Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
scarabchuck, "And for these people, why can they just S_T_F_U and go about their lives instead of spewing lies and disinformation to try and take away the rights of others?"
You are obviously part of the problem...
You can't brand all people not into guns as you do any more than you can brand all gun owners as equally unfair. I'm just not that into guns, but I don't engage in what you are describing, and I don't much appreciate when others do either. Again, reference my first comment that starts this thread, and if you have a specific complaint or source of disagreement, out with it. Otherwise, may none of us be "spewing" as you claim and at the same time demonstrate! Best we stick to the facts, plain and simple, attempt to draw reasoned and fair opinion, conclusion, and do the best we can together all considered. Fair?
Here's the problem. Every time one of these topics pops up, plenty of great solutions are offered up, one's that would help decrease the violence that is already decreasing across our country except for certain areas. These solutions get ignored by the left, and the left just spews the same rhetoric.
I'm tired of it. I'm tired of being stereotyped and labeled all because I embrace a right. The time for compromise is done. I will not budge on my views on the 2A, until some common sense can be talked about from the left I'm done.
You think I'm part of the problem, doubtful, but that is your opinion. I'm just a law abiding citizen that embraces the 2A and am tired of people trying to chip away at my rights. Like I've said many many times, don't like firearms, don't buy one. Move along with life and stop trying to changes what others do (a generalization, not directed at you alone)
How the hell, do you think people consent to be governed? Go vote for someone to tell you what to do and if your guy/gal doesn't win, you get to be governed by the person you hate the most.
Stop violence period by stopping people from raising their kids to hate.
And stop interactions with police by committing crimes.
I agree with suicides being legal, instead of death by cop, let people do it to themselves. Except, not insurance policy allowed if death by suicide.
If the left treated the 1st amendment like the second amendment, they would get it. Its a right, let it go.. you wont change killings, just the tool used to do it.
Unfortunately, these sorts of issues are a bit more complicated than that, and in this regard, we all need to do better to "get it."
For example. I lean toward the left, and yes, I have very strong feelings about our 1st amendment rights, including the right to speak our mind and opinion about guns and the 2A. I also have respect for the 2A, and so you have the beginning of neither left or right thinking, but general respect for our rights and freedoms as best we can manage as Americans. This is no simple task given what appears to be some 350 million Americans all with their own version of what matters more or less all considered.
Without getting into the right or wrong of any opinion, I think we must all universally accept that what rights and freedoms we have as citizens is not as much a function of universal dictate or even our Constitution. Our rights and freedoms are as our system of government may establish, according to the process laid out by our founding fathers, through a system of "checks and balances" provided by our three branches of government.
Was a time, for example, that although "all men are created equal," women and blacks were not even afforded their "right" to vote. So too all our rights are what they are today and subject to change into the future.
If you don't understand this dynamic, if you don't "get it," are you left or right leaning? Do you care more about the 1st or 2nd Amendment? I say neither...
That doesn't explain, what is the difference in the people and the citizens.
The Civil War was a perfect example of the 2nd Amendment being exercised. So was the American revolution. Why no challenges to the 2nd Amendment until the day the Civil War ended? Then with 1/2 the states not represented and the supreme court politically involved and not constitutionally bound, decided the 2nd Amendment did not say what in fact it does to this day. I know, tufftitty, right....
I should probably check my history, but I don't recall a 2A at the time of the American revolution. Also, I always find it very hard to respect the opinion of people who seem so respectful of the Constitution when it suits but when there is disappointment as to what the Supreme Court decides (as always for some people), also as provided by the Constitution, suddenly respect for the process in general goes out the window.
That's the old "tails I win, heads you lose" home-spun personal version of logic and reason that always helps people feel they are right, regardless how illogical and wrong they may be...
Face it, the DOE has failed the public. They have failed badly.
The Federal government has "failed" at many things as far as many people are concerned, and I am by no means going to suggest that all efforts have been satisfactory by any means, but this doesn't mean that leaving these problems and responsibilities to local jurisdiction makes matters better rather than worse. The DOE can do better, just like pretty much any federal agency you wish to criticize, and I doubt there will ever be a day free of such criticism, but criticism and poor rationale toward improvement moves us backward, not forward.
The medical field has "failed" to find the cure for cancer as well, for example, despite decades of effort and resources devoted. This doesn't mean you stop the effort or leave the challenge to local clinics and local resources. Same goes for education, health care, housing, public safety...
In fact, these disparities between regions of America (as already mentioned) is why some states are net federal tax contributors (pay more in than they take out), while other states are net tax draws (using more tax revenue dollars than contributed). Why? If you don't know, you really should before making comment let alone drawing the sorts of conclusions you do. And if you think these regions should be left on their own regardless these disparities, you don't know much about how America expanded geographically and economically since the beginning and as still promoted for obvious reasons today.
I've followed this issue for a while now, also by way of more than a few gun threads, and though I have not been altogether against gun control, I have come to accept there isn't much that can be done to stop gun violence in America or even to lessen the body count by any acceptable level. I am no gun expert, and I have been chastised for having an opinion though I am not an expert, even for relying on experts instead. However, as compared to many gun enthusiasts in these threads, for example, I just tend to pay closer attention to other experts that tend to make more sense without all the gun obsession detail down to the patina. Accordingly, rather than go round and round those gun circles, I'm glad to have this to offer as my position. IOWs, I tend to agree almost entirely with what is written here. Not that the "answers" put forth here are altogether satisfying, but about the best we can do I think...
"What can be done to address this much larger toll of gun violence, which leaves nearly 100,000 Americans killed or wounded each year?"
This one's easy. Make assisted suicide legal. Over 60% of all tjose gun deaths are suicides. The majority are the elderly & the terminally ill. That would cut our gun deaths 60% with the click of a pen.
Tempted to agree for obvious reasons and some not so obvious, but getting into all that takes us from the topic of this thread and into the realm of whether assisted suicide should be legalized or not, and by way of what circumstances. With that issue too, we're stuck with some awfully strong feelings and beliefs as to what is right or wrong, what is OUR right or not...
But back to guns, gun suicides occur regardless whether the circumstances are as we might agree appropriate. The additional problem or issue -- consideration -- is that guns make killing easy, very easy with the simple pull of a trigger. Unfortunately, this also means that someone who happens to have a gun immediately at hand and who may be having a particularly bad time, maybe temporarily depressed to a dangerous level, just might shoot themselves in a moment of such severe depression that no one would objectively think was appropriate. IOWs, rule out all suicides that really should not take place all considered but do happen with a gun during a moment of depression induced impulse, and you've got why even gun suicides are a problem and often included as part of the count related to gun deaths.
More specifically as to those specifics and/or statistics, how many of those gun suicides are actually cases general society would condone rather than view as rash and/or the best option all considered? Only those cases can you subtract from the total of gun suicides, cutting that 60% fairly significantly I think (though I am sure those numbers are hard to come by). Then, after you have excluded all the suicides we might somehow agree are "appropriate," what number of gun killings in America are left and how does that number compare to other countries as a point of reference?
That's the data most people prefer considering on a more objective reasoned basis if this question is really to be considered further, if you ask me anyway...
You started by writing, "this one's easy." Funny!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.