What exactly got me banned, Uccisore? I was only responding to Uglypeoplefucking, and not rudely…definitely no more rudely than he was conversing with me. If you are going to publicly ban a poster, you really need to let him, if not the rest of the forum, know why he was banned so he can avoid repeating his “error.”
Numerous accidental gun deaths, mass shootings–including the one in Charleston–and domestic gun homicides are evidence of a crisis. You just keep insisting to close your eyes to it. So, yes, we do need new gun laws instilling better background checks, demanding gun safety courses for new owners, and banning assault weapons…like those wracking up mass shooting death tolls.
This is a bad idea and not the kind of gun safety courses we need. We would be wasting resources and high school students’ times if we taught gun safety to every single high school student who has no intention of buying a gun and/or never will buy one…and they learn the 2nd amendment with the rest of them. The people who need to be taught gun safety are actual gun buyers who are going to be firing and attempting to secure those guns. If Uccisore doesn’t object to taking high school students’–with no intention of ever buying guns–time to teach gun safety, he can’t object to teaching gun safety to actual future gun ownere.
Again, you are making a straw man that doesn’t exist. Nobody is talking about taking guns away. However, every time somebody mentions needed safety restrictions to prevent more gun deaths, you make up the fantasy that they are. if you have a problem with the proposed laws then actually address those laws, don’t make strawmen and red herrings about people trying to take your guns away. And yes, as I showed above, it is a real problem. If you don’t think numerous accidental gun deaths (particularly of children), domestic homicides, and mass shootings like the one in Charleston are real problems, you need to rethink what you consider problems.
And again, nobody is wanting to “flush the 2nd amendment down the toilet,” so that’s just more dramatics and another strawman. And you haven’t in any way shown how the proposed restrictions aren’t solutions to the actual problem; they are solutions to an actual problem, as I showed above.
P.s. your “fuck them anyway” statement violated your own rules. If you’re going to ban posters debating your points, you really should follow your own rules. Hypocrisy is not a good quality in a moderator.
All high school students are having or will have sex, only a minority are going to own or fire guns. So, it would be a waste of tax-payers’ resources to teach those students gun proficiency and safety. You previously voiced concern over resources; I’m surprised you’re willing to waste them now. As I said before, the people we actually need to educate are the people who are actually going to own and use guns. If you don’t object to teaching high schoolers who would never use them, you can’t object to mandatory classes for actual future gun owners.
The reason why is right above. The country has horses, too, but we don’t have horse safety courses in all high schools since most students don’t or never will ride horses. So, we no more need high school gun safety courses then we do high school horse safety courses. We need gun safety courses for actual future gun owners.
gallup.com/poll/150353/Self- … -1993.aspx
47% of homes have a gun on the property, so it’s not that specialized, especially not compared to some of the things taught in high school, especially since you’re talking about making it mandatory for gun owners anyway. If we were comparing it do doing nothing, which is my first choice, then sure you’re right it’s a waste of resources. But I bet it’s actually cheaper and more efficient than setting up an entire DMV-style beaurocracy for the purpose of issuing/enforcing gun exams, when it’s going to apply to half of all households.
You can suggest whatever you want as long as it’s handled by each state and not a federal decree. But, obviously states are going to have both rural and urban areas, and the municipalities will have their own firearms regulations. So you’re not looking at a consistent base to say "Here is what’s going on in Tennessee’. Besides, 90% of all statistics are lies anyway, I’m really desensitized to the numbers anti-gun nuts toss around. No doubt if we researched the figures, they are including crimes thwarted by armed victims as ‘gun violence’, or some other such bullshit to make their case. There simply isn’t a gun violence crisis in the U.S. that requires new legislation to fix- this all comes from people who dislike gun culture first and foremost, coming up with ways to pesecute and destroy what they don’t like using the law. Because that’s what hard leftists do.
Right, assuming such people are operating in good faith. Which they are not. Proposing that people register their weapons and get a license MAY have the effect of making violent/irresponsible people less likely to get a firearm, but it ALSO has the effect of creating a gun ownership registry that would make it that much easier for the State to confiscate weapons with further legistlation down the road. I proposed a solution that would get around this problem, but apparently educating people in general on gun safety is too 'niche' (or at least you hope that it one way will be, amirite).
