(June 13, 2016 at 3:32 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 3:12 am)Aractus Wrote: [...]which is often the mindless rhetoric that we hear coming out of the US "if you ban guns then more deaths will happen" [...]

Please link to  a few examples of this rhetoric you seem to be coming across.

Here's one example:

(June 12, 2016 at 5:04 pm)KUSA Wrote: If more gays folks were like this there would have been less casualties.

Yup. That'll definitely do it. ISIS is shaking with fear.

(June 13, 2016 at 3:52 am)Huggy74 Wrote: [...]Guns aren't a determining factor in whether or not someone commits suicide.[...]

Of course they are. Are you even serious? It's a quick solution immediately available, when a mentally distraught person feels momentarily suicidal. There's not much time between pulling the trigger and the brain splattering, so not much chance for changing one's mind, or getting help - as there is with suicide methods, like cutting wrists, swallowing poison, or overdosing on drugs.

Sure - banning guns wouldn't end suicide - but it would most likely significantly lower the number of successful ones. US per capita suicide rate is twice that of UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co...icide_rate). Why is that? We must be doing something right. Maybe it's the free health-care (but then there are countries with free health-care, that have suicide rates way higher), maybe it's economical stability (but that's not really different in US), maybe it's the sunny weather, glorious food and naturally happy people, Britain is known for...
But maybe it's just that we don't have tools for killing on our persons at all times...

(June 13, 2016 at 6:53 am)A Theist Wrote:

(June 12, 2016 at 5:04 pm)KUSA Wrote: If more gays folks were like this there would have been less casualties.

he  can save me anytime 

(June 12, 2016 at 3:51 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 12, 2016 at 3:25 pm)A Theist Wrote: The Boston Marathon bombing, for example. Timothy McVey is another example. Islamic terrorists are determined to kill Americans and no amount of gun control is going to stop them. What's with this POS POTUS. I heard his news conference a little while ago. Is it politically incorrect to use the term, Islamic Terrorists? Because that's who attacked the night club in Orlando. He definitely avoided using the term and instead he ranted on with his obsession over control.

Dems love mass shootings because it gives them the soap box to blab about gun control.  We already have a million gun laws on the books but they want to pass the ultimate one that will allow them to confiscate all guns across the country.  In a way they have the Moses complex.  They think that if they have enough laws that everything will be perfect.  And like Moses, they aren't above killing anyone (figuratively) who disagrees with them.  

Notice how people went ape shit crazy when Trump said that he would ban all muslims from entering the country.  It's safer politically for the Dems to focus on banning guns than it is for them to focus on banning muslim terrorists.  Besides, McCain wants to fund the terrorists with our tax money.

At the very least, they never met an incident that they didn't like to exploit, gun control, in this instance. This was an attack that was inspired by ISIS. In fact, ISIS is claiming responsibility for it. Whether directly, or indirectly, ISIS is responsible, not the NRA. More gun laws aren't going to do anything to stop determined terrorists from killing people. It took 19 terrorists with box cutters and a plan to skyjack jet liners to kill over 2,000 people on 9/11, linked to al qaeda. The Tsarnaev brothers made home made bombs out of two pressure cookers that killed three people and wounded 264 others, linked to ISIS...and now, the Orlando attack, linked to ISIS. Do we also make stricter laws against buying and selling box cutters, pressure cookers, and fertilizer, or do we try to shut down ISIS and other terror groups that inspire these attacks.

Nobody is listening to his ex. This guy was mentally ill.

(June 13, 2016 at 12:25 am)Tiberius Wrote: As an attempt to try and get both sides to agree on something, can we at least agree that there is a problem with gun crime in this country which doesn't happen in other countries?

Plenty of Scandinavian countries have high gun ownership, but low gun crime. This suggests to me that some balance can be made where guns aren't banned outright, but gun crime is reduced.

So, what solutions would people suggest that don't explicitly violate the 2nd amendment?

