Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Eroginous]

1. A gun safe doesn't need to be able to stop some safe cracking expert from getting to your guns. It only needs to prevent the average man, woman, or child from stumbling across them and either stealing them or having an accident. There's fundamentally no safe in the world that can be mounted in your home that a team of strapping men couldn't unmount and then carry off if they really wanted to.

2. The NRA and the CDC scandal is just one tiny facet of this whole debate. Even if the CDC came up with some sort of research indicating that guns were a plague to society, you still have the 2nd amendment to contend with. You can't pass a constitutional amendment without the support of two thirds of both houses and three quarters of all the states.

Good luck with that.

3. Even if a constitutional amendment to ban guns passes, you're just giving private gun owners the green light to start a new revolution using the 300 million guns they possess. If anything, the NRA is trying to keep the CDC from making a terrible mistake.

[Deadvolcanoes]

3. Even if a constitutional amendment to ban guns passes, you're just giving private gun owners the green light to start a new revolution using the 300 million guns they possess. If anything, the NRA is trying to keep the CDC from making a terrible mistake.

Why are you talking about a constitutional amendments to ban guns? There's virtually no one in Congress advocating for such a position, and only one person in this thread.

I want the CDC to study the violence and gun violence so we have a better understanding of its causes, effects, and possible solutions. The NRA wants to ban the CDC from studying gun violence because they might not like the results. I'm interested in the science, the NRA is interested in sticking its fingers in its ears.

[Rocko9]

Why are you talking about a constitutional amendments to ban guns? There's virtually no one in Congress advocating for such a position, and only one person in this thread.

The point is that in time it will eventually get to that, because people will get more and more accustomed to having less.

I want the CDC to study the violence and gun violence so we have a better understanding of its causes, effects, and possible solutions. The NRA wants to ban the CDC from studying gun violence because they might not like the results. I'm interested in the science, the NRA is interested in sticking its fingers in its ears.

Personally, I think the CDC will give a biased result, the same reason that the NRA would give one, it's part of their agenda. Anyone can look at gun violence and see the reasons are gangs and a lack of family structure mixed in with poverty. If you tell a kid that hey, the man is against you, blah blah blah, we can help you and be your new family, you'll go places and have real money, then they want to listen.

[Deadvolcanoes]

The point is that in time it will eventually get to that, because people will get more and more accustomed to having less.

That's the worst possible point you could make. It makes the gun rights advocates look paranoid and disillusioned. No one is coming to take all of your guns.

Personally, I think the CDC will give a biased result, the same reason that the NRA would give one, it's part of their agenda. Anyone can look at gun violence and see the reasons are gangs and a lack of family structure mixed in with poverty. If you tell a kid that hey, the man is against you, blah blah blah, we can help you and be your new family, you'll go places and have real money, then they want to listen.

The NRA is not a scientific organization. The CDC is. The NRA is not subject to the rules of peer review. The CDC is.

Reducing violence is part of the CDC's agenda, and it should be part of the NRA's agenda too.

[Rocko9]

As we've moved throughout time, certain things have become less acceptable or unacceptable, why would guns be exempt?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Such as...?

[Rocko9]

Do I really need to give you a list of things that are unacceptable now? School spankings for one.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Do I really need to give you a list of things that are unacceptable now? School spankings for one.

You want me to explain to you how the dissipation of slavery is different from the imaginary slippery slope of gun ownership?

Well, OK. One involves owning another human being and treating them like shit. The other involves owning a firearm.

[Rocko9]

I understand the difference and know that's more than likely why the founders didn't say you have a right to property, but thanks for calling me an idiot.

[Deadvolcanoes]

I understand the difference and know that's more than likely why the founders didn't say you have a right to property, but thanks for calling me an idiot.

No need to get sensitive, no one called you an idiot.

The fact is firearms have a very legitimate purpose, as ruled by the Supreme Court. If, some day in the future, we have a better, more effective way of defending our persons, maybe guns will be banned. The times are constantly changing. But virtually no one wants that now.

[Spectral]

Yeah, everybody stands firmly by science and statistics...

... until it ceases to support their opinion.

Not really. I change my opinions when they don't fit the science and statistics. I did it with gun control, and I'll do it again on something else in the future when the evidence warrants it.

[Grizzly Willy]

Not really. I change my opinions when they don't fit the science and statistics. I did it with gun control, and I'll do it again on something else in the future when the evidence warrants it.

Same. I originally voted yes in the poll, but have since changed my opinion after seeing the arguments and their respective data posted.

[Eroginous]

Why are you talking about a constitutional amendments to ban guns? There's virtually no one in Congress advocating for such a position, and only one person in this thread.