One has to consider who is proposing the law, what their ultimate goals are, and how other people they sympathize with may use their laws even if they themselves deny ulterior motives. The left always asks people to trust them to the point of stupidty. No, I am NOT willing to pretend that each new proposed gun law is proposed by reasonable people who simply want to reduce violence, and will then leave gun rights alone after 1 or 2 more pieces of 'sensible reform'. Why would I when I know better?
With the popular vote and the 2nd Amendment on my side, I don’t see why I have to convince unreasonable people of anything. Meanwhile, what have the people who actually want to change the Constitution done to convince anybody that they’re right, besides guilt trips and misleading statistics?
Well, you have to understand that teaching high school students how to safely handle firearms would have the unfortunate consequence of people not being terrified of guns or gun owners any more, and support for anti-gun legislation would thus evaporate within one generation. So things like this will be opposed no matter how sensible they may appear.
I cited rule 1, it’s stickied in this section of the forums. To be specific, every time you show up in a thread you make a poorly or non-defended argument, insinuate that everybody who disagrees with you is a stupid, terrible human being, and then claim you are ‘being attacked’ when people react to your invective. It ends up that when you are in a thread, the thread becomes about your personal hatred and rivalry with whomever had the gaul to disagree with you about something, instead of the actual subject of the thread. Maybe other parts of the website are ok with this, but it isn’t going to happen here. If I come into a thread and see a full page of you calling people stupid, grandstanding about your education, and going three-quotes deep in a pointless debate over who insulted who first about some trivial nonsense instead of discussing the topic, I’m going to either dump the thread in the sandbox if it was garbage from the start, or warn/ban the person who’s ruining the thread.
The word ‘numerous’ isn’t evidence of anything but your feelings. What would be evidence of a crisis is stats showing that these things are on a dramatic rise and make up a massive percentage of the accidental death and homicide rates such that the U.S. is out of touch with the rest of the world. A crisis sort of implies a change, too. Has the U.S. been in a crisis state since 1776 because we let people have guns? If not, when did the crisis begin, and why would unchanging gun ownership laws be the cause as opposed to some new factor?
Of course I object, because singling out gun owners results in creating a de facto gun ownership registry that can be exploited for further restrictions. Teaching everybody about gun safety would avoid this- and makes more sense anyway since plenty of people encounter/use/handle firearms besides the original purchaser. You'd force a man to take a class on gun safety before he can buy a gun, but not the man's kids or the man's wife or the man's friends he gets drunk with? And the reason is because allegedly teaching about gun ownership in schools in a country where almost half the households have guns is some kind of waste? I'm not buying your objection.
You advocated banning 'assault weapons' in this very post, so yes, people are talking about taking guns away. Weird that you would deny saying a thing you said in the very post you said it in. I have the impression that "Nobody is talking about taking guns away" is a reflexive lie some anti-gun people have learned to toss out there to deflate concerns. All part of why I don't trust gun-control advocates.
Actually, only 47% definitely means it would be that specialized. We’d be wasting resources teaching gun safety to kids when more than half of them don’t come from gun-owning homes. That would be ludicrous and wasteful. It would be far cheaper to teach gun safety courses to the actual gun users, particularly when they would be allaying most of the cost. And you don’t need a DMV style bureacracy to pass and enforce background checks to prevent the violent or mentally ill from legally obtaining guns or require gun safety courses for first time gun users.
There is nothing wrong with federal laws passed by congress, and it would be the best way to reduce gun deaths across the board. If Uccisore has a problem with federal laws, he has a problem with our Constitutionally-established government, and that isn’t very American.
Rural states don’t have the rights to set their own gun laws that transcend federal laws about guns, particularly since gun sales are part of interstate commerce and fall under federal jurisdiction. And people wanting tighter gun restrictions to prevent excess gun deaths are not “anti-gun” nuts, and they don’t use or need “bullshit” to make their case; the many killed through poor safety, mentally ill acquisition of legal guns, unneeded assault weapons, and unsecured guns are all the evidence they need.
Uccisore has the gall to say this even after the slaughter in that church in Charleston. I guess he just sees that as the cost of doing business. And again, he falls back on his tired strawman of persecution by his “leftist” bogeymen. Children are dying every year by poorly secured guns. Accidental deaths are occurring every year by poorly handled guns in homes. The violent and mentally ill are legally buying guns every year and killing people with them. The fact Uccisore sees this as “no problem” is reprehensible. We need new laws and restrictions to help stop these deaths and we need them now.
