Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“so what is not accurate”
Their crime rate. They may deliberately downplay their crime rate to appear safer than they are.
I’m not saying that they do. Just that one country doesn’t serve to undo literally hundreds of studies.““I spent 10 years there, and about the only good thing to be said for the place is that it is basically free of violent crime”
“Obviously you missed my previous post.
Here it is again – the guy obviously lives in the Western World:
“From one of the commenters:””I saw that, and while I was tempted to laugh at using “one of their commentators” as a legitimate source.It may be true. At any rate as mentioned that is the exception not the rule. There are many factors that can explain it, even if true. Perhaps being a more religious country might have something ot do with it.
“In Saudi Arabia”
that is one country whose data may or may not be accurate
“Take away guns from who – regular citizens or criminals?”
Here is his fulll quote: “Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court. Because that’s another system. A lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. You could do exactly what you’re saying but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
He wa responding to PEnce who had said “if an individual is reported to be a potential danger to themselves or others. Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled but the ability to go to court, obtain an order and collect not only the firearms but any weapons in the possession.”
“but it won’t stop the Killing in the US”
Nobody said it would.” If they did, the murder rate would drop tremendously!”
Do you have any data to support, that which has been debunked over and over
Health
No need to pick a fight We already agree, its ok to be liberal welcome to the true pro-life party take a deep breath yo u will be fine. You already said You agree with Trump ” “Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks” Now Trump has said police can confiscate guns without first going through court sytem. I assume you agree with this, since you seem to agree with Trump no matter what (including that some people at Neo-Nazi Rallies are very fine people)
You already mentioned your silly idea to improve. It is silly because neither countries nor states that have capital punishment have a lower homicde rate. So while it was a good thought, it just isnt true.
Mentsch
“But I have a problem with your new analogy”Yes I have problems with it too.
It i s far from perfect. There are other examples (none of which are perfect) I have a high alcohol tolerance. I drive better with BAC of 0.2% than most people do without alcohol. Yet I can’t if my BAC is above 0.08% (what an arbitrary number!) I get arrested. Just an innocent otherwise law abiding citizen deprived of my right to drink what I want. and dont get me started on me passively having an open drink in my car. I love airing out the tannins of my wine on my drive home, yet even if I dnt drink I get arrested. Al lbecause of crimes committed by OTHER drunk drivers.The point is and it seems you agree with most of this:
There is a shooting problem in this country
There has to be a way to improve
The second amendment is not absolute
sometimes we have to give up things we may enjoy for the betterment/safety of society.(I dont know exactly what needs to be given up, buying guns at young age? buying without a license? Buying without a background check)
rational jew
” Comparing countries with gun laws to those without are not accurate at all since there are many many factors which influence murder rates”
When there are many countires the “many factors” become part of the “background” It becomes harder to argue that More guns leads to less crime, France is an exception because their police are corrupt, england is an exception because of their “culture” etc etc.
“And if you do check all the world statistics, you can see that there is in fact no correlation between gun laws and murder rates.”
Nope, and it isnt true on the State level either See “Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home” in NEJM 10/7/93 the study that may have led to the NRA pushing for a shutdown on the CDC studying the issue.
See “State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.” Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64. where they looked at state level and controlled for other factors“if you compare homicide rates before and after gun regulations in the same country, then you will find consistently that homicide rates go up after the ban.”
Nope. Australia. Even if it is true in some countries, it isnt “consistently”“They may go down again years later due to other factors such as putting more police on the street.”
oooook. so lets have stricter gun laws AND put more police on the street. We will skip the inital spike and jump ahead to the lower homicide rates they have. sounds like a plan!“Trump is right! Your assumption that e/o at that rally has to be a sympathyzer for Nazis is absurd!”
I did not say everybody at a nazi rally is a nazi sympathizer. Thus your question “Do you say the same thing about e/o at the left opposition rally – that they are all Commies or Commie sympathyzers?!?” Is illogical
I am saying that they arent “Very fine people”
You disagree and say, as Trump did that some of those at a neo-nazi rally are “very fine people” .
Obviously that is your right. Troubling as your opinion may be.I’m glad that was cleared up.
Thank you for your timeMencth
“Do you have proof that it isn’t a benefit?”
that what isnt a benefit?
Of course there is a benefit to owning guns. They are fun I get it, I’ve gone shooting it is an absolute blast.
