Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Fish Finder
climber
|
|
you did get the 666 post Craig
edit: heck yeah , my guy Fry is the nicest sheepbugger you all will ever run into
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
Trump Leads Latest Poll by Large Margin
This guy is going to arm everyone and segregate the population. = "shit hitting fan"
ISIS ain't got nothing on the donald.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 4, 2015 - 10:21am PT
|
Dec 4, 2015 - 08:57am PT
frightened little dicks are an embarrassment to this country'
Says Pillo the LightningBoi who hides under a blanket every time it rains!
Wipe the IslamoLove off your chin Pillo. Guns are not the problem, ME terrorists are and ya'll can't see it through the IslamoLove.
So you just can't get over that I made you cry and your pathetic constant attacks got you the boot. you earned the boot all on your own. you are on your way to another booting. Keep up the hate fest.
Question, do you make fun of soldiers with PTSD, or blind people or steal crutches from the injured?
Why do you think making fun of a lightning strike survivor is fun? It is an act of cruelty and it makes you a sick weakling.
Maybe you need some electroshock therapy. Come on over I can help with that.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
For your consideration....
2/3 of the "firearm homicides" in this nation are suicides. If you compare the USA suicide rates with those of other nations, you see that we are FAR behind South Korea and Japan (that have virtually removed guns from their societies). We are behind many European nations, including France.
So, in fact, the "tool" employed really is a red herring. People succeed in killing themselves just fine with or without guns, and our suicide rate is "right in there" with other developed nations and lower than many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
Take out the suicides-by-gun, and you have a MUCH more realistic comparison with other nations' murder-by-gun rates.
Then, take away the gang and drug-related murders (coupled with those drug-related incidents that are commonly counted as "arguments"), and you are left with very, VERY few "other" murders-by-gun.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm
In actual fact, the demographic that could even possibly be positively affected by proposed gun-control laws amount to a few-thousand incidents. And in actual fact, we simply don't know what makes people do the sorts of things that fall into this "other" category. You have to look at the incidents case-by-case.
This latest incident is not motivated by the same factors as, say, a theater shooter. So, there is no way to sweepingly identify the causal chains that produce these incidents.
If you are serious about solutions, rather than knee-jerk reactions that really will NOT produce solutions, then you have to get beyond the "gotta do SOMETHING" mentality that typically pervades these discussions.
What we've really "gotta do" is zero in on the demographics about which we intend to "do something," carefully identify the causal chains that motivate each brand of violence, and then address the social issues that produce the undesirable motivations.
The "tool" really is not the issue, in this nation you cannot remove the "tool," and the vast majority of desired regulatory legislation is literally not causally-connected to the actual problem we would hope to solve.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 4, 2015 - 11:56am PT
|
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
oh what does a Chief Justice know about interpreting the Constitution anyway?
just ask Madbolter, his fine legal mind will straighten all this out
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
^^^^
Sorry, but he is simply incorrect. His "take" on the 2nd amendment is not even logically sustainable, as the language is in the form of a conditional. He falls into the same logical mistake that plagues many: denying the antecedent.
Would you quote Justice Scalia as an "authority"? These guys are just guys, and they often make even egregious mistakes. This perspective was one of those.
Edit: The irony of Norton's statement (which popped in before my response) is that you guys DO NOT want to go back to what the founders actually SAID about the 2nd amendment. You'll quote a justice but not the people that actually WROTE the thing in the first place.
Every time I bring up the founders' perspectives, I get: "those guys had their perspective, but we live in the 21st century now," and, "Foundationalism is ridiculous," and so on.
So, you'll quote ONE guy who echos your own (mistaken) perspective, but you'll throw out the guys who actually WROTE the thing.
Pretty pathetic, really.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
madbolter posted 2/3 of the "firearm homicides" in this nation are suicides. If you compare the USA suicide rates with those of other nations, you see that we are FAR behind South Korea and Japan (that have virtually removed guns from their societies). We are behind many European nations, including France.
So, in fact, the "tool" employed really is a red herring. People succeed in killing themselves just fine with or without guns, and our suicide rate is "right in there" with other developed nations and lower than many.
