The CT shooting and gun control
-
BoatShoes
By doing so you're missing the point....it was just an example to try to provide a factual context for more meta discussion.WebFire;1379591 wrote:
Well, duh! -
WebFire
What is your point with this case then, if I am supposed to dismiss the facts?BoatShoes;1379592 wrote:Sure. Fine. You're getting too caught up into the particular facts of the case. If he'd had a baseball bat and he got closer...who knows. Guns exacerbate the negative consequences of human frailties and errors. -
WebFire
Factual context while ignoring the facts???BoatShoes;1379594 wrote:By doing so you're missing the point....it was just an example to try to provide a factual context for more meta discussion. -
FatHobbit
I would not call that immoral. IMHO that would be justified.BoatShoes;1379586 wrote:There are different degrees of immorality and even the law agrees. You're allowed to kill somebody who has attempted to use deadly force against you first in most jurisdictions.
I think the reason I'm getting caught up in the facts is because I think there is a time and place to use a firearm and you should be damn sure you're right before you pull the trigger.BoatShoes;1379586 wrote:This guy claims he thought this person was going to attack him. You're getting too caught up in the exact facts of that particular case when i'm just trying to make a more general point here. I don't mean to trivialize this particular instance...it's merely a recently relevant example of how deaths can occur at the hands of a human shooting a gun in the haze of human error.
The facts here make all the difference.BoatShoes;1379588 wrote:You too are getting too caught up in the particular facts of the particular case...it is just a recently relevant example that people often make mistakes under a reasonably justified belief. Where you're from, if a person had a genuine belief that he was under attack (which I'm not saying this guy in this case did), I'm not sure we'd call him immoral if he used what he bought to defend his home to do just that. -
Cleveland Buck
Gotta love nullification. Too bad they won't have the balls to enforce it.Wyoming’s House of Representatives has passed legislation that attempts to exempt the state from proposed federal regulations restricting assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
The law would also charge federal officials who try to enforce the ban with a misdemeanor, reports CBS.
The state could have problems enforcing its own law. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal laws supersede state laws. It’s uncertain whether the block would be legally enforceable.
President Barack Obama has called for reinstituting a federal assault weapons ban following the shootings in Connecticut in December that killed 20 elementary school students. However, it’s far from certain whether there are enough Republicans who would join with Democrats to pass a renewal of the ban, as Republicans in general have been cool to the idea.
The Wyoming House also preliminarily approved a bill that would allow residents who hold permits to carry weapons on public school campuses, colleges, and on the grounds of the University of Wyoming.
http://conservativebyte.com/2013/02/state-house-blocks-obama-gun-laws/#ixzz2Jkv4Ce3L -
believer
Well, when the Feds start threatening to withhold Federal dollars for infrastructure improvements, schools, etc., etc. the Wyoming politicians will quietly capitulate.Cleveland Buck;1380051 wrote:Gotta love nullification. Too bad they won't have the balls to enforce it.
Money talks...even if it is Phony Ben Money backed by the Chinese. -
WebFireI don't understand this at all.
Then what is the point? Why are you doing this?Biden: New gun controls likely won't end shootings
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/31/16794835-biden-new-gun-controls-likely-wont-end-shootings?lite -
FatHobbit
No shit.WebFire;1382108 wrote:I don't understand this at all.
Then what is the point? Why are you doing this?
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/31/16794835-biden-new-gun-controls-likely-wont-end-shootings?lite -
WebFire
Seriously. I don't get it.FatHobbit;1382112 wrote:No shit.
"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol. -
FatHobbit
He's either trying to make a big deal out of "helping the children" or setting the stage for the next round of gun laws.WebFire;1382118 wrote:Seriously. I don't get it. -
BoatShoes
If it is desirable to end gun violence...since the U.S. has significant obstacles to overcome on multiple fronts....it's important to start somewhere.WebFire;1382108 wrote:I don't understand this at all.
Then what is the point? Why are you doing this?