Driving 100 mph near school zones is a blast too. However both are dangerous and although I am an excellent driver and can avoid hitting pesky kids for the sake of society, my right to drive is curtailed although Iam otheriwise a law abiding citizen.I get the appeal to guns, I dont really gt the needing it to overthrow the government part, I just dont understand how it works.
“But I want to take issue with your analogy to nuclear weapons”
It’s not an analogy. I’m pointing out that the 2nd amendment isnt absolute. and that all (I hope) agree there isnt an absolute right to own any “Arm” regardless of the consequences.
It is just a question of what arms owned by which people are included.“I’ve repeatedly said that the argument against assault rifles is based on the idea that they are inherently more dangerous, and that is false”
note, I never made an argument against assault rifles.
Mentsch
“No , you can’t own nuclear weapons ”
why not?“and no you can’t have an uprising ”
A poster in the other thread said “fact that the anti-gun lobby has yet to prove the harms of firearms outweigh the benefits,both in terms of safety and with respect to the idea of an armed society keeping its government from straying towards tyranny”
This wasnt your quote, do you agree with that “benefit ” of gun ownership?Joseph
“The Bill of Rights has never been amended or abridged.”Yet. That doent mean it can’t. Until 1933 an amendment was never repealed. I’m not sure wha t your point is.
My point is even if the constitution DID grant a right for all people to own guns wit hno regulation whatsoever; 1) that doesnt make it a good idea 2) that doesnt mean it can’t be changed
Brooklyn Yenta
you say you are “Strictly addressing the issue raised”
I am not sure wha tissue you are addressing. It sounds I’m not sure what the MAcabees, and the Brittish have to do with the subject at hand or each other.“liberals who can’t even figure out which bathroom to use.”
Just the opposite! The liberals have no constrictions which bathroom they use and the gun owners will never find them.seriously though, what are you talking about
DY
LolMentsch if yo ucant find the questions, I’m refferign to these 2
Here are the 2 questions:
1) Do you believe I have aright to nuclear weapons? If not, why not the 2nd amendment says “arms” which a nuclear warhead clearly is. Lest you redefine “arms” as something that can be carried in an arm (which is of course not a definiton with real basis but I have heard this disinction) Do I have a right to automatic weapons, rocket launchers and grenades all of which can be carried in my arm?2) The main reason given for the 2nd amendment is to oppose a tyrannical government. My question is how does this work. Do I have a right to oppose (by force if needed) a IRS agent enforcing what I view as a tyrannical tax code? IS there any armed uprising from >230 years of US history that you beleive was in the right in their armed uprising against what they viewed as a tyrannical government ?
Health
“I personally haven’t thought into it”
so think about it, how long does it take?
“But the President is entitled to his opinon!”
Obviousl;y, though that isnt our discussion. Neo-nazis are entitled to their opinion too. That doent mean they are right.“Look they did it a long time ago. Stop trying to dictate what people think – it’s called Freedom when you don’t police everything.”
I dont know wha t you are saying.
If there was a statue in a public square of Munich of Hitler left over from 1941 “a long time ago” “when h was a hero” You would aoppose its removal?(Obviousoly Lee wasnt as bad as Hitel, but you are using silly arguemtns, I’m going to help steer yo uin the rigth direction with extreme examples)
““Don’t forget we are talking about a constitutional right, in contrast to driving.””
And as is well known the constitution is unamendable. Just ask my slaves.
Mentsch can you or one of your multiple screen names help me out with either of my 2 qyestions posed above?
health
“Funny, but you have no problem why Trump was saying that some commies are “very fine” as a an example of Trump being nice; about BLM & their left buddies?!?”
Yes,, beacuse soem of those opposing neo-nazis were very fine.
Let’s keep this simple. do you agree with the following statement:
“anybody attending a neo-nazi rally, who realizes he is at a neo-nazi rally and sticks around whther becasue he supports “states rights” likes their shiny bald heads or the refreshments the yare serving, is not a very fine person.”
simple question do you agree with that yes or no.
“Stop with the Liberal Lies! The statue was put up in a time when Lee was a hero.”
Yes that is precisely the issue. do you not know what “glorification” means? it is treating him like a heroKeith
A few points
“So we must be honest and accept that this is all theater, designed to make us feel good and not designed to stop shootings.”No, you must be honest that there has to be a way to limit (though likley not “stop” these shootings if most western countries are able to.
