It's got nothing to do with politics. Gun Control is not a strong cause to run with in the batshit crazy country of USA.
It has to do with change, and it's there isn't exactly time to wait.
Politics can wait; there is a need to start making rational and smart decisions. The unlikelihood of change is a pretty big tragedy too.
It has almost everything to do with politics - that is how change happens
I am not certain how anyone expects change to come without employing politics and all the difficult conversations that come with the territory.
This goes to the heart of the matter. Politics is the engineering of peaceful change albeit warts and all. When politics fails, violence takes over. The Mc Veighs of this worlds believing an automatic rifle under their mattress will hold back "encroaching" government power are living in a delusional frontier world that denies the existance of politics and/or insists that all change is inherently bad.
Do recurrent massacres of cinema goers and 6 year old school children represent a price worth paying for continuing with the status quo?
And while I understand the point, there are a few hundred victims of gun violence in a little place called Chicago that deserve a minute of consideration in this discussion.
yeah I was going to talk about the US having one of the highest gun homocide rates but wanted to keep it short. But yeah, it's a not just about the headlines. Shits ticking away as we talk
Do recurrent massacres of cinema goers and 6 year old school children represent a price worth paying for continuing with the status quo?
And while I understand the point, there are a few hundred victims of gun violence in a little place called Chicago that deserve a minute of consideration in this discussion.
yeah I was going to talk about the US having one of the highest gun homocide rates but wanted to keep it short. But yeah, it's a not just about the headlines. Shits ticking away as we talk
Well, yes and no.
Violent crime in the US has decreased pretty much every single year for the last 20 years. It's still way too prevalent, but the 'ticking away' stuff isn't really true.
Do recurrent massacres of cinema goers and 6 year old school children represent a price worth paying for continuing with the status quo?
And while I understand the point, there are a few hundred victims of gun violence in a little place called Chicago that deserve a minute of consideration in this discussion.
yeah I was going to talk about the US having one of the highest gun homocide rates but wanted to keep it short. But yeah, it's a not just about the headlines. Shits ticking away as we talk
Well, yes and no.
Violent crime in the US has decreased pretty much every single year for the last 20 years. It's still way too prevalent, but the 'ticking away' stuff isn't really true.
good to learn, I hear that Chicago is bucking the trend though.
If I am reading the chart correctly the sharp decline (90-98?) started before the assault weapons ban was in passed (1994) and ended before it's repeal (2004).
I have seen many conflicting "analysis" on it's effectiveness.
I have yet to make up my mind on what the best path forward should be.
ill do whatever you want once you admit that you have constantly used racial slurs for no reason. truly disgusting behavior
Tresvant isn't a racial slur.
Neither is howlie. You really aren't from Hawaii if you don't know that.
I'll leave you alone. You clearly can dish it out on the intrenets with sarcasms and condescension (amirite?), but fold like paper if the your BS is turned on you.
ill do whatever you want once you admit that you have constantly used racial slurs for no reason. truly disgusting behavior
Tresvant isn't a racial slur.
Neither is howlie. You really aren't from Hawaii if you don't know that.
I'll leave you alone. You clearly can dish it out on the intrenets with sarcasms and condescension (amirite?), but fold like paper if the your BS is turned on you.
Later, bro.
I was born and raised in Hawaii and lived there my entire life up until a year ago. Haole ("howlie")is without a doubt a racial slur. I think I might have more of a background on it considering I actually know how to spell the word. I can take whatever you can dish out, I'm just calling you out on your bullshit. You're either racist or talking out of your ass. Own up to your bullshit for once.
If I am reading the chart correctly the sharp decline (90-98?) started before the assault weapons ban was in passed (1994) and ended before it's repeal (2004).
I have seen many conflicting "analysis" on it's effectiveness.
I have yet to make up my mind on what the best path forward should be.
The assault weapons ban was fairly useless for several reasons:
- It had a lot of loopholes.
- There were still plenty of assault weapons out there.
- only a tiny fraction of homicides are committed with them.
If I'm not mistaken, it was shown to have pretty much zero impact on gun crime.