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/31/16794835-biden-new-gun-controls-likely-wont-end-shootings?lite -
Con_Alma
If the goal is to end gun violence, this is hardly a start. What this current effort does is solidify the passionate appeal of defending the 2nd amendment. I don't believe for a moment these efforts are inspired to stop gun violence but rather they are further politicizing a foothold of ideology in continued effort to write the legacy of an administration.BoatShoes;1382142 wrote:If it is desirable to end gun violence...since the U.S. has significant obstacles to overcome on multiple fronts....it's important to start somewhere. -
BoatShoes
And, why do you believe this?Con_Alma;1382146 wrote:If the goal is to end gun violence, this is hardly a start. What this current effort does is solidify the passionate appeal of defending the 2nd amendment. I don't believe for a moment these efforts are inspired to stop gun violence but rather they are further politicizing a foothold of ideology in continued effort to write the legacy of an administration. -
Con_Alma
I don't believe the efforts are being pushed because they will stop gun violence because they are admitted to not have the ability to do so.BoatShoes;1382148 wrote:And, why do you believe this?
I believe most Presidents are concerned about their legacy to some degree although most don't act solely on it's behalf and especially if it were against their own ideology. I haven't seen any reason to think this President is any different. -
WebFire
Desirable by whom? If we have significant obstacles to overcome, then it isn't desired.BoatShoes;1382142 wrote:If it is desirable to end gun violence...since the U.S. has significant obstacles to overcome on multiple fronts....it's important to start somewhere. -
WebFire
I'm not sure you set that stage by admitting it won't reduce gun violence. That's the only leg there is to stand on. If you aren't reducing gun death or crime, what reason is there for gun laws?FatHobbit;1382133 wrote:He's either trying to make a big deal out of "helping the children" or setting the stage for the next round of gun laws. -
justincredible
Eventual disarmament. Political theater. Both.WebFire;1382168 wrote:I'm not sure you set that stage by admitting it won't reduce gun violence. That's the only leg there is to stand on. If you aren't reducing gun death or crime, what reason is there for gun laws? -
FatHobbit
I think he's admitting THIS ROUND won't help. The NEXT round will do it. And if not, maybe the round of gun laws after that...WebFire;1382168 wrote:I'm not sure you set that stage by admitting it won't reduce gun violence. That's the only leg there is to stand on. If you aren't reducing gun death or crime, what reason is there for gun laws? -
BoatShoes
You don't think it's desirable to reduce gun violence/deaths in the united states which have the highest amount per capita of all industrialized nations...on par with some "third-world" nations?WebFire;1382164 wrote:Desirable by whom? If we have significant obstacles to overcome, then it isn't desired.
Even if there are significant obstacles...it still may be worth it in the end, right? I think it's fair to say that having to shut down a treasonous insurrection by the Southern States in what amounted to a civil war that costs a great many American lives was ultimately worth it in the cause of ending slavery, wouldn't you? -
BoatShoes
Some is NOT EQUAL to ALL but is > Zero. Most liberals seem to think that the proposals put forth would have at least some net benefit.Con_Alma;1382154 wrote:I don't believe the efforts are being pushed because they will stop gun violence because they are admitted to not have the ability to do so.
I believe most Presidents are concerned about their legacy to some degree although most don't act solely on it's behalf and especially if it were against their own ideology. I haven't seen any reason to think this President is any different. -
FatHobbit
Do you think the civil war was really about ending slavery? I would say the end of slavery was more of a happy side effect.BoatShoes;1382175 wrote:I think it's fair to say that having to shut down a treasonous insurrection by the Southern States in what amounted to a civil war that costs a great many American lives was ultimately worth it in the cause of ending slavery, wouldn't you?
Edit - I do think slavery played a part in the civil war, but I don't think it was as cut and dry as the Noble North riding in to save all of the slaves from the wicked Southerners. -
WebFire
That is the goal. But the only reason for the American public to buy into it is gun related crime reduction.justincredible;1382173 wrote:Eventual disarmament. Political theater. Both. -
WebFire
I thought the desire you were speaking of was disarmament of civilians.BoatShoes;1382175 wrote:You don't think it's desirable to reduce gun violence/deaths in the united states which have the highest amount per capita of all industrialized nations...on par with some "third-world" nations?
Even if there are significant obstacles...it still may be worth it in the end, right? I think it's fair to say that having to shut down a treasonous insurrection by the Southern States in what amounted to a civil war that costs a great many American lives was ultimately worth it in the cause of ending slavery, wouldn't you? -
justincredible
Don't you know that semi-auto rifles can shoot down planes and blow up railroads?!?!WebFire;1382182 wrote:That is the goal. But the only reason for the American public to buy into it is gun related crime reduction.
/Jesse Jackson'd