I am not saying I Know how to do it, but the ease of gun purchase more than likely has somehting to do with it.“We also need to recognize that any law change affects only law abiding citizens, not criminals.”
Like most arguments from the “pro gun” side this is often repeated but makes little sense. Just becasue people may not follow a law isnt a reason not to legislate. We dont say let murder be legal since clearly murderers dont care. We dont say lets sell explosives since anyway terorits can blow us up if the ywant to.
“So if you are serious about gun deaths you are talking about government seizure of all guns,”
As DY says Ok. youve convinced me. though I dont think that is relestic, if we can stop the few from rifles why arent those lives saved worth it. (If we cant save those, that is a different argument) but arguing that only some would be saved so it just doesnt make sense is absurd.
“the vast majority, almost 3/4, are suicides. So we are not talking about those.”
Wait, why on earth not?
“he vast majority of the remainder are gang-on-gang or similar (criminal on criminal) shootings”
those are bad too! as are the bysanders caught in cross fire
“Televisions (falling on people – actual FBI statistics).”
Done! you’ve convinced me I’m on board with demanding televisions that are placed above peoples heads be properly secured.
This terrible scurgae plaguing AMerica does have to stop““Bump stocks” is a technique to obtain rapid fire. There is no special stock necessary.”
you are confusing “Bump stocks” with “bump fire” Bump fire is a technique, it isnt easy to perform and it hurts. A “bump stock” is a device to make bump-firing easier. Why would we allow easy access to a device that makes a more deadly technique easier to perform? Again of course criminals can obtain illegal devices, they can fasion them on their own, but why make it easier.
Yousef wants to rent a truck pack it with ammonium nitrate and nitroglycerin. I thought Of a great marketing idea. He wants to do it anyway, so why don’t I open a “Bombs-r- us” we can sell him a truck packed with explosives, perhaps a map to some local landmarks. Maybe for extra money we can offer tips which garages are less guarded. After all he can obtain these things anyway, so lets make some money?
“And many people, probably the majority, are offended by the efforts of a minority to “erase history” and police their thoughts.”
Erase history?
Nobody is saying to remove all mention of Lee. He should be remebered in a museum of evil that man did to fellow man.
Putting up a statue of him in public square/park isnt just a historical reminder, it is a glorification.“The fact that some anti-semites support a position does not make that position wrong.”
True. but if they go to a nazi-rally even just for the cookies they arent “very fine people”do you ever wonder why there where swastikas at a rally in support of Lee? IF all this was was to not “erase history” what do swastikas have to do with it?
Mencth and NOYB (or anyone for that matter)
Midwest said “Those really long, dense posts tend not to be read by people who don’t already agree with you”
I’d like you to know I read your posts. I’m bored by reading posts /articless that gree with me. I find hearing opposing views much more interesting.
However I still havent found answers to a few questions that I have. I posed these on the other thread but missed any answer that may have been given.
Here are the 2 questions:
1) Do you belive I have aright to nucleur weapons? If not why not the 2nd amendment says “arms” which a nucleur warhead clearly is. Lest you redefine “arms” as something that can be carried in an arm (whcih is of course not a definiton with real basis but I have heard this disinction) Do I have a right to automatic weapons? rocket launchers and grenades all of which can be carried in my arm?2) The main reason given for the 2nd amendment is to oppose a tyrannical government. M yquestion is how does this work. Do I have a right o oppose (by force if needed) a IRS agent enforcing what I view as a tyrannical tax code? IS there any armed uprising from >230 years of US history that you beleive was in the right in their armed uprising against what they viewed as a tyrannical government ?
thanks
Health
Hold up
“Trump was being nice by saying there were fine people on both sides.
There weren’t! ”why is saying that there were “very fine people” among neo nazis an example of “Trump being nice”
Isnt that an example of Trump being Crazy (Or Trump being Trump)?
Please explain to me why Trump saying that some neonazis are “very fine” was a an example of Trump being nice“And why did the town agree in the first place to remove the statue?!?
Because people find it offensive
NOYB
“Responsible gun owners shouldn’t be in a position where they can be blamed for the crimes …. Car owners aren’t blamed for drunk driving deaths, even though they own cars. It is the same thing.”It is the same thing. Just like we do our best to keep people safe from cars we should treat guns at LEAST as strictly.
I dont understand how people keep bringing up the car analogy.” The entire concept of “assault weapons” i… scarier-looking rifles.”