The suicide success rate goes up dramatically if you used a gun.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/
Fatal Nonfatal Total % Fatal
Firearm 16,869 2,980 19,849 85%
Suffocation 6,198 2,761 8,959 69%
Poisoning/overdose 5,191 215,814 221,005 2%
Fall 651 1434 2,085 31%
Cut/pierce 458 62,817 63,275 1%
Other 1,109 35,089 36,198 3%
Unspecified 146 2097 2,243 7%
Total 30,622 322,991 353,613 9%
It's hard to argue that reducing access to guns wouldn't have an impact. It won't fix it but it will certainly make a difference. S. Korea and Japan have shame based cultures where suicide has in the past been seen as a socially acceptable alternative to failure. I'm not sure those are great examples. Additionally, while suicides make up 2/3 of total guns deaths, arguing that the 12,000 people killed annually by guns in homicides is thus acceptable by comparison is callous and grotesque.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
To overturn it will likely require a constitutional amendment. I'd like to see some courageous democrats take up that cause.... yeah, right.
Time will tell, but I'd say the 2nd Amendment is far more likely to be "overturned" by judicial fiat once more libs are put on the court than by an actual amendment.
The Supreme Court can and does "overrule" itself. For example, it wasn't that long ago that the Supreme Court upheld state laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy.
A decade or two goes by, the Court reverses itself, and then keeps going and finds there's a Constitutional right to sodomite marriage!!
What is perhaps even more likely is that the future Courts won't explicitly overrule Heller, but will uphold increasingly strict gun regs (remember the Court didn't say you can't have gun control laws--just overruled the most extreme ones).
I don't have any context for the Burger quote, but MB is entirely correct-- I'd go even further and say that a view that the the "proper" interpretation of an amendment in the Bill of Rights that grants rights to "the people" is that army has the right to possess weapons isn't even really worth a serious response.
What is worth more consideration is the modern lib view that the Constitution doesn't mean anything at all except whatever the current Supreme Court says it means, and it can say anything to either strike down state or federal laws or compel the state and federal government to do anything it wants. Sadly, that seems to be the direction the country is moving, Obama had done his part in appointing hardcore statists to the Court, and Hillary will do more of the same if given the chance.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 4, 2015 - 12:40pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
arguing that the 12,000 people killed annually by guns in homicides is thus acceptable by comparison is callous and grotesque.
I totally agree. Who do you think IS arguing that way?
And what's your account of the suicide rate in (as we recently saw poignantly played out) ENTIRELY gun-free France, which beats our suicide rate?
My overarching point, anyway, is that getting to the causes of these incidents MATTERS, so that no cookie-cutter, sweeping, knee-jerk, "do something" REACTIONS are going to be valid.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
My overarching point, anyway, is that getting to the causes of these incidents MATTERS, so that no cookie-cutter, sweeping, knee-jerk, "do something" REACTIONS are going to be valid.
1930's- "we gotta do something about these guns"
1960's- "we gotta do something about these guns"
1970's- "we gotta do something about these guns"
1980's- "we gotta do something about these guns"
1990's- "we gotta do something about these guns"
2000's- "we gotta do something about these guns"
2010's- "we gotta do something about these guns"
2015- "Woah. WOAH, buddy. Easy with the knee jerk reaction, ok? We need time to puzzle this out."
I totally agree. Who do you think IS arguing that way?
Anyone who says "well 2/3 of those deaths is suicide" with no concurrent argument that something needs to be done is inherently minimizing the number. So, a lot of people.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Let me help you state it accurately:
1930's- Liberals intent on control saying, "we gotta do something about these guns"
1960's- Liberals intent on control saying, "we gotta do something about these guns"
1970's- Liberals intent on control saying, "we gotta do something about these guns"
1980's- Liberals intent on control saying, "we gotta do something about these guns"
1990's- Liberals intent on control saying, "we gotta do something about these guns"
2000's- Liberals intent on control saying, "we gotta do something about these guns"
2010's- Liberals intent on control saying, "we gotta do something about these guns"
2015- Non-liberal saying, "Woah. WOAH, buddy. Easy with the knee jerk reaction, ok? We need time to puzzle this out."