This is pure paranoia. The government has had some degree of registration of guns for years; we haven’t had one incident of a mass confiscation. And, of course, registration and background checks will help stop some dangerous people from getting guns, and that’s all they aim to do. And if Uccisore is fine with spending resources educating people who will never even own a gun, he can’t be opposed to spending much less money educating the people who actually will. Also, is Uccisore’s paranoiac position one worthy of an academic? i don’t think so.
Again, Uccisore is back with his paranoia about his leftist bogeymen who don’t even exist in reality. If he can’t think people actually care about reducing excess gun deaths–including the many relatives of those victims–he has been spending too much time in right-wing echo chambers. Many leftists, including myself, do or have owned guns for hunting and have no desire to get rid of guns. He just knows there is no logical reason to oppose mandatory gun checks, assault gun bans, and mandatory safety courses, and he’s swinging blindly.
Again, this position isn’t worthy of an academic. The 2nd amendment doesn’t, in any way, guarantee freedom from background checks, freedom to own an assault weapon, or freedom to purchase guns without undergoing a safety course. And he also knows nobody is trying to change the constitution, and we have given many more arguments than “guilt trips,” Uccisore has just failed to counter them.
Finally, we can all celebrate the capture of the Charleston church shooter, another mentally ill gun shooter leaving more Americans dead from guns.
No, I used numerous perfectly; you misrepresented it to fit your gun-happy feelings. You don’t get to decide what constitutes evidence of a crisis. Accidental gun deaths don’t have to make up “the massive percentage” of accidental death an homicide rates to be a crisis. That is completely illogical. Rapes don’t constitute the massive percentage of crimes against women; that doesn’t mean our current rape rate isn’t a crisis.
Ugly already showed you the statistics of child gun deaths from unsecured guns, and they are numerous…as are the numerous gun murders of children by other children who obtained unsecure guns. The fact you see these deaths as no problem, and would be against safety courses that would help prevent them, is–as I said before–reprehensible. And how many mass shootings like the one in Charleston are OK for you? If you don’t see those as too many, either, you have odd priorities…like avoiding “pestering” gun owners with needed safety courses and background checks.
So, you’d rather single out high school students who have no intention of ever buying a gun? That is both silly and hypocritical. And yes, it would be an extreme waste, whether you “buy” that or not. And registering guns no more “singles out” gun owners than registering cars singles out gun owners. Again, your bias is showing. And if you want to require a gun owner’s family also take safety courses; I’m completely down with it. I just assumed you wouldn’t want any further restraints on gun owners. And don’t make the ridiculous leap to teaching everybody the gun owner knows; if we could teach every individual gun owner gun safety–like not bringing out guns when you’re drunk–and proper gun security, that would be substantial improvement in itself.
Taking away types of guns is not taking away guns per se. Many people also own many illegal guns; using your logic, we shouldn’t take those guns away either. Weird you would associate taking away guns nobody needs for hunting or protection but are very useful in mass killings as taking guns away, period. I know, and don’t just have the impression, that “they are trying to take our guns” is a reflexive lie some pro-gun people toss out there anytime people want to establish sound, logical gun laws. All part of why I don’t trust or respect pro-gun gun lobby-acolytes.
Um, that wasn’t being specific at all; generically saying “every time” without support isn’t being specific. You didn’t point to one specific post of mine on this thread and show how it broke rule 1. And unlike yours, all of my arguments were well-defended, and the fact you can’t show a single specific argument of mine was poorly-defended helps prove that. And I never insinuated anybody was a “stupid, terrible human being” and made no invective. Again, you fail to be specific or show exactly why you publicly banned me. That’s not good for a moderator.
Again, you’re not being specific here at all. Where exactly did I express “personal hatred?” If I did, you need to show where. If you can’t, I obviously didn’t; of course, I already knew that. I certainly never wrote anything like your hateful last post to me. And, yes, when you don’t support those venomous, erroneous things you said, they are hateful. So, again, you reveal your hypocrisy. Also, I never “grandstanded” about my education. Saint asked me what it was, and I told him. So, you got that wrong as well. AndI didn’t just go into a “debate about disparagement” alone. it was initiated and continued by your friend, Uglypeoplefucking. Of, course, though, you chose to ban me instead of him, even though i was being no more rude than he. So, your unimpressive bias/grudge against me shows itself again.