This is of course true. Though one oculd argue that they don’t want to be scared. so a law banning “scary guns” isnt necessarily stupid.
“With a few minutes of practice, someone can reload fast enough that magazine capacity makes little difference.”
but without those few minutes of practice….
“So people who are 18 …but they can’t handle owning a rifle? Does that make sense to you?”
Yes.
“Furthermore, why are we listening to a sporting goods store about how to formulate public policy? Have they conducted extensive research about how to stop shootings, or is this more than likely a PR move? ”
The CDC isnt allowed to do gun related research. Thanks ot the Dickey amendment. put in place by a thoroughly evil organization that was afrai that research may lead to lives being saved.
So without research we take what we can getRedleg
those points have been considered except they arent true .
For example
“Keeping and Bearing Arms is a Constitutionally guaranteed right, no less than freedom of the press or of speech. ”It is less than free speech. Free speech doesn’t have an introductory clause as limiting it to “well regulated”
which brings us to
“For those who maintain that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect ownership of AR and AK style rifles:
In United States v Miller, ”You have that exactly backwards.
Miller ruled that the 2nd amendment does NOT apply outside of a “well regulated milita”“The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.”
This was overruled in Heller. But Miller is the worst case to cite.
Mentch
“Well the liberal Supreme Court of NYS apparently disagrees with you”do you agree with every supreme court ruling? why would I?
“And clearly the use of ages such as 18 and 21 are used because it is understood that those ages represent levels of maturity so clearly they aren’t “arbitrary “”
hold it. so you are telling me that a 17 year old and 364 days is too imature to vote but the next day he gets maturity?
And if there were “extra” leap years during his 17 years so that on the day before his 18th birthday he is 6209 days old he is less mature than an 18 years old who is 6207 days old?We draw a line there is an element of arbitreriness to it. We all agree that kids shouldnt vote/drink and adults could (some of them) so we draw a line someplace. Exactly where that line is drawn is obviosuly arbitrary.
Assuming we want a killer to have to pause after he has shot some kids, we have to draw a line someplace. So we arbitrarily draw the line at 7. Once he’s shot 7 kids its time for a brief timeout. Why is 10 a good number of shot people, that isnt the point much like why at 17 years and 364 days are you too imature to vote?
The line drawn IS arbitrary. There is nothing that inherently changes at age 18 or 21Torass Avigdor
” It becomes, Rav Miller said this, but some am ha’aretz sitting in his basement thinks this.”
Ah, but what if the one sharing Rav Miller’s words is also “some am ha’aretz sitting in his basement ” ?
mentsch1
“The court finally struck down that provision of the law as being “arbitrary” but imagine what that man went through in terms of lawyer fees and aggravation. Is that common sense?”
Yes.
Life is full of cuttoffs. 25 miles per hour on city street isnt speeding 26 is.
17 years old and 364 days cant vote . Is there some special understanding that descneds on people on their 18th birthday?Unless you oppose all arbitrary cutoffs.
Health
stop being silly. IF you (I dont mean you ch”v) find yourself at a neo-nazi rally, whether there to defend Lee, to Unite the right or for free cookies. If you see swastikas, chants of “jews will not replace us” and stick around because you just really like cookies.
Well you arent a “very fine person”Trump may not be smart enough to understand that, but don;t defend it please.
1. Well I do. I have treated victims of all of those. And there is no comparison.
There is a reason why there is an expression “dont bring a knife to a gun fight” hoursbefore the Newton shooting in December 2012 there was a mass stabbing in a school in china. 24 people stabbed. none killed. Look at the recent stabbings in Israel. Do you really beleive the outcomes would havebeen the same if the terrorists had guns instead of knives? I grant these arent the most scientific explanation2. That is a change thanks to people who have said enough is enough. In the past Wayne Lapierre has opposed expanding background checks
3. Ok
4. there are few such countries they are the exception.
Avi
“there will be a certain number of homicidal nuts ”All the MORE reason for stricter background checks.
“IMHO we have to factor out the vast majority of murders in which the culprit knows the victim and decided that he deserves to die as the murder would be committed in any case”
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but it isnt based on factl. For example it has been proven (and is obvious) that domestic violence is more deadly when there is a gun in the home than when there isnt. Furthermore guns cause far more dammage than say knives. So even if the culprit ” decided that he deserves to die” It is far better for the victim’s survival for said violence to occur via knife than gun.