Anyone who says "well 2/3 of those deaths is suicide" with no concurrent argument that something needs to be done is inherently minimizing the number. So, a lot of people.
Nope, let me fix THAT for you too, since you seem intent on straw-man argumentation....
2/3 of those deaths are suicides, and our suicide rate is in keeping with that of other developed nations REGARDLESS OF TOOL EMPLOYED.
Yes, there IS an issue, and we SHOULD look into it!
But, like with the other "gun homicide" incidents, focusing on the TOOL is indeed a red herring, and we don't make PROGRESS toward ACTUAL solutions to ANY of these incidents (suicides, mass-shootings, gangland violence, or ANY of it) by sweeping all of them together under one (false cause) "gun control" rubric.
Again, when you FINALLY do want to get serious about solutions, then you will FINALLY agree that the ACTUAL CAUSES cannot be addressed by fixating on the tool.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Madbolter posted 1960's- Liberals intent on control saying, "we gotta do something about these guns"
Uh, I think you might want to do some reading on this, buddy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
You do realize that current political ideologies and party lines were not always the same, right?
Chaz posted Interesting to see people with a well known aversion to pork living like f*#king pigs.
Pigs are actually super clean. Glad to know you're still looking for that racism line.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
Yea, and the FBI tearing thru the apartment followed by the media rush had nothing to do with it's condition.
|
|
dhayan
climber
culver city, ca
|
|
Why call them terrorists? They are all just plain old murderers...al quaeda, Isis, and the us government.... Calling them terrorist gives them too much importance.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"Yea, and the FBI tearing thru the apartment followed by the media rush had nothing to do with it's condition."
It was probably the FBI who dirtied all the dishes and left them piled in the sink.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Uh, I think you might want to do some reading on this, buddy.
LOL... stooping to state laws when this entire thread has been about national policy?
Why not dig up some local laws? Sheesh, why not look at the posted desires of this or that local business?
Hey, I'm not saying you can't find this or that exception to the rule. But you also can't deny that the increasingly liberal "platform" goes hand-in-hand with the long-term calls to "do something" about guns at a national level. Nor can you deny that these calls follow "incidents" that the media has spun into more and more of a national "crisis," so that this "crisis" can be used as justification for false-cause CONTROLS.
Look, this is very simple: Gun owners/carriers have a right. It's a right that doesn't infringe upon ANY of yours. It's a right derived directly from an inalienable right, making it nothing like the right to a cell phone or any other such spurious, liberal BS. If you want to legislate in ANY way that infringes on that right, you have a burden of proof regarding the causal connections between your proposed law and some national crisis that demands that gun owners "give a little" regarding their right and the supposed solution to the supposed crisis.
Regardless of media spin, we do NOT have a "gun crisis" in this nation. Period. There are tragedies, but they simply don't rise to the level of national crisis.
More people are dying from guns than we would wish. Absolutely. In fact, if even ONE non-legitimate shooting takes place, that IS a tragedy. But NOT all tragedies are a national crisis! Don't even start to try to float the "save the kids" crap, because there are SO many better ways to protect the kids than these false-cause gun-control laws.
Gun control is a transparent attempt at PEOPLE control. And people across this nation are not stupid enough to buy the liberal arguments on this point.
You are NOT going to get 3/4 of the states to ratify the sort of amendment you'd need. And, even if you could, you are NOT going to get many tens of millions of presently legal gun owners to turn in their guns under ANY scenario. We the people simply are NOT going to be controlled the way the left wants.
I repeat: NOT gonna happen.
So, I repeat: If you want to get serious about ACTUAL solutions to these incidents, then you are going to have to get more fine-grained and causally-aware in your thinking.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
My sink is literally filled with dirty dishes. I am a dirty, Muslim terrorist.
madbolter posted LOL... stooping to state laws when this entire thread has been about national policy?
I do not have an eye roll eye rolly enough to respond to this.
madbolter posted Gun control is a transparent attempt at PEOPLE control.
Sure dude. If you're someone whose identity is completely wrapped up in gun ownership I'm sure it looks that way. The rest of us just don't want to get shot and have no faith in the Die Hard vigilante wanna-be garbage popularized by our culture.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!