If I am reading the chart correctly the sharp decline (90-98?) started before the assault weapons ban was in passed (1994) and ended before it's repeal (2004).
I have seen many conflicting "analysis" on it's effectiveness.
I have yet to make up my mind on what the best path forward should be.
The assault weapons ban was fairly useless for several reasons:
- It had a lot of loopholes.
- There were still plenty of assault weapons out there.
- only a tiny fraction of homicides are committed with them.
If I'm not mistaken, it was shown to have pretty much zero impact on gun crime.
That may be so, but does that mean we still shouldn't restrict possession of those weapons? It seems like a common sense initiative, IMO. After all, there's a ban on RPG's, which also has zero impact on gun violence. Yet, most people wouldn't say we shouldn't permit RPG's.
It's going to be tough to have any serious, immediate impact on gun violence so long as handguns are not banned (which, IMO, they shouldn't be. Protection-R.). That shouldn't prevent us from acting in a common sense way.
ill do whatever you want once you admit that you have constantly used racial slurs for no reason. truly disgusting behavior
Tresvant isn't a racial slur.
Neither is howlie. You really aren't from Hawaii if you don't know that.
I'll leave you alone. You clearly can dish it out on the intrenets with sarcasms and condescension (amirite?), but fold like paper if the your BS is turned on you.
Later, bro.
I was born and raised in Hawaii and lived there my entire life up until a year ago. Haole ("howlie")is without a doubt a racial slur. I think I might have more of a background on it considering I actually know how to spell the word. I can take whatever you can dish out, I'm just calling you out on your bullshit. You're either racist or talking out of your ass. Own up to your bullshit for once.
Sorry. It's not, buddy.
And fall back on the "own your bullshit". You were just asking me what a howlie was, now you're a fucking expert on it? LOL! Just as I thought, you're one phoney dude. Haole or Howlie means someone not from Hawaii. Nothing to do with race. Tresvant.
If I am reading the chart correctly the sharp decline (90-98?) started before the assault weapons ban was in passed (1994) and ended before it's repeal (2004).
I have seen many conflicting "analysis" on it's effectiveness.
I have yet to make up my mind on what the best path forward should be.
The assault weapons ban was fairly useless for several reasons:
- It had a lot of loopholes.
- There were still plenty of assault weapons out there.
- only a tiny fraction of homicides are committed with them.
If I'm not mistaken, it was shown to have pretty much zero impact on gun crime.
That may be so, but does that mean we still shouldn't restrict possession of those weapons? It seems like a common sense initiative, IMO. After all, there's a ban on RPG's, which also has zero impact on gun violence. Yet, most people wouldn't say we shouldn't permit RPG's.
The word 'ban' is pretty vague. If you want to be technical, the law that was in effect from '94 - '04 doesn't qualify for the reasons I mentioned above (loopholes, grandfather clauses etc).
If it were up to me, owning them would be totally illegal, but that law did not accomplish that.
If I am reading the chart correctly the sharp decline (90-98?) started before the assault weapons ban was in passed (1994) and ended before it's repeal (2004).
I have seen many conflicting "analysis" on it's effectiveness.
I have yet to make up my mind on what the best path forward should be.
The assault weapons ban was fairly useless for several reasons:
- It had a lot of loopholes.
- There were still plenty of assault weapons out there.
- only a tiny fraction of homicides are committed with them.
If I'm not mistaken, it was shown to have pretty much zero impact on gun crime.
That may be so, but does that mean we still shouldn't restrict possession of those weapons? It seems like a common sense initiative, IMO. After all, there's a ban on RPG's, which also has zero impact on gun violence. Yet, most people wouldn't say we shouldn't permit RPG's.
The word 'ban' is pretty vague. If you want to be technical, the law that was in effect from '94 - '04 doesn't qualify for the reasons I mentioned above (loopholes, grandfather clauses etc).
If it were up to me, owning them would be totally illegal, but that law did not accomplish that.