Agian, and I am not sure why this often gets forgotten, klnobody is suggesting that limiting guns will stop all crime or even allm murder.” and keeping weapons out of their hands. ”
Oh good. so you support some gun control.
The NRA has opposed this in the past.“Why did no one do something?”
I dont know.“On the other hand, America has a much higher violent crime rate.”
Yep, and guess what elese America has a much higher rate of ownership of. I’ll give you a hint it rhymes with fun. and you really don’t think there is a linkage between the two? you think it is more likely that there is some hidden other factor like secret idol worship thoughts)by the way your arguemtn about not counting other factrs works on a limited basis. Say there is a country like switzerland which has a high rate of gun ownership but a low crime/homicide rate, maybe they never think about idols, or are very pacifict by nature or something. But when their is a trend this argument is hard to sustain.
If all people who climbed trees to send birds away at their father’s command tumpled off and died, it would be harder to argue that they all had thoughts of idol worship.“What do you agree with?”
I agree with you! Shalom al yisroel why look for machlokes.
You mentioned 3 proposals ( Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks!) I agree with all of them. whole-heartedly
“That a lot of guns should be made illegal?!?”
Thats a new topic. “a lot” is relative, and i’m not sure to be honest. I think sensible gun control like in ISrael might be a better idea.
At ny rate, why look for machlokes.
WE are in agreement. venehapoch huAvi
“I was referring to the easy of obtaining a gun”
I’m not sure what this refers too.
“There is also a direct correlation between car ownership and fatal accidents. Should cars be banned?”
This silly comparison was raised several times in this thread. Cars are far more regulated than guns in the US. If we regulated guns like we do cars that would be a great step. Since you strangely compared the two I assume you agree.
So I take it you support:
– registering all guns like we do cars. (and then reregestering them every so often)
– requiring license which need to be renewed every so often
– gun insurance
– require safety features
– restrictions in how they can be used (you cant drive over n miles per hour, an analogy would be magazine over n number of bullets)
– Doctor can have your license revoked if he deems you unsafe” How to Lie with Statistics”
It’s a good book. You are right maybe the US has a higher proportion of people with thoughts about worshiping idols which no doubt explains our higher gun homicide rateHealth
“2 people against the NRA is useless!”
Well the good news is we are finally more than 2 people“You still didn’t answer my question.”
Lol! you rarely answer questions, though I’m not sure which question you are referring toHealth my friend
It’s a time of achdus let’s not get caught up where we disagree and focus on where we agreee.
you want gun control , “Comprehensive Background Checks with an emphasis on Mental Health. Raise age to 21 and end sale of Bump Stocks” I want gun control
I am in complete agreement about that. LEts stand up to the NRA we can be two liberals aganist their evil movment. (they have iopposed all 3 of the measures you mention!!!!!!) see I’m even using rxclamation marks.We arent that different after all
” It would have to be per capita ”
obviously“also has much larger armed forces and police departments.”
you beleive the US has a per cpaita police force that is 40 times larger than Israel’s?
And yes when limited to civilian arsenals the US still ranks #1
USA USA USA!“I would imagine that it would depend on the state. ”
It doesnt. there is a direct correlation between gun ownership and gun death.
(though not necceserily a correlation with strictness of gun laws)“NYC has one of the toughest gun laws in the world but that has never stopped criminals.”
NH with one of the least restrictive is not too far.See “America’s gun problem explained in 17 charts” on Vox for some eye opening statistics
Health
“that you believe in gun control like all liberals!”Dont look in the mirror, but so do you.
and I quote: “I agree with Trump about making gun ownership more regulated”Avi
continued
” Pruzansky made a suggestion to be like Israel in one way but did not take a position on other aspects of Israeli law”THAT is exactly what I was criticizing. why not take a position on the subject at hand? He is writing a piece on gun control in general (he isnt replying to the OP. And even if he was armed gaurds wouldnt reduce ” Mass shootings” they would reduce School shootings, Without question a worthy goal.)
He writes “To simplify a bit, when one side feels that society would be safer with more guns and the other side feels society would be safer with fewer or no guns,” Again, look at Israel, do they have more or less civilian guns than the US? is it easier or harder to get a gun than in the US. ?I’m not sure why you think there is a problem with reading comprehension. I explained this point already .
Avi
1. No. dont get caught up on the term “spokesman” you copied a long piece that wasnt super logical nor honest. when I pointed out an example of this in the first paragraph. you hid behind ” “I am not Rabbi Pruzansky’s spokesman.” Ok You diont want to speak for him. so dont. Hopefully you can see how copying his >1500 word screed made it seem like you did.
