 years old, die of malaria every year.  When it comes to banning guns, that number is about 20.

While the use of ddt to fight malaria is definitely an interesting debate, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you think the many negative side effects of ddt use are comparable to the negative effects of gun control. You don't think that, do you?

[MakeItRain]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

If you're a liberal, that number is apparently in the billions when it comes to producing and shipping DDT to Africa where almost a million people, 90% under 5 years old, die of malaria every year.  When it comes to banning guns, that number is about 20.

Hey look someone else who can't debate the topic at hand so they employ the two wrongs make a right argument.  Start a thread about malaria, I'll start talking about heart disease, pediatric aids, or some other crap

Just pointing out the usual liberal double standard, which you fell nicely in to.  Thanks for your cooperation.

I didn't fall into any double standard.  Also how do you not understand that this isn't a liberal/conservative conversation?

[sys]

Banning handguns seems to have worked to lower violence

never took a stats class?  that's ok, lawyers aren't expected to understand data.

[nicname]

As the government grows, so does the citizen's perceived need to protect themselves from it.

Never the intent of the second amendment, dumbf*ck

Kind of is actually.  In fact the original intent of the second amendment wasn't only that citizens, individually or collectively, should have the right to be armed, but that their level of armament should allow them a defense equal to that of the government. 

Keep in mind that I do not now, and have never owned a gun.

A) The second amendment was not about the citizenry protecting itself from its own government. Why would the framers of the constitution want to arm insurrectionists? "Here's the right to liquidate us if we are ever bad"
B) The individuals right to gun ownership was dependent upon their involvement in a well-regulated (see: state) militia. There is no individual right to gun ownership by itself, unless you're Scalia.
C) Where does it say that citizens should have arms equal to the government? Like, anywhere in the history of time.

It starts in the history of England, especially their civil wars, the Catholic v. Protestant conflicts of the 17th century., and the development of militias, standing armies, and disarmament of citizens.  It was further advocated by William Blackstone in "Commentaries," and echoed by a movement within England known as republicans.  It was chronicled thoroughly during the drafting and ratification of the constitution. Basically an armed populous is a nation with a poopular governments best defense against enemies foreign and domestic.

[felix rex]

Sys is the only reason I'm following this thread.

[puniraptor]

I think topeka would yield some pretty shocking per capita stats for someone's argument.

[Dugout DickStone]

If the Patriot Act taught us anything, its that responding rapidly with new laws, because of emotion, is not a smart way to govern.

Yes gun violence is completely isolated and brand new.  In Chicago last year 700 people were killed by guns.  That's 700 in one US city.  I'd certainly love to know how many more hundreds of thousands have to die before it stops being a rapid response based on emotion. Is your number 50,000,000?

mine is pretty high.

If you're a liberal, that number is apparently in the billions when it comes to producing and shipping DDT to Africa where almost a million people, 90% under 5 years old, die of malaria every year.  When it comes to banning guns, that number is about 20.

Why does Africa need us to make them DDT?

I have no idea, but the libs have banned it's use and production in the US and severely restricted it's use worldwide, all in the name of some species none of us would even know were gone if they went extinct tomorrow.  We could virtually end malaria within a few years if we wanted to, but apparently African lives are worth 1/1000000th of Connecticut lives.  If that's not the case, explain the media sensation 26 deaths have caused compared to the 2000+ malaria deaths that occur every day?

Why not return to prohibition?  Alcohol related deaths are FAR more prevalent than gun related deaths, and alcohol serves no useful purpose.  You ok with that, or are you going to adhere to the usual double standard?

So the liberals control the production of a chemical in sub Saharan Africa?  You sure about that?

[sys]

While the use of ddt to fight malaria is definitely an interesting debate, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you think the many negative side effects of ddt use are comparable to the negative effects of gun control. You don't think that, do you?

it's amazing how many things are irrelevant to the discussion.  pretty much everything except that no one needs guns and that guns kill people. 

[MakeItRain]

Also, we were having this same discussion 4 months ago, with the same people making the same points.  Nothing is changing so I don't know why we bother. 

100% correct.  Instead of trying to change minds that wont be changed we need to focus our efforts on finding law makers who have the conviction to actually do something.

[kim carnes]

this paul moscow guy cannot be serious.

[sys]

Sys is the only reason I'm following this thread.

i'm flattered, but i'm nearly done.  i only kept reading today because of 33.

[michigancat]

While the use of ddt to fight malaria is definitely an interesting debate, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you think the many negative side effects of ddt use are comparable to the negative effects of gun control. You don't think that, do you?

it's amazing how many things are irrelevant to the discussion.  pretty much everything except that no one needs guns and that guns kill people. 

I think the points you are making regarding taking way a personal/civil liberty are very relevant.

Would you be in favor of reducing gun restrictions? Make it easier to buy a gun, and make it legal for citizens to have fully automatic weapons without restrictions?

Why or why not?

[kim carnes]

While the use of ddt to fight malaria is definitely an interesting debate, it's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you think the many negative side effects of ddt use are comparable to the negative effects of gun control. You don't think that, do you?

it's amazing how many things are irrelevant to the discussion.  pretty much everything except that no one needs guns and that guns kill people. 

I think the points you are making regarding taking way a personal/civil liberty are very relevant.

Would you be in favor of reducing gun restrictions? Make it easier to buy a gun, and make it legal for citizens to have fully automatic weapons without restrictions?

Why or why not?

Yes, so i could read on the internet (goEMAW) about how upset people are by this.

[kstatefreak42]

Yeah, some pud and his glock will stop the gov if they want to suppress them.

No, but millions of puds with glocks, and ar-15's theoretically could.

Lol.  No.  You really don't understand what our military is capable of.

What is the point of saying this?  That because the US military is so powerful and capable of destroying our citizenry through lethal force that it is best to just accept it and docilely do as instructed?

The point is you don't need to be armed to protect yourself from the govt.

Democide. Dumbass Clown.

[puniraptor]

I think when I have kids I might convert to hardcore homeschooling doomsday prepper. We will run weekly active shooter drills from the time they can walk.

[felix rex]

Sys is the only reason I'm following this thread.

i'm flattered, but i'm nearly done.  i only kept reading today because of 33.

Yes. I guess I spoke carelessly. 33 was also amazing.