That's a fair point, especially when you mention grandfather clauses. I think those would have to be included in any restriction legislation, though, because the alternative is setting the stage for firefights with the police and people who will only give up there assault rifles when taken "from their cold, dead hands".
ill do whatever you want once you admit that you have constantly used racial slurs for no reason. truly disgusting behavior
Tresvant isn't a racial slur.
Neither is howlie. You really aren't from Hawaii if you don't know that.
I'll leave you alone. You clearly can dish it out on the intrenets with sarcasms and condescension (amirite?), but fold like paper if the your BS is turned on you.
Later, bro.
I was born and raised in Hawaii and lived there my entire life up until a year ago. Haole ("howlie")is without a doubt a racial slur. I think I might have more of a background on it considering I actually know how to spell the word. I can take whatever you can dish out, I'm just calling you out on your bullshit. You're either racist or talking out of your ass. Own up to your bullshit for once.
Sorry. It's not, buddy.
And fall back on the "own your bullshit". You were just asking me what a howlie was, now you're a fucking expert on it? LOL! Just as I thought, you're one phoney dude. Haole or Howlie means someone not from Hawaii. Nothing to do with race. Tresvant.
I said later to you. Take the hint.
I had no idea what you were talking about because NO ONE from Hawaii spells it that way. Once again, you try to act expert on stuff you have no idea about. The word haole means something completely different than what you posted and is used in a completely different context than its actual meaning. Please stop embarrassing yourself by posting on shit you have no idea about.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Horseleech said:
HarveyCanal said:
Good bye, thread.
Instead of taking your toys and splitting, hows about providing some evidence for your totally outrageous explanation of a heartbreaking tragedy?
Sorry, but saying it's 'out there' and expecting people to swallow that doesn't really cut it.
I'm not asking you to swallow anything. I'm just presenting my perspective. You want to do the research, then go do the research. There's a pattern to these shootings as far as who the shooters are associated with, what drugs they are on, what alternate realities they've been tapped into, etc. They all suddenly have access to large caches of arms beyond their financial means. Their rampages always make you wonder how a lone gunman could do so much damage. And the official response always has a pre-determined agenda attached to it. These aren't just weirdos suddenly going randomly kookoo. These are trained and programmed assassins. And I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
HarveyCanal said:
I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
I don't intend to get involved in this dogpile, but I couldn't leave that alone.
at least you're honest about it.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
That's everyone. None of you have any evidence either. And the cops/media aren't trustworthy in any given instance to tell us anything close to the truth. So conject away...because that's all you are ever doing.
To be fair, I wasn't criticizing your argument per se. I just thought your reliance on "belief" is a larger problem endemic to a significant portion of the American population.
If I am reading the chart correctly the sharp decline (90-98?) started before the assault weapons ban was in passed (1994) and ended before it's repeal (2004).
I have seen many conflicting "analysis" on it's effectiveness.
I have yet to make up my mind on what the best path forward should be.
The assault weapons ban was fairly useless for several reasons:
- It had a lot of loopholes.
- There were still plenty of assault weapons out there.
- only a tiny fraction of homicides are committed with them.
If I'm not mistaken, it was shown to have pretty much zero impact on gun crime.
That may be so, but does that mean we still shouldn't restrict possession of those weapons? It seems like a common sense initiative, IMO. After all, there's a ban on RPG's, which also has zero impact on gun violence. Yet, most people wouldn't say we shouldn't permit RPG's.
The word 'ban' is pretty vague. If you want to be technical, the law that was in effect from '94 - '04 doesn't qualify for the reasons I mentioned above (loopholes, grandfather clauses etc).
If it were up to me, owning them would be totally illegal, but that law did not accomplish that.
That's a fair point, especially when you mention grandfather clauses. I think those would have to be included in any restriction legislation, though, because the alternative is setting the stage for firefights with the police and people who will only give up there assault rifles when taken "from their cold, dead hands".