2. thats fair I was wrong to label that point dishonest. Though I still stand by my point, namely we would be better off if we followed Israel’s approach to gun control.
3. so why are you hocking ah cheinek. If you understood what I said, why get caught up on a typo?
4. I never said I’m right. I’ll try to work on it.Health
“I agree with Trump about making gun ownership more regulated.”
Ah so we agree!LF
“Let EVERYONE affected sue..”
The problem is they can’t. In 2005 congress passed the PLCAA which generally protects gun manufacturers from being sued for death that occurs via their products
Jersey
“You want to stop these? SIMPLE!”
It IS simple, look at Europe.
I love your repeating what has strangely become a favorite Sean Hannity talking point. Who in this thread said AR stands for Assault rifle?
“An automatic weapon means there is more than 1 bullet per pull on the trigger.”
another favorite talking point. who in this thread said otherwise.Though so we are clear, you are opposed to bump stocks since they allow “more than 1 bullet per pull on the trigger.” (without actually modifying the weapon)
” there was NO rhyme or reason why some were made illegal.”
another favorite talking point. Though you did provide a reason “because they look scarier” That might not be a good reason, but it is without doubt a reason.
“Remember, the only thing that could stop someone with a gun, is someone else with a gun!”
Sean, you can repeat that over and over, it isnt true. Look at Australia
Avi
1. So don’t just copy and paste an entire piece
2. “How does it follow” It doesnt. but it is misleading to say we “should be liek ISrael…” In regard to gun control (which is what the post is about) then do a bait and switch and discussing other aspects like Israeli society. It would be like saying mammals need to eat more meat just like dogs who bark. That is a far more apt analogy.
3. You got me there. My typing is atrocious and full of typos (often terrible autocorrects too like my post which said “armed cards”) In my zeal to share my wisdom I often don’t proofread, and I am sorry about that. Please let me know what point you have difficulty with and I am more than happy to explain iin a way that will not cause you trouble.
for example I wrote “though you still falsely accused me of not readign it correctly” Now obviously as you correctly point out “readign” isn’t a word. now in context it should be clear I meant “reading” since I was replying to your “If it is too long for you to read every…” and the letters are quite close to reading just the last 2 are flipped.
Again, I am genuinely sorry if that in any way confused you.I was very insulted!
I serve on the board of Zichron Zalman my children attend Mesivta of Nashville I was recently honored by Ateres Zekeinim, , I am a supporter of benei melachim, and vaad lichizuk mitzvos rikkah b’aLeinu K’hilchasa does vital work in being mechazek a neglected mitzva.All of their recent ad campaigns have been very real and vital to their success. and while I am dizzy from pogoing and my tongue is dry from all the stamp licking Nobody has the right to make fun of our wonderful campaigns!
Mentch1
“I fail to see how limiting guns would help anything, after all, it just takes one”Then you arent looking honestly. More gun ownership = more homicide this is obvious and conclusively proven on the state level and national level.
Now you can argue that they are relatively few, and that you need guns in case the government becomes tyrannical or something and therefore it is a small price to pay. in short the benefits outweigh the risks.
Obviously more car ownership = more vehicular death. Though in that case we all agree the benefits outweigh the risk. But To argue that “limiting gun ownership” “wouldn’t help anything” is absurdHealth
“You obviously didn’t read my whole post!”I did and have no idea what you are talking about.
Your posts are hard to follow and jump from topic to topic making any chain of logic (if there is one) difficult to follow. I’m tired of always having t o help things out and get things on track for you.You make it even harder by not addressing direct questions.
We are talking about shootings and that it is “impossible to believe that there is no other solution,” I dont see how “yes but they have terrorism” (im paraphrasing) has anything to do with anything
Mentch
I’m sorry I didnt mean that you implied that you would take up arms. I war referring to this “the 300M guns cant disappear without confiscation. …massive resistance resulting in …, perhaps even violence” Another poster said a similar thing. Say a democratically elected Govt repeals the second amendment and guns are confiscated. I would expect law abiding citizens to comply, and arguing that many wouldnt makes me worry about giving them guns in the first place.
