By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Call your Congressman tomorrow as Obama is giving his speech!

fordy said:
kain_kusanagi said:


I responded to a poll data debate. I typicaly don't go looking for it. But as a human being with bias I'm sure I'm more apt to point out the pointlessness of polls when a poll is beyond stupid.


Just like voting, right?


I'm sure you think that is some kind of killer jab, but I'm honestly not recognising your twisting of my works this time.



Around the Network
kain_kusanagi said:
fordy said:
kain_kusanagi said:


I responded to a poll data debate. I typicaly don't go looking for it. But as a human being with bias I'm sure I'm more apt to point out the pointlessness of polls when a poll is beyond stupid.


Just like voting, right?


I'm sure you think that is some kind of killer jab, but I'm honestly not recognising your twisting of my works this time.

No, I'm interested to know.

Polls are generally driven by people who are passionate, who want to know that their opinion is one that lots of others agree with. It's the same with Capitalism. It provides incentive to do such things. you wouldn't say Capitalism doesn't work cos it involves getting off your ass to work, would you?

You might disagree with polls, or how polls are done, but when done correctly, they provide useful insight into public opinion.



Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Because i fundamentally don't see why you think what you're doing is safety. You say "safety," i see "threat."

you see the need to control people take away peoples rights make  people less safe. i see the need to protect myself from said things.

but if you are so threatened by lawful gun owners, im sure you wouldnt mind putting a sign in your front yard stating you are gun free. you know, so we can know you arent a threat.

facts be damned, if it makes progressive anti-constitutionalists happy, do it!

As far as studies go, what seems to work in your favor is that: home invasions are reduced if its possible the occupant is armed, and that being armed in the face of a robbery helps to deter the robber.

The need to win a firefight and these abhorrent "stand your ground" laws are not really supported by much of anything. You shouldn't be wanting to win a firefight, because that means killing someone, which you shouldn't want to do. All you should want is to stop them.

There may be a need to have weapons (or something that looks like a weapon), but the need to really use them is really vaguely defined.

so are you admitting that not only are such laws unconstitutional, but they are ineffective?

they will not stop crime, will not stop murderers. it will be completely inneffective, and will only harms lawful gun owners who wish to be able enjoy their previously constitutionally protected rights.

mag limits has never stopped any crime, has not reduced crime. yet you still wish for more laws like this. this shows that for you and people like you, gun control isnt about reducing crime, its about control.

I'm suggesting that the studies likewise suggest that it doesn't matter what kind of gun you have, so long as you are armed, so why do we need these weapons that are only good for war and rebellion?


please tell me what war was ever fought with an Ar-15.



I am a gun owner, have my CCW and I agree with the majority of what the president has proposed so far. I do not agree with the way he is handling it.

With my CCW I can purchase any gun I want (legal ones of course, the CCW is primarily for Hand Guns) as it serves as my background check. I went through the class, took the test (both written and firing range) and went through the rather long waiting process / background check. I do not see any problem with this being required for all guns at some point.

As far as the selling of guns are concerned, its different State by State. In NC (the only state btw, that allows 100% reciprocity on CCWs) you are still required to have a PPP (pistol purchasing permit or CCW) to buy or acquire a Handgun, including gifts. I see no problem with doing something similar with "Assault" type weapons. You already have to go through training to get a Hunting License, why not extend that training to include a permit for Shotguns/Rifles?

All states have differing laws on how they handle fire-arms and I see no problem with it staying that way.



bouzane said:


@Torillian

That sounds like a sensible alternative which would, depending upon the details, do little to harm individual liberty. However, I do not simply support or oppose laws and regulations based upon whether or not I think they will be effective. I would require unbiased, scientific studies to definitively demonstrate that this would indeed prove to effectively prevent such crimes.


That seems unlikely to happen before it's passed since not every possibility can be researched.  In the absence of obvious evidence you have to go with what you think will help, and that's something I think would have helped this particular situation.  



...

Around the Network
fordy said:
kain_kusanagi said:
fordy said:
kain_kusanagi said:


I responded to a poll data debate. I typicaly don't go looking for it. But as a human being with bias I'm sure I'm more apt to point out the pointlessness of polls when a poll is beyond stupid.


Just like voting, right?


I'm sure you think that is some kind of killer jab, but I'm honestly not recognising your twisting of my works this time.

No, I'm interested to know.

Polls are generally driven by people who are passionate, who want to know that their opinion is one that lots of others agree with. It's the same with Capitalism. It provides incentive to do such things. you wouldn't say Capitalism doesn't work cos it involves getting off your ass to work, would you?

You might disagree with polls, or how polls are done, but when done correctly, they provide useful insight into public opinion.

Useful insight into idiot-didn't-hang-up opinion maybe.

I vote. I always vote. I don't make my vote public because I have the right to vote anonymously. Polls have nothing to do with voting other than the media makes it out to be 1:1. Exit polls are a lot more accurate though, but that is beside the point. Capitalism also has nothing to do with idiots who give idiot answers to trick questions so pollsters can hand data to special interest groups to use in political warfare.



killerzX said:


please tell me what war was ever fought with an Ar-15.

 

Interesting you asked that, since the argument people make to keep such weapons is to fight a war against a tyrannical government.



killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Because i fundamentally don't see why you think what you're doing is safety. You say "safety," i see "threat."

you see the need to control people take away peoples rights make  people less safe. i see the need to protect myself from said things.

but if you are so threatened by lawful gun owners, im sure you wouldnt mind putting a sign in your front yard stating you are gun free. you know, so we can know you arent a threat.

facts be damned, if it makes progressive anti-constitutionalists happy, do it!

As far as studies go, what seems to work in your favor is that: home invasions are reduced if its possible the occupant is armed, and that being armed in the face of a robbery helps to deter the robber.

The need to win a firefight and these abhorrent "stand your ground" laws are not really supported by much of anything. You shouldn't be wanting to win a firefight, because that means killing someone, which you shouldn't want to do. All you should want is to stop them.

There may be a need to have weapons (or something that looks like a weapon), but the need to really use them is really vaguely defined.

so are you admitting that not only are such laws unconstitutional, but they are ineffective?

they will not stop crime, will not stop murderers. it will be completely inneffective, and will only harms lawful gun owners who wish to be able enjoy their previously constitutionally protected rights.

mag limits has never stopped any crime, has not reduced crime. yet you still wish for more laws like this. this shows that for you and people like you, gun control isnt about reducing crime, its about control.

I'm suggesting that the studies likewise suggest that it doesn't matter what kind of gun you have, so long as you are armed, so why do we need these weapons that are only good for war and rebellion?


please tell me what war was ever fought with an Ar-15.


He probably thinks that the AR-15 = M16/M4. People who don't know tend to get the scary black guns mixed up.



fordy said:
killerzX said:


please tell me what war was ever fought with an Ar-15.

 

Interesting you asked that, since the argument people make to keep such weapons is to fight a war against a tyrannical government.


Nothing like a good old strawman to devert the entire meaning of a discussion. Good job.



killerzX said:

please tell me what war was ever fought with an Ar-15.

Okay, fair point. But there is no need to have such scary looking weapons. It's time to bring back the assault weapons ban. Haven't flash suppressors and bayonet mounts taken enough innocent lives?