A big part of a proper gun control system is licensing the owners. That is what happens in Europe. To use your Sweden example, this is what you need to do to be able to obtain a license:

Quote:1) Show a genuine requirement for ownership
2) Be over eighteen, with a few exceptions
3) Pass a background check which goes into criminal and mental issues
4) Have no history of domestic violence (if it happens after you get your license you're legally required to surrender your guns)
5) Have attended and passed the required firearms safety courses.

More information is from here. Please note, that like most of the rest of Europe Sweden doesn't have an automatic right to own guns (frankly, if the constitution were read right neither would US citizens. The second amendment was a provision to set up a militia rather than go to the expense of either a mercenary or standing army).

(June 13, 2016 at 12:38 am)Tiberius Wrote: Well the interpretation of the amendment is down to the Supreme court, and in multiple decisions they have said it applies to regular citizens.

Do you have an actual legal basis for your claim that the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to own a gun, or is that just what you wish it meant?

I'm trying to deal with realities here. Unless the Supreme Court declares that the 2nd amendment only applies to militias, then there's no point arguing that it does, because that doesn't help the real problems the US is facing with gun crime.

Well seeing as the only time that the supreme court definitively ruled in favour of a "all citizens can own guns" was with Scalia in 2008, I'd move that the ruling of an incompetent idiot should be stricken from the records (even if in the case of Scalia he somehow developed the blowjob skills to be appointed by an Alzheimer's sufferer)

(June 13, 2016 at 8:41 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(June 13, 2016 at 12:38 am)Tiberius Wrote: Well the interpretation of the amendment is down to the Supreme court, and in multiple decisions they have said it applies to regular citizens.

Do you have an actual legal basis for your claim that the 2nd amendment isn't about the right to own a gun, or is that just what you wish it meant?

I'm trying to deal with realities here. Unless the Supreme Court declares that the 2nd amendment only applies to militias, then there's no point arguing that it does, because that doesn't help the real problems the US is facing with gun crime.

Well seeing as the only time that the supreme court definitively ruled in favour of a "all citizens can own guns" was with Scalia in 2008, I'd move that the ruling of an incompetent idiot should be stricken from the records (even if in the case of Scalia he somehow developed the blowjob skills to be appointed by an Alzheimer's sufferer)

"all citizens can have a gun", does not entitle you to one. Just like you have the right to buy a car, you still have to train yourself to drive and prove to the state you can drive properly  before you get a licence and you have to have the money to buy it, and while you drive you have to maintain a good driving record.

Point being we make way too many guns and we don't do enough to vet those who buy them. I am tired of the bullshit "don't punish the responsible owners". BULLSHIT, legal at time of buy does not prevent someone from harming others after that legal buy.

50 Sent, By Brian37 (AKA Brian James Rational Poet on FB and  @Brianrrs37 on twitter)

 
Tie a bloody ribbon 
Around the old NRA
Its been decades since
Reagan and Brady
 
If you talk about us
Get off the bus
And don't put the blame 
On me
 
Neat little shell game
You worshipers have
Avoiding the flooded market
The NRA protects
 
It's the mentally ill
It's the terrorists
But we never blame
Our flooded market
 
Its the criminals
Who don't obey laws
Well neither do speeders
But we still have speed limits
 
Car accidents
Kill far more
As if we shouldn't 
Multi task at all
 
Other bad stuff happens
So forget about this
Collateral damage
Is the excuse they give
 
They bemoan rights
As if we still lived
In an age of muskets
Is all we still have
 
Imagine if
We still had today
The same regulations
For air flight
 
If  Boing 
Didn't have to obey
Modern standards
But Wright Brothers way
 
Do me one favor
You right wing nuts
Dont fucking claim
It's about rights
 
Its about
Selfishness
The same doomsday prattling
Religion sells best
 
If you cant have
All the laws you want
If you cant have
A free for all market
 
If someone else
Dares to vote
If they seek 
To reduce gun deaths
 
Tony's ribbon 
Isn't yellow
It is red
Of Montana's value
 
Hostage taking
And racketeering
Having nothing to do
With problem solving.
(end)

This poem is originally hosted here post #837  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/31771?page=16