Obviously that is essentially an impossibility, but say all guns have to be registered. Say the supreme court, says wel the second amendment calls for the right to be “well regulated” which we interpret to mean a registry of all guns (note not ordinarily regulated, it must be well regulated). I also suspect some of the “very nice guys” identified in by another poster will resort to violence.
in short, arguing that good guys should be allowed to keep guns otherwise they will get violent just isnt a convincing argument.
“It is clear historically that govt’s that confiscated guns often did so as a precuser to repression.”
Oy Australian repression is notorious.“It is clear that the second amendment allows gun ownership.”
that isnt clear, and until recently it was not understood that way.“It is clear that mass shootings are a fairly recent scourge and therefore unlikely directly linked to gun ownership”
Can it be because of the ease at purchasing weapons that are far deadlier and fire a rapid pace compared to the past. Yes I know we can google weapons that existed 200 years ago that were equally deadly but those were the exception rather than the rule.
” to the Warsaw ghetto”
Ive asked this before, which armed uprising in US history do you support? the whiskey rebellion? the confederacy? The Branch Davidians?
What about me Tax day is coming I hope to fight off the tyranical IRS from taking my hard earned money. IS this my right? How exactly does this work who decides when the govt is “tyrannical” ?Furthermore if we have to fight the govt we need tanks jets and missiles. do I have a right to own those? Particularly as the second amendment clearly protects my right to bear “arms” not just guns and all of the above are “arms”
Avi
“I am not Rabbi Pruzansky’s spokesman.”Are you sure?
““as is done in Israel” refers to “providing armed guards during school hours and searches, screening and profiling for all who enter the school building “.”
Yes I got that. And thats why I said the comment was dishonest. If we copied Israel’s approach to gun control that would be great. It is dishonest to cite Israel as a model Quote “As is done in Israel..” in a discussion over gun control but regarding a side issue and ignore their approach to the issue at hand, namely gun control
That is my point and is what I said.“If it is too long for you to read every word so skim.”
I did, and understood the gist of it, though you still falsely accused me of not readign it correctly . you are hard to win with
Health
“Even the small countries in Europe, with all their Gun Control, have a bigger problem with Terrorism than the US”
Yes and they have a lower infant mortality, but what does that have to do with anything?
At any rate though since you insist on mixing in terrorism, you think expanding the no-fly-list to be a no-gun-list would INCREASE terrorism?
Mentch
“Sure I have some die hard second amendment fans that feel rights are absolute.”
Sadly though with groups like the NRA targeting specific elections over this one issue saner voices are ignored.
Take backgroubnd checks whihc you seem to favor. It has near universal support even among gun owners. In 1999 after columbine Wayne Lappiere said “We think it’s reasonable to provide mandatory instant background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere, for anyone”Yet their more recent position is “The NRA opposes criminalizing private firearms transfers between law-abiding individuals, and therefore opposes an expansion of the background check system”
Yes there are some silly points from the LEft that the right likes harping on like misuse of the term “assault rifles” or confusing automatic wit h semi-automatic, though I fai lto understand why that should lesson support for wha tmost on the right think is good policy.
you ask
“1)the 300M guns cant disappear without confiscation. And then you run into the issues Ive already mentioned (non compliance and massive resistance resulting in millions of new felons, perhaps even violence)”I dont know, though that is a terrible argument to keep the status quo. Maybe a buyback program like in Australia? Maybe limit to 1 or 2 guns per person like in Israel.?
Though I have to say the threat of “violence” doesnt really make me happy about leaving guns in these peoples hands. If a person can say I’m a nice guy but if you come for my gun I’m shooting you (and you are the second person on this thread who said this) makes me less supportive of “gun rights” not more
Metch
“I’m pretty sure my statement about schools in europe (and it’s more then france) was made in response to the comment “we shouldn’t have to protect schools””Right. We shouldnt HAVE to. dont you agree? Unfortunatly if there is no chioice than we have to but that is sad.
I’ll back up I’m not sure where I lost youHealth said (I’m paraphrasing) we just have to accept mass shootings as a way of life in the US and have armed gaurds outside schools
I said . IF no alternative then yes we need to protect children, but given that this is a US issue, it is hard to imagine there is no alternaivie as armed gaurds ioutside schools is bedieved.
This is where you come in,. you said “Don’t the jewish schools in Europe have armed guards despite the restrictive gun laws?”
to which I explained , they arent protecting from Mass shootings they are there for another reason.