So, you have just proven you can’t show what I specifically did wrong or what specifically got me banned…and that is not OK. If you are going to moderate, you need to be specific and not act on grudges like the clear one you have against me. And all of my posts in debates against you have been nothing less than dead-on, including those in your Spartacus thread and this one. The fact you generically disparage them, without addressing one single post you can show to be “poorly-defended,” helps prove it.
And if you are an academic, you should be able to moderate fairly by disregarding bias, following your rules as a poster and applying them fairly as a moderator, and only penalizing posters for specific violations of those rules. If you don’t do that, you’re not a moderator, but a bully unethically using his inordinate powers to punish those who bested him in previous debates. I’m sure you can do the former.
“If you don’t see that difference, you are a fool.”
“The fact you don’t consider that a huge problem just shows how callous you are.”
“What do you think happens to a brain that can’t read people’s posts correctly and then asks ludicrous irrelevant questions? It goes into James S Saint’s head and proceeds to horrifically malfunction.”
"The only reason you don’t care is because of obtuseness, your self-interest, and callous selfishness. "
“I have no idea what you are rambling about here. Try to make an argument if you can.”
“You’ve already shown your terrible knowledge of the law and how it works on another thread; you now show a poor grasp of cultural awareness in this one. What exactly is your education?..I’m betting it isn’t that impressive.”
“You’re not only a petulant non-American, you’re an illiterate one as well.”
"Oh, pipe down, kid. The only one who has been trolling on this thread has been you with your lame smugness and non-sequiturs.
Now, unruffle those feathers, go back to your computer and try to figure Google out…"
“That was neither an ad hominem nor rude, certainly not as rude as Arminius’ posts. Arminius was being over-sensitive and hypocritical. Also, what educated person doesn’t know the word “petulant?” The decline in education in this world is truly tragic.”
"You never mentioned your education level on a thread I was on. I will just go on your present refusal, and past and present threads, and keep my low esteem of it. "
“That was due to your ignorance, dear.”
“So, the only lame attitude is yours, as well as your lame hypocrisy by now lamely attempting to disparage me.”
"So, you not only need to grow up and read better, "
“You, however, like a child, have just attempted to disparage my writing without giving any evidence at all. So, if you want to actually attempt to make a grown-up critique, again, grow up a bit and actually address my actual writing, instead of childishly mewling about it.”
“Since you have provided the boring predictability–your responding again is an example–and the juvenilia, it’s indeed best you keep quiet.”
The gun laws you and others propose will create a billion dollar department, I believe another equated it to DMV. Another expensive department in a government that is deep in debt.
Local governments are the ones to make such laws for their own people. Each community takes care of their own. The federal government has too many tentacles as it is.
If a parent has a gun that is poorly guarded from children, a child dies then the parents murdered their child and should be arrested as murderers. Right now parents are not arrested or are only arrested for neglect or abuse.
You have claimed to have taken law classes, must have failed.
Presidents have been arguing for line item veto rights. When congress and senate write laws they write more than a simple law. A seemingly innocent line such as personal automatic weapons can hold a definition that is dangerous to civil rights and freedoms. Those that write laws are masters at ambiguity, loopholes and language. I take it that you have not thoroughly read many laws at local and federal levels, old and new.
Again the true issue is not training, removing, banning guns, it is attitude, ethics and morals. A teenager gets their license to drive. Most will break the laws about driving. Teaching only takes if there is true intent to learn.
Ethics, morals and attitude begins at birth and kindergarten. Years and years of building rather than a week of classes.
If you cannot grasp this then it is due to deliberate attitude or pure stupidity.
In most cases, the loss of the child is considered punishment enough, and reasonably so. It would be very difficult to prove murder in such a case - there’d be no pre-mediation. Criminally negligent homicide would be the worst-case scenario. But really, parents whose children die accidentally probably don’t need further punishment.
I don’t think this is a problem for the law to solve. Communities of gun owners should work to remind each other, and gun owners themselves need to remember gun safety. That’s all there is to it. Just because there’s a problem, doesn’t mean that you need to change the law to try and solve it.
Not even close, Brevel. You need to re-examine the definition of “hatred”
Here is the definition of hatred: ha·tred (hā′trĭd) n. Intense animosity or hostility
That doesn’t apply to any of the posts you posted. So, try again, and try to show posts that actually show intense animosity or hostility.
No it won’t. Nobody in the government or backing tighter gun laws have even suggested it. And just because another poster obtusely equated it to the DMV doesn’t mean a department like one will be created. If you want to give evidence to back up your hollow claim, though, knock yourself out.
