| Welcome Guest | Forum Search | Active Topics | Members | |
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 162
Neurons: 43,153
|
I live about 39 minutes away from Siutherland Springs where the large church shooting happened. Texas is a gun rights state to the max. Trump said it wasn’t a guns rights issue but mental health problem. I partially agree that it is a mental health issue. Then explain to me how they are cutting mental health from the health care budget? In fact, they closed the nearest EMS that helped those people after the shooting. Please all you Republicans, make those decisions seem logical. One other thought, How many are members of a well-formed militia? This is insanity and there isn’t any way to stop it. The president attacks our first right with his talk about “fake news.” But, not any Republicans try to defend that. They wish to remain ignorant of any facts or logic and carry big guns. Wonder why I don’t sleep.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,686
Neurons: 245,337
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
|
And the "all or nothing" argument is precisely why discussions don't last long in the US. Mention gun control and the gun lobby immediately turns it into "they are going to take away everyone's weapons".
It is not about taking all guns away from everyone. It never has been, although the gun lobby will of course trot out some quote from someone somewhere who says there should be no guns. The insurmountable obstacle has been the animosity mixed with the sweaty desperation of those who know they are in the wrong, but continue to ignore any chance of discussion or compromise.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,901
Neurons: 42,695
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
|
Proggy - another question, then.
OK, so we're always told we must never even float the idea of America getting in line with other Democracies, and not allowing guns. Never. It's the big no-no when discussing the subject.
Why? Apart from the fact that the Constitution guaranteed it? Or is that it? Is that why it can never be spoken of? Is it that it's too emotional an issue? Both?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,686
Neurons: 245,337
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
|
Romany wrote:
Proggy - another question, then.
OK, so we're always told we must never even float the idea of America getting in line with other Democracies, and not allowing guns. Never. It's the big no-no when discussing the subject.
Why? Apart from the fact that the Constitution guaranteed it? Or is that it? Is that why it can never be spoken of? Is it that it's too emotional an issue? Both?
When I talk about not being able to discuss this, I mean in public media, tv, radio, etc. There are many discussions going on outside of the media, but they only involve those who want to talk about stricter gun control legislation and enforcement. Those discussions outside of the media don't involve people who are against gun control of any kind, first because those people know they don't have to defend anything because they are already in a power position in the US, and second because they refuse to listen to information counter to their beliefs. There are many dozens of regional and national groups that are trying to bring the gun control discussion into the light, but they are not able to get the air time or the face time with their congressional representatives that is necessary to drive further discussion and bring the gun lobby to the table. These groups have sprung up across the country, usually after another massacre, and have been able to organize sufficiently to get a message out, but they are so significantly outspent by the gun lobby that their message is drown out by the vocal gun minority. The gun lobby in the US has built up a group of mostly white males who feel so afraid and threatened that they have amassed a combined armory that rivals many countries.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,901
Neurons: 42,695
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
|
Thanks, Proggy.
I know I ask a lot of questions; but it *IS* sheer curiosity - not any kind of subjective interrogation!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 4/21/2017
Posts: 162
Neurons: 43,153
|
Michael Flynn has plead guilty with colluding with Russian ambassador with the full knowledge of Donald J. Trump. I can’t tell you what this means. But it’s about time!!!!!
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
|
Absinthius wrote:Listening, of course the problem is multi-faceted. But to solve a problem, you need to apply the right tools. As Hope already mentioned in this thread, the Dickey act prevents even researching the best way to handle this issue.
Therefore I would pose that the root of the problem lies with Americas attitude towards guns and all related manners. The moment anyone dares to even suggest that perhaps less access to guns could reduce the amount of gun violence you see that a very vocal (and very rich) group of Americans instantly jumps into the frey to obscure any kind of real discussion. Blaming it on whatever they can see without even accepting the possbility that mass gun ownership is at the very least partly to blame.
If the USA wants to prove these arguments to be wrong, lift the Dickey amendment and show it using objective research data. But for the love of [insert random deity] stop making excuses. I always appreciate your posts, Absinthius. I appreciate your candor. You bring up some good points and I intend on researching the Dickey Act...
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/30/2011
Posts: 956
Neurons: 3,912
|
March Hare wrote:Listening . . . wrote:I don’t doubt that big money interests are playing a part in the issue of gun ownership. It would be naive to believe otherwise. However, I happen to live in an area where people support the right to carry a concealed weapon. Many support the right to own big weapons (not concealable). They support these rights and own weapons. The incidence of gun violence here is very low. This could change if access to medications are denied...withdrawal symptoms would quickly set in.
The medications are being rampantly distributed and have addictive qualities with side effects that can lead to violence. Many of these medications are being delivered by doctors who believe that the studies out there have told the whole story.
Consider this: big money interests are in pharmaceuticals, too.
Note: I also don’t believe the medications are the issue in every incident of violence, either. The issue of gun violence is multi-faceted. It cannot be answered or solved completely with a swift “it’s the gun’s fault.” Gun control does not necessarily have to mean that it becomes impossible to own big weapons. It can simply mean that a background check is implemented so that people with known dangerous mental health issues (or with a known history of violent crime) cannot buy large firearms. Surely that is not an unreasonable thing to ask? Background checks are an absolute necessity and they are in place. There are a few loopholes that need to be closed (gun shows, for certain) but, otherwise, there are many hurdles to jump through before a weapon is obtained. Depending on class of weapon, these hurdles get tougher.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,686
Neurons: 245,337
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
|
Romany wrote:
Thanks, Proggy.
I know I ask a lot of questions; but it *IS* sheer curiosity - not any kind of subjective interrogation!
I think our country would be in a much better place right now if more Americans had your curiosity.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 10/2/2015
Posts: 1,686
Neurons: 245,337
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States
|
http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Myths-and-Facts-About-Gun-Background-Checks-5-1.pdfThis information has been out there for many years. MYTH #5: There is no such thing as the private sales loophole. FACT: Private sales without background checks are extremely common, particularly at gun shows and online. • 40% of firearms are acquired from unlicensed sellers, who are not required to perform background checks. • A June 2000 ATF report found that unlicensed sellers were involved in about a fifth of the trafficking investigations and associated with nearly 23,000 guns diverted into the illegal market. MYTH #8: The Federal government is not enforcing the gun laws that are currently on the books, and very few people who fail background checks are prosecuted. Therefore, legislation expanding background checks would be ineffective. FACT: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) the Federal agency responsible for enforcement of gun laws has been hamstrung by successful gun lobby efforts to limit the agency’s ability to fulfill some of its most basic responsibilities. The gun lobby has pushed Congress to limit resources for the ATF, even going so far as to block the appointment of a Director leaving the agency leaderless for more than seven years. In addition, Congress, at the behest of the gun lobby, has created an unusually high standard for prosecution of individuals who lie on background check forms, making it harder for U.S. Attorneys to prosecute prohibited purchasers who illegally attempt to buy firearms. This last myth is actually a very good example of Regulatory Capture that I talked about previously (maybe in another thread).
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
|
|
|
Guest |