You ask “Clearly you want to draw some distinction between terrorism and school shootings.
why?”becasue they are different. they have different causes, motives, means, (though sadly the outcomes are similar) . Just like you dont lump medical errors and car accidents together.
Moreover even if you DO lump them together they still are doing better. Including terrorosim, Frnace STILL has had less mass shootings. And a majhority of schools dont require armed gaurds. Yes a few Jewish ones do, but that is far better than the reccomendation made by health.\
Further still, it is hard to imagine how exapnding say the No-fly -list to becoem a no-gun-list will further terrorism in the USFinally you ask
“Why arent school shootings a form of terrorism (that we all seem to realize can’t be stopped)?”Because it is a uniquely American problem. I agree that the exact reasons why are hard to pin down, but it is hard to argue that the fact that it is so easy to get a gun, and that we have the highest civiallian arsenal have soemthing to do with it
As I mentioned in my first post see the Onion’s headline “‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens”If you agree with that statment, you are falling for a joke.
“If you read my posts you would see I am in favor of mandatory safety training etc. Higher age requirements. Federal background checks
so how do we disagree?”Maybe we don’t! so join me in wriiting our congressman, lets march on Washington. vote for Democratic pro-life candidates
Avi
Long post I didnt read the whole thingLost me with this line ” the other side blames the perpetrator for the crime (as if he could kill people if he didn’t have a gun)”
but it is a foolish and dishonest statement . No side argues that there would be no murders without guns.
I prefer not to read long screeds from foolish and dishonest people.
And besides, so do you favor the sale of C-4. Its not like the explosives can kill people, and if you dont sell it its not like the guy trying to buy some cant kill in other waysA further sign of dishonesty is this “Such is done in Israel, as …” Many gun control advocates (not all) would accept strict gun control like Israel has. The NRA though opposes such common sense measures like universal background checks
If there is any specific point you’d want addressed I’d be happy to respond.
Mentch
“2) where there is a will there is a way. I figured out the combination to my fathers gun safe early on. It wasnt his fault it was my persistance”and that is your argument in favor of private gun ownership?
Metch
“Don’t the jewish schools in Europe have armed guards despite the restrictive gun laws?”( I though I replied earlier I’ll repost)
Yes, I Frnace there are armed gaurds (though Iassume you agree this is unfortunate correct me if Im wrong)
As you probably know the gaurds arent there to prevent a kid from killing17 of his schoolmates. It is for an entirely different reason.
Im not sure why so many find this simple point confusing. nobody is arguing that gun control measures would solve all problems. Just as it is nonsensical to argue (although one poster sort of did) that we shouldn’t lock cockpits after 9/11 since it wouldn’t have prevented Oklahoma city, it is equally nonsensical to argue that we shouldnt enact stricter gun control measures since it wouldn’t prevent terrorism or all murder.did the 24 hour news cycle of the era report the Norman Conquest?
If by 24 hour news cycle you mean the 24 hours of town crier news over the course of the year, then yes without question much of it was devoted to local affairs and the exploits of their nearby relatives.
I’m not saying he knew the details of the going ons of the Chinese Song dynasty (though didint he have ruach hakodesh?) but it is hard to imagine he didnt know of local events. Troyes, is not far from normandy Where William ruled.He must have known about its existence given the Norman conquest that occured when he was a teenager .
I highly doubt he ever visited .why dod you ask?
I’m confused
didnt you answer your own question
“Why is that news, unless you find such a thing heart-warming?”
Some people find it heart warming
Health
thank you for clarifying
“How come they aren’t protecting schools, like they do with Courts???”
Because our children should be safe in schools, they shouldn’t have to live under armed protection. Of course if there is no alternative, then there is no alternative and safety comes first even if it means armed soldiers/guards in streets , malls, parks etc. But it is impossible to believe that there is no other solution, when throughout the civilized world there is no need for schools to be protected that way.
Health,
“The topic of these posts I presumed was about schools shootings. But my statements are correct!”
It is about mass shootings in general (Las vegas wasnt a school)
You said: “is-there-any-way-to-prevent-mass-shootings…And the answer …is NO!”
To which I said: “Mass shootings are not a part of life in other countries as they are here. There has to be a way to be more like them in this regard”
to which you said “We don’t need to be like Europe with their liberalism to the Nth degree!”
So I just want to make sure I understand you correctly
“youre saying We have to accept that mass shootings are just a way of life in the US, and are worth it to avoid being “like Europe with their liberalism””Is this your position?
Edited