No, it isn’t. Again you show your ignorance of the law. The gun industry involves interstate commerce, and the federal government has authority over laws concerning interstate commerce. Also, as in Charleston, gun deaths can be involved in terrorist attacks or mass killings, which are also the purview of the federal government…despite your baroque “tentacles” imagery.
So, you would rather deal with the negligent killers of dead children than prevent those killings from happening? That is truly reprehensible.
I did take one year of law classes and haven’t come close to failing. I clearly have a substantially better knowledge of the law than you.
And this is proof of my superior legal knowledge. What you wrote above is just blather. Fear from ambiguity from a single line is not enough to stop us from enacting federal laws; if so, our government would just shut down. Gun laws have been successfully enacted without being “dangerous to civil rights and freedoms” in the past, and they can be so again. And I assure you, I have thoroughly read many more laws than you. If you want to prove otherwise, then show me your stuff, Kris.
No, the true issue is gun laws preventing accidental gun deaths, excessive gun deaths, and gun mass murders like the one in Charleston. And parents can teach their students ethics while the government teaches new gun users gun safety; they’re not mutually exclusive. If you can’t see that, it is due to your deliberate attitude and pure stupidity…which I don’t have… 
Absolutely not. A parent, whose negligence directly led to the death of his/her child absolutely deserves the criminal prosecutions they will get and deserve. That parent’s child is not his or her possession, he or she is a human being with rights guaranteed by our laws and Constitution. So, when a parent’s negligence leads to the child’s death, he or she has criminally violated that child’s right to live without being negligently killed.
Also, as in all cases, criminal punishments also serve to prevent future similar crimes. If parents know they will be prosecuted for deaths caused by their negligence, they will be more likely to better secure their guns.
Yeah, that community stuff really worked great in Charleston, huh? Of course, it’s a problem for the law to solve. The crimes committed with those guns break the law, so the government writing and enforcing the laws are exactly the people who should be improving/changing the laws to solve the problem. And your romanticization of gun-owners is remarkable. Many gun owners are alcoholics, mentally ill, racist (Charleston again), uneducated, gun-worshipping, and do not get along with other gun-owners. The fact you think they could actually solve our gun death problems is mind-blowing.
Look at this, Brevel. Here are posts from some of your buddies that would definitely be “hatred” under your mistaken definition of the word. You didn’t say anything about these posts. In America, objectivity and lack of bias are valued. They must not be in your country…
I was suggesting it as a solution to the safety problem and saying that the law can’t solve the problem of accidental gun deaths. I don’t think that what happened in Charelston was a result of someone leaving the safety off in the presence of a child, so I can’t see how its relevant to my point.
Isn’t that what I said, though? Kris proposed they be charged with murder, I pointed out that wasn’t possible: that criminal negligence would be the highest charge possible. Also, in such cases, the sentences are often reduced because the death of a child is considered a form of punishment. The risk of losing a child is a far greater incentive to keep guns safe than the risk of a couple of years in prison to any normal parent.
I was simply proposing a continuation of the status quo, which is what you seem to be suggesting as well.
They aren’t my buddies. Those posts weren’t relevant to the question I was answering, which was “Where exactly did I [Peripheral] express “personal hatred?” If I did, you need to show where.”, which is why I didn’t mention them.
My response was completely relevant to your point, just as your response was irrelevant to mine. I was criticizing your ridiculous claim the gun community can solve gun problems on their own without laws to make sure they do so. It’s clear from many gun deaths, including the ones in Charleston, that much of the gun community is toxic and helps produce shootings like the one in Charleston. They are not the ones to solve our gun death problems on their own.
No, it’s not what you said at all. This is what you said:
So, unlike me, you want no jail time for parents who kill their children by negligently leaving guns unsecured. And just because the risk of losing a child is a greater incentive doesn’t mean we shouldn’t add to that incentive the fear of jail time, or rightly punish those killing their children through negligence. Some gun-owning parents abuse and don’t care about their children, so laws punishing negligent gun-owners is the only incentive for them to secure their guns.
And neither of us were arguing for the status quo. As I showed with your post, you don’t even agree with current laws giving jail time to negligent gun-owning parents. I, on the other hand, want an addition to the status quo with mandatory safety courses helping to prevent such gun deaths, as well as our current laws giving jail-time to negligent gun-owning parents. So, we are not suggesting the same things at all.