Nobody wants that, right?
it would be hard, but not impossible. if the same restrictions and penalties were put in place for owning a semi-auto as is currently for a full auto machine gun, i think it would be possible to get rid of them. how often do you hear about a full auto gun being used in a crime?
the percentage of assault rifle owners who are militia style lunatics who would die for their guns is very small and not passing a law b/c we're worried about how they'd take it is like not taking a school fieldtrip b/c the one spazz in class might get overstimulated...
and, yes, the reason the old assault weapon ban did nothing was that it was incredibly easy to sidestep. if a new ban passes, it needs to be extremely thorough.
the top image is an AR-15 made before the ban, the bottom is one made after... the difference is in the grip
it would be hard, but not impossible. if the same restrictions and penalties were put in place for owning a semi-auto as is currently for a full auto machine gun, i think it would be possible to get rid of them. how often do you hear about a full auto gun being used in a crime?
the percentage of assault rifle owners who are militia style lunatics who would die for their guns is very small and not passing a law b/c we're worried about how they'd take it is like not taking a school fieldtrip b/c the one spazz in class might get overstimulated...
and, yes, the reason the old assault weapon ban did nothing was that it was incredibly easy to sidestep. if a new ban passes, it needs to be extremely thorough.
the top image is an AR-15 made before the ban, the bottom is one made after... the difference is in the grip
They look the same to me. Weird.
I think youer analogy with the spazz isn't quite on point. It's not unlikley that a lack of GF clause would spark gunfights with the police causing death and carnage. Not quite the same as overstimulation.
A lot of these poeple are spoon-fed extreme NRA rhetoric, and will not be giving up their arms without a fight. It's a real possibility, and one that should be considered, IMO.
it would be hard, but not impossible. if the same restrictions and penalties were put in place for owning a semi-auto as is currently for a full auto machine gun, i think it would be possible to get rid of them. how often do you hear about a full auto gun being used in a crime?
the percentage of assault rifle owners who are militia style lunatics who would die for their guns is very small and not passing a law b/c we're worried about how they'd take it is like not taking a school fieldtrip b/c the one spazz in class might get overstimulated...
and, yes, the reason the old assault weapon ban did nothing was that it was incredibly easy to sidestep. if a new ban passes, it needs to be extremely thorough.
the top image is an AR-15 made before the ban, the bottom is one made after... the difference is in the grip
They look the same to me. Weird.
I think youer analogy with the spazz isn't quite on point. It's not unlikley that a lack of GF clause would spark gunfights with the police causing death and carnage. Not quite the same as overstimulation.
A lot of these poeple are spoon-fed extreme NRA rhetoric, and will not be giving up their arms without a fight. It's a real possibility, and one that should be considered, IMO.
sorry my bad, wrote quickly the grip is the part that IS the same... yes horseleech is right, it's the muzzle and the bayonet mount that are different...
you misunderstand my analogy, the point is not passing a law the benefits the many b/c some of the few might not take it well is a dumb idea. and if anything, being intimidated into not passing a law b/c some people w/ guns will refuse to comply is no way to run a democracy
Comments
This goes to the heart of the matter. Politics is the engineering of peaceful change albeit warts and all. When politics fails, violence takes over. The Mc Veighs of this worlds believing an automatic rifle under their mattress will hold back "encroaching" government power are living in a delusional frontier world that denies the existance of politics and/or insists that all change is inherently bad.
Well, yes and no.
Violent crime in the US has decreased pretty much every single year for the last 20 years. It's still way too prevalent, but the 'ticking away' stuff isn't really true.
good to learn, I hear that Chicago is bucking the trend though.
I have seen many conflicting "analysis" on it's effectiveness.
I have yet to make up my mind on what the best path forward should be.
Tresvant isn't a racial slur.
Neither is howlie. You really aren't from Hawaii if you don't know that.
I'll leave you alone. You clearly can dish it out on the intrenets with sarcasms and condescension (amirite?), but fold like paper if the your BS is turned on you.
Later, bro.
2012: 488 (to date)
https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical Reports/Murder Reports/MA11.pdf
The assault weapons ban was fairly useless for several reasons:
- It had a lot of loopholes.
- There were still plenty of assault weapons out there.
