Another school shooting

[michigancat]

Yeah, it's the same except it's completely different. But using your logic, maybe a complete ban and seizure of all guns makes more sense.

except all force legitimizes & justifies resistance.  If you can believe that the majority of what causes these types of issues is social & cultural - the last thing you would want to do is justify some sort of resistance.

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here.

I'm saying it's incredibly disingenuous to suggest any one policy has any affect on violence.  Perhaps it dropped in the late 30's & 40's because of what was going on in the social climate.  Perhaps it peaked in the 60's because the baby boom post war had kids reaching the ages of 18-30; which happens to be the most common age brackets for violent offenders.  Maybe it peaked again in the 80's because baby boomer kids were having kids in that age bracket.  Maybe it was all economical. 

It's equally disingenuous to claim that all gun restrictions have always and will always have zero effect on violence.

[HeinBallz]

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here.

  Someone smart enough to get it will...  so there's that.

It's equally disingenuous to claim that all gun restrictions have always and will always have zero effect on violence.

So we agree.  No one has any basis for believing anything.

Continue pecking away at buttons.

 /thread

[michigancat]

I honestly have no idea what you're saying here.

  Someone smart enough to get it will...  so there's that.

It's equally disingenuous to claim that all gun restrictions have always and will always have zero effect on violence.

So we agree.  No one has any basis for believing anything.

Continue pecking away at buttons.

 /thread

LOL, like I said, taking away all guns wouldn't be poking at buttons. There would definitely be a change in the homicide rate. I don't think that's a good idea, but I also don't think keeping gun laws the same or making it easier to obtain firearms is a good idea, either. I believe there is a middle ground that we should try to find. Again, I'm a rational person, though.

[HeinBallz]

Here's a question for you that no one is talking about.  Meat production.   Stick with me while I beak at some other random pattern buttons.  Depression is often linked with several other health factors and no drug manufacturer would ever spend research money on anything they can't market.  Some people are beginning to find success treating depression by supplementing Omega 3 with high amounts of DHA & EPA. Why is this important?  Grain fed cattle have a diet that consist of high amounts of Omega 6's - that don't benefit brain function as much; grass fed cattle have a diet that consist of high amounts of Omega 3's.  Countries that have lower rates of violence also have a wider variety of red meat that is raised on a grass fed diet.

New Zealand, Switzerland, Europe...  all grass fed meat products.



See how ridiculous we can make this search for patterns?

[michigancat]

Here's a question for you that no one is talking about.  Meat production.   Stick with me while I beak at some other random pattern buttons.  Depression is often linked with several other health factors and no drug manufacturer would ever spend research money on anything they can't market.  Some people are beginning to find success treating depression by supplementing Omega 3 with high amounts of DHA & EPA. Why is this important?  Grain fed cattle have a diet that consist of high amounts of Omega 6's - that don't benefit brain function as much; grass fed cattle have a diet that consist of high amounts of Omega 3's.  Countries that have lower rates of violence also have a wider variety of red meat that is raised on a grass fed diet.

New Zealand, Switzerland, Europe...  all grass fed meat products.



See how ridiculous we can make this search for patterns?

Ha! I agree! Thinking gun policy can have an effect on gun violence is just as ridiculous as thinking meat production may have an effect on gun violence. Great point!

[HeinBallz]

Why do people always specify gun violence and leave all other violence out?  9/11, Timothy mcveigh, and that janitor that killed 38 kids in a Michigan school back in the thirties are all completely irrelevant to you?

[HeinBallz]

I can't believe you're okay with killing kids, as long as they're blown up

[HeinBallz]

What kind of a sick person are you?

[michigancat]

Why do people always specify gun violence and leave all other violence out?  9/11, Timothy mcveigh, and that janitor that killed 38 kids in a Michigan school back in the thirties are all completely irrelevant to you?

We've already addressed McVeigh and 9/11 both in this thread and with legislation. (Note: I don't agree with the Patriot Act, just like I don't agree with taking away guns). Also, those three incidents over the las 80+ are far less statistically significant than death from guns.

Overall, a pretty poor attempt at a strawman.

[HeinBallz]

agreed - but I see them all as straw man arguments.

I also think addressing the issues of what creates violence would have just as much impact and take just as long to have any effect that the very best gun policy could create.  The only difference is addressing the issues that cause violence would have a much wider impact than just senseless death.  It may take 10,20,50 years...  Show me gun policy that wouldn't take the same amount of time.

And what I was saying earlier that you didn't understand, is if you create a policy that will piss off gun enthusiast - they will resist the enforcement.  It will create a whole class of criminals that wouldn't have been capable of any criminal activity before the legislation and will do just as much harm as it would good.

[EllRobersonisInnocent]

What if I told you the government set up 9/11, is that something you might be interested in??

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

What if I told you the government set up 9/11, is that something you might be interested in??

Please, don't do it.

[HeinBallz]

Yeah...  That's not going to help.  Take it to the Alex jones thread.

[michigancat]

agreed - but I see them all as straw man arguments.

I also think addressing the issues of what creates violence would have just as much impact and take just as long to have any effect that the very best gun policy could create.  The only difference is addressing the issues that cause violence would have a much wider impact than just senseless death.  It may take 10,20,50 years...  Show me gun policy that wouldn't take the same amount of time.

