Show me the msn articles that detail chicago gun violence with regularity as the articles pushing a gun agenda. Show me the msn articles where race is a defining factor of the problem, or the msn articles where someone - finally - points out what the real factors are behind guns besides "ban guns".
What does gun violence really COST
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Show me the msn articles that detail chicago gun violence with regularity as the articles pushing a gun agenda. Show me the msn articles where race is a defining factor of the problem, or the msn articles where someone - finally - points out what the real factors are behind guns besides "ban guns".
Gun Insurance won't do a damned thing to stop 98%+ of gun violence, which is done with illegally owned guns (by people that will laugh at the idea of being required to own insurance). Additionally, no insurers would provide insurance that could potentially pay out millions and millions in lawsuits.
Community policing is the same as community watch lists. If this could be expanded, it would be a good deterrent to crime, not just gun violence.
Parents ownership of kids is a huge win, if you can figure out how to get it done.
This is silly. For example, until recently I didn't know what heroin problem some states in the east coast of the US are having.
Ignorance of coverage by the national media doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Many of these problems are local, but many of them, for example gun violence, is spreading to many states as shown repeatedly in this thread.
You have a problem disambiguating complex issues, or maybe you do it on purpose to obfuscate. The only people pushing an agenda are the gun makers or gun sellers. What possible agenda can the people that want to be safe possibly be pushing? They have no monetary stake in no guns, just safety of their communities.
Here is a simple proof that less guns means no gun violence. Get rid of all guns. Then there can be no gun violence. QED.
Last edited:
You are quite clearly pushing an agenda. The main stream media is quite clearly pushing an agenda. Just because you pretend you aren't doesn't make it so. You can state that others have problems with complex issues, but just because we don't go right for the gun doesn't mean we have problems understanding the complex issues causing murders. It might just mean you do.
What is my agenda? How do I profit by having less guns on the street?
I have already proven that less guns leads to less gun violence by giving a proof of the boundary condition. The rest is easy logic.
To have an agenda, you don't have to profit monetarily. You can profit in the position you support. When someone pushes for a political outcome (like you push for Bernie) they gain when that candidate is elected (or think they do).
I've never challenged you that less guns mean less violence. That's an obvious. It's like saying with less water, things are less wet. What you fail to provide a solution for is how to get those guns off the street for maximum effect. Less legally owned guns doesn't necessarily equate to less violence.
For example, removing 1 million guns that aren't used to commit crimes because they belong to legal and law abiding citizens won't get rid of any violence. So that's not a solution, to just impact the law abiding citizens for your gain - or your agenda. You have to target the weapons that are used in committing crimes. In the vast number of cases, those guns are illegally obtained. And you have no solution to get rid of those guns.
So while you claim to want to impact violent crime (and I believe you do) you are going about it entirely the wrong way by focusing on the wrong shell.
Last edited:
So how do I profit directly or indirectly by pushing less guns? By the hope that communities more safe? Is that my goal?
How do you profit by your agenda on guns - monetarily or otherwise?
You believe that guns are the cause of the violence, and you're right - but only half so. I believe that you're genuinely interested in solving the problem, so you profit from seeing your efforts rewarded with a better society. But you still have an agenda, even if the agenda is a noble one. My beef with you is your lack of understanding of the issue has caused you to label all guns as bad. This is the typical error from someone not clearly looking into the issue, or not being honest. I don't think you fall into the latter category like your liberal buddies on here.
I profit by keeping my guns. I have broken no law, fulfilled all requirements, paid all the fees. I should not be treated as a criminal and have my rights revoked all because people like you cannot find the solution and thus go right for anyone with a gun as part of the problem.
If everything is an agenda, then the words power loses any meaning. It becomes tautologous. I recommend you stop using it, at least in my case, because other than its latin root meaning of "list of things to accomplish", my only purpose is to shine a light on anything that I see as a source of holding back humanity either as a whole or as an individual.
You have said repeatedly that no one can take away your guns. Your right to own a gun is protected by the constitution. What is at issue is what is protected and what is not, and whether a two hundred years the law is in need of amendment. This thread has also argued that guns have been shown to be dangerous because many people use them as an offensive weapon instead of a defensive weapon - if you didn't know that already.
Imagine that in 1776 it was deemed that the right to own a car was constitutionally protected right. Now, imagine that because it was constitutionally protected, that people went and bought cars as they pleased, and did not have to have a requirement either for insurance nor a drivers license. Imagine the number of deaths per year that would amass as a result, plus the financial devastation that would ensue. Do you see the analogy? And, in this case, a car has an honest to goodness positive use on a daily basis. But imagine the outcry if that was the way history unfolded, and the resistance for people to be forced to get a drivers license and insurance to drive a car.
You see, that the constitution made that right doesn't mean it isn't outdated. That is why we have amendments to the Constitution - to make incremental corrections as times change and we hopefully become wiser.
So with that analogy in mind, what is argued in this thread is that the regulation of an extremely dangerous product is far too lax in this country. That by requiring people to have a "drivers' license" to own a gun should be required for the general good. Other ideas like closing a loop to insure people with guns will make the acquisition of a gun in theory anyway more robust. For example, maybe insurance companies will refuse to sell insurance to someone with multiple drug offenses. Or mental health issues. Just like we don't allow repeated DUI people a drivers license.
Further, this thread argues that automatic weapons like the AR-15 should not be legally for sale to the general public. That it is a weapon of war. It is like in the car analogy saying, you cannot buy a tank. It is a vehicle like a car, but it is a weapon of war.
Last edited:
I don't plan to stop using it, as it is exactly what you hope to accomplish, or what I hope to accomplish.
No one can take away guns because there are too many guns to take away. It'll never happen because there's just no procedural way to get rid of all the weapons. This doesn't mean that fools and ignorant folks with an agenda can't restrict or hamper the rights I have with their "solutions" that solve nothing.
You're not making an equivalent comparison for several reasons. First, we're talking about getting rid of guns, not getting rid of cars in your example. And if you want to go towards the insurance argument as you did before, a car is used every day for transport. There were 2.3 million people injured as a result of driving accidents last year. The statistics of accidental injury to others require some form of compensation insurance. A gun is nowhere in the same league, and if you want to include it, why not require insurance on knives? How about requiring insurance on bicycles? Or lawn mowers? If your intent is to provide compensation for those who are hurt with guns, how do you propose making those vastly responsible for hurting others with firearms - those with them illegally - get insurance? They already own the gun illegally - they're going to laugh at your insurance law much in the same way an illegal alien laughs at the idea of filing taxes, for example.
There is a method for a constitutional convention. If enough people believe as you do, states can get together and amend it. I am OK with that if it happens. What I am not OK with is people trying to legislate and affect the constitution without that process.
You are already required to get a background check for a gun. If you are mentally unstable, you cannot get a gun. If you are a criminal, you cannot get a gun. Felon? No gun. All of these people who own guns do so illegally, just like people who have no license for driving can still (and do still) drive. What "loophole" do you propose closing? The one where people steal guns?
Once again, you show your complete ignorance. Automatic weapons are not legally for sale to the general public. It is illegal for someone to own an automatic weapon. An AR-15 is not necessarily automatic. The version sold to the public is semi-automatic, and it is no more or less deadly than a hunting rifle. The difference, should you ever wish to educate yourself to the topic you are supposedly so passionate about, is in the delay between shots. The semi automatic requires the pressing of the trigger after the next round is loaded. The hunting rifle, a bolt action.
The tank vs. car analogy is so stupid I won't even address it.