- only a tiny fraction of homicides are committed with them.
If I'm not mistaken, it was shown to have pretty much zero impact on gun crime.
That may be so, but does that mean we still shouldn't restrict possession of those weapons? It seems like a common sense initiative, IMO. After all, there's a ban on RPG's, which also has zero impact on gun violence. Yet, most people wouldn't say we shouldn't permit RPG's.
It's going to be tough to have any serious, immediate impact on gun violence so long as handguns are not banned (which, IMO, they shouldn't be. Protection-R.). That shouldn't prevent us from acting in a common sense way.
Sorry. It's not, buddy.
And fall back on the "own your bullshit". You were just asking me what a howlie was, now you're a fucking expert on it? LOL! Just as I thought, you're one phoney dude. Haole or Howlie means someone not from Hawaii. Nothing to do with race. Tresvant.
I said later to you. Take the hint.
The word 'ban' is pretty vague. If you want to be technical, the law that was in effect from '94 - '04 doesn't qualify for the reasons I mentioned above (loopholes, grandfather clauses etc).
If it were up to me, owning them would be totally illegal, but that law did not accomplish that.
That's a fair point, especially when you mention grandfather clauses. I think those would have to be included in any restriction legislation, though, because the alternative is setting the stage for firefights with the police and people who will only give up there assault rifles when taken "from their cold, dead hands".
Nobody wants that, right?
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/20101115_Judges_cite_Kill_Haole_Day.html?id=108106529
http://www.staradvertiser.com/columnists/20101116_Kill_Haole_Day_myth_diverts_attention_from_real_problems.html?id=108364369
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/bullying-in-hawaii-a-state-of-denial/123
You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
Pages 22 - 26, too.
I'm not asking you to swallow anything. I'm just presenting my perspective. You want to do the research, then go do the research. There's a pattern to these shootings as far as who the shooters are associated with, what drugs they are on, what alternate realities they've been tapped into, etc. They all suddenly have access to large caches of arms beyond their financial means. Their rampages always make you wonder how a lone gunman could do so much damage. And the official response always has a pre-determined agenda attached to it. These aren't just weirdos suddenly going randomly kookoo. These are trained and programmed assassins. And I don't have a shred of "evidence" to prove it. That's just what I believe.
I don't intend to get involved in this dogpile, but I couldn't leave that alone.
at least you're honest about it.
it would be hard, but not impossible. if the same restrictions and penalties were put in place for owning a semi-auto as is currently for a full auto machine gun, i think it would be possible to get rid of them. how often do you hear about a full auto gun being used in a crime?
the percentage of assault rifle owners who are militia style lunatics who would die for their guns is very small and not passing a law b/c we're worried about how they'd take it is like not taking a school fieldtrip b/c the one spazz in class might get overstimulated...
and, yes, the reason the old assault weapon ban did nothing was that it was incredibly easy to sidestep. if a new ban passes, it needs to be extremely thorough.
the top image is an AR-15 made before the ban, the bottom is one made after... the difference is in the grip
They look the same to me. Weird.
I think youer analogy with the spazz isn't quite on point. It's not unlikley that a lack of GF clause would spark gunfights with the police causing death and carnage. Not quite the same as overstimulation.
A lot of these poeple are spoon-fed extreme NRA rhetoric, and will not be giving up their arms without a fight. It's a real possibility, and one that should be considered, IMO.
The difference is the muzzle and the bayonet mount, not the grip.
Ok, that's what I was thinking.
Thought my eyes were tricking me for a second.
sorry my bad, wrote quickly the grip is the part that IS the same... yes horseleech is right, it's the muzzle and the bayonet mount that are different...
you misunderstand my analogy, the point is not passing a law the benefits the many b/c some of the few might not take it well is a dumb idea. and if anything, being intimidated into not passing a law b/c some people w/ guns will refuse to comply is no way to run a democracy
Any ideas on when you're going to apologize for and retract your racist remarks?
:cry:
The minute I make one I will, baby.
When are you going to stop whining like a tweener? You soft.
I got you shook to the bone.