It was a hypothetical. In the event that the CDC determines via study that gun ownership is detrimental to a progressive society, why wouldn't the liberal agenda shift to an outright ban on guns? That's where a constitutional amendment comes in, because that's what you would have to pass in order to ban guns. It's not a slippery slope argument against the CDC conducting a case study on guns, it's just an observation I'm making as to the reasons why the NRA would block the CDC.

I want the CDC to study the violence and gun violence so we have a better understanding of its causes, effects, and possible solutions. The NRA wants to ban the CDC from studying gun violence because they might not like the results. I'm interested in the science, the NRA is interested in sticking its fingers in its ears.

I want the CDC to study the effects of poverty and lack of proper social services in relation to the current trends towards gun violence. Gun violence by itself is a stupid thing to study, it doesn't take a team of experts to determine that gun violence is a result of the use of guns to commit violence. As it stands, I highly doubt the CDC is going to even address the current state of socioeconomic health in this country, let alone it's correlation to gun violence.

In case you were wondering, I'm not an NRA supporter, even though I fully support the second amendment and a citizen's right to own guns. I don't believe the NRA agenda is up to anything good, and I wouldn't be surprised if their move to block the CDC was just a childish attempt at skewing politics.

However, I believe that guns are a necessary tool in any modern society as both a deterrent and a response to criminal activity. I think that we can establish that motive for reasonable gun laws without the invocation of the NRA, and I don't think we necessarily need to go down the road of a revolution to get there.

[Deadvolcanoes]

A study was released today by JAMA Internal Medicine. It came to the conclusion that:

States that have the most (gun) laws have a 42% decreased rate of firearm fatalities compared to those with the least laws.

That's a fairly significant correlation. Whether or not the increase in gun laws can be directly attributed to the reduction in gun homicides is up for debate, and should definitely be studied further.

http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/nationa...e-fewer-deaths

[FusedMass]

Thought I'd share.

The Arkansas state Senate voted Monday by a margin of 28-4 to pass a bill that would allow concealed guns in churches, reports ABC local affiliate KATV.

The bill, called the Church Protection Act of 2013 (SB 71), was authored by Arkansas state Sen. Bryan King (R-Green Forest) and would repeal the current ban on concealed handguns in churches or other places of worship.

From the bill:

It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that personal security is increasingly important; that the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures a person's right to bear arms; and that this act is immediately necessary because a person should be allowed to carry a firearm in a church that permits the carrying of a firearm for personal security.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2575472.html

It was a hypothetical. In the event that the CDC determines via study that gun ownership is detrimental to a progressive society, why wouldn't the liberal agenda shift to an outright ban on guns? That's where a constitutional amendment comes in, because that's what you would have to pass in order to ban guns. It's not a slippery slope argument against the CDC conducting a case study on guns, it's just an observation I'm making as to the reasons why the NRA would block the CDC.

Because of the right to bear firearms which are protected under the 2nd amendment. It was in fact banned handguns. Then a Judge struck down part of the law because firearms that fit in you're hand are protected. It's defined as self defense. They cannot write their own rules. They have to follow what's in place.

[PhaelixWW]

Because of the right to bear firearms which are protected under the 2nd amendment.

*cough*:

That's where a constitutional amendment comes in, because that's what you would have to pass in order to ban guns.

Might want to re-read that section, Fused.

They cannot write their own rules. They have to follow what's in place.

The rules for passing a Constitutional Amendment are in place. There's an almost non-existent chance that such an Amendment would pass in the current day, of course, but the method is there.

[FusedMass]

*cough*:

Might want to re-read that section, Fused.



The rules for passing a Constitutional Amendment are in place. There's an almost non-existent chance that such an Amendment would pass in the current day, of course, but the method is there.

People assumed the same about ObamaCare. They're repeating the same thing about its chances of passing. Yet behold it did. What sort of witch craft is that. Oh that's right, we don't decide they do, and we can predict the outcome to say one of the outcome is absolute is a flat out lie.

Perhaps you should re-read dangerous and unusual weapons. Then check to see if the court ever considered an assault weapon something that falls under that. The actual truth is it's very possible that they would ban the weapon, just as it's easily as possible they don't.

[Grizzly Willy]

People assumed the same about ObamaCare. They're repeating the same thing about its chances of passing. Yet behold it did. What sort of witch craft is that. Oh that's right, we don't decide they do, and we can predict the outcome to say one of the outcome is absolute is a flat out lie.

Perhaps you should re-read dangerous and unusual weapons. Then check to see if the court ever considered an assault weapon something that falls under that. The actual truth is it's very possible that they would ban the weapon, just as it's easily as possible they don't.

You're right, we can predict what they'll do. They won't pass this ban.

[FusedMass]

You're right, we can predict what they'll do. They won't pass this ban.

I'm screen shoting this. If the measure is ever passed. You're comments will be my new signature.

[Nadev]

You're right, we can predict what they'll do. They won't pass this ban.

Here's hoping.