I have absolutely zero issues with addressing social and mental health issues.  (In addition to revising gun policy). I do find it hilarious that you think we can easily fix the social problems that cause violence with policy while at the same time thinking there is no chance for smart gun policy impacting violence.

Also, I'm not 100% sure you know what a strawman is.

[HeinBallz]

agreed - but I see them all as straw man arguments.

I also think addressing the issues of what creates violence would have just as much impact and take just as long to have any effect that the very best gun policy could create.  The only difference is addressing the issues that cause violence would have a much wider impact than just senseless death.  It may take 10,20,50 years...  Show me gun policy that wouldn't take the same amount of time.

I have absolutely zero issues with addressing social and mental health issues.  (In addition to revising gun policy). I do find it hilarious that you think we can easily fix the social problems that cause violence with policy while at the same time thinking there is no chance for smart gun policy impacting violence.

Also, I'm not 100% sure you know what a strawman is.

I'm the small government guy, remember?  Who said anything about policy. 

[8manpick]

Hypothetical (like pretty much all the crap in this thread): if we could go back in time and ban production of any guns other than double barrel shotguns, six-shooter revolvers, and single shot rifles, (basic hunting weapons + personal protection pistols) do you think we would have fewer violent deaths today?  Assume we did a good/perfect job of keeping other, more powerful, military style weapons out of the hands of civilians.

[HeinBallz]

Would the military still have the weapons they have today?  Would everything else be exactly as it is now, just without the guns? If so, no.  I believe the trends we see in violence would be identical and we would be talking about some other way to restrict mayhem.  The conversation would at least probably be on the right track in my opinion.

[michigancat]

agreed - but I see them all as straw man arguments.

I also think addressing the issues of what creates violence would have just as much impact and take just as long to have any effect that the very best gun policy could create.  The only difference is addressing the issues that cause violence would have a much wider impact than just senseless death.  It may take 10,20,50 years...  Show me gun policy that wouldn't take the same amount of time.

I have absolutely zero issues with addressing social and mental health issues.  (In addition to revising gun policy). I do find it hilarious that you think we can easily fix the social problems that cause violence with policy while at the same time thinking there is no chance for smart gun policy impacting violence.

Also, I'm not 100% sure you know what a strawman is.

I'm the small government guy, remember?  Who said anything about policy.

I'm sure you have a great plan.

[HeinBallz]

Why so condescending?  I haven't suggested a plan because I don't think there can be one.  Any action taken that requires some sort of force to execute will have negative consequences.  That's all I've tried to warn against.

Our time would be better spent addressing the issues that pertain to what causes violence. And not as an addendum to essentially what would be more violence, gun control.

[Emo EMAW]

Why do people always specify gun violence and leave all other violence out?  9/11, Timothy mcveigh, and that janitor that killed 38 kids in a Michigan school back in the thirties are all completely irrelevant to you?

We've already addressed McVeigh and 9/11 both in this thread and with legislation. (Note: I don't agree with the Patriot Act, just like I don't agree with taking away guns). Also, those three incidents over the las 80+ are far less statistically significant than death from guns.

Overall, a pretty poor attempt at a strawman.

How many people are killed annually in the US by "assault weapons?"  Is it statistically significant?

[michigancat]

Why so condescending?  I haven't suggested a plan because I don't think there can be one.  Any action taken that requires some sort of force to execute will have negative consequences.  That's all I've tried to warn against.

Our time would be better spent addressing the issues that pertain to what causes violence. And not as an addendum to essentially what would be more violence, gun control.

I was referring to your plan to address the problems that cause violence without any policy changes.

It's so simple, everything else is a waste of time.

[HeinBallz]

No, more people are killed by hand guns; probably because they're cheaper.

[Paul Moscow]

Why do people always specify gun violence and leave all other violence out?  9/11, Timothy mcveigh, and that janitor that killed 38 kids in a Michigan school back in the thirties are all completely irrelevant to you?

We've already addressed McVeigh and 9/11 both in this thread and with legislation. (Note: I don't agree with the Patriot Act, just like I don't agree with taking away guns). Also, those three incidents over the las 80+ are far less statistically significant than death from guns.

Overall, a pretty poor attempt at a strawman.

How many people are killed annually in the US by "assault weapons?"  Is it statistically significant?

An assault weapons ban is a small part of that conversation (albeit one that gets outsize attention from the media) but if you think its the main motivation or argument behind these measures you're mistaken.

[Emo EMAW]

No, more people are killed by hand guns; probably because they're cheaper.

I guess this is my line of thinking:

1.  In current conditions, how many deaths a year can be attributed to "assault rifles?"
2.  Is it enough to focus our federal government's attention in the face of other pressing issues?
3.  How many deaths would the proposed legislation have prevented?

[michigancat]

Why do people always specify gun violence and leave all other violence out?  9/11, Timothy mcveigh, and that janitor that killed 38 kids in a Michigan school back in the thirties are all completely irrelevant to you?

We've already addressed McVeigh and 9/11 both in this thread and with legislation. (Note: I don't agree with the Patriot Act, just like I don't agree with taking away guns). Also, those three incidents over the las 80+ are far less statistically significant than death from guns.

Overall, a pretty poor attempt at a strawman.

How many people are killed annually in the US by "assault weapons?"  Is it statistically significant?

Are you the one constantly obsessing over the assault weapon definition? Because I really don't care and have never singled out assault weapons as a good place to start with policy changes.