<abbr title="Yet Another <abbr title="Gun Wars 2">GW2</abbr> Topic">YAGT</abbr>
-
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GUN GRABBERS.
Yeah, this tweet doesn't sound like a gun grabber message at all:
If that isn't the intent behind the tweet, then the White House needs a new PR person.
-
YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST MISTS AND FAERIES!
To be fair, this seems to be one of his favorite pastimes.
-
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GUN GRABBERS.
Buffalo police to seize guns from families after owners die
Gun rights activists claim Buffalo police are targeting law-abiding gun owners with their new plan.
-
There is a gun for roughly every man, woman, and child in America.
America doesn't need any more, then.
-
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GUN GRABBERS.
Hey, now. I'm a gun grabber-- according to people in this thread made up in response to things I never said.
-
Highly-publicized mass shootings aside (they are actually a TINY fraction of total homicides),
Shootings in general are a tiny fraction of homicides. Conversely, homicides are a tiny fraction of shooting deaths.
Know what accounts for 90% of gun deaths? Suicide. And since in most of these cases the suicidal individual would have found some other way to kill themselves - suicide by gun is only about 5% of all suicides - .the most practical answer to the question of gun violence is, UNDERFLOW_EXCEPTION.
Seriously, gun deaths account for less than 12,000 a year in the US last I checked. That's a third the number of auto accident deaths, and well below the number of drownings. While any premature death is tragic, the fact is that gun violence is a very, very small problem, and gun carrying an even smaller solution (since you are more likely to be either shot or disarmed before you are aware that you are under attack than you are to draw your weapon and fire). The entire issue is a non-issue from a safety standpoint.
In any case, the real purpose of the Second Amendment - to ensure that any army that the Federal government could raise would always be outnumbered and out-gunned by the state militias - had pretty much failed by Andrew Jackson's day, just a little less than two centuries ago. The idea that a State militia could repel a persistent attack by a large and well-armed national force was quite pointedly disproved in 1865, and that was before modern rapid-fire small arms, heavy artillery, military aircraft, etc. came on the scene. While a well-organized guerrilla force can do a lot of damage to a regular army if it has outside backing, a local militia without such support wouldn't stand much of a chance against a determined modern army with little regard for the local casualties, no matter how many small arms and IEDs they had.
In fact, the only reason that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on so badly was because the Coalition forces were restrained by a moral code that the insurgents didn't feel any need to follow. Had we decided to be utter bastards - which thankfully, we didn't - we could have scoured both of those countries clean of human inhabitants inside of a few weeks, using only conventional forces. Few historical empires would have shown half the restraint and regard for human life that we did.
As for Nazi Germany, you only need to see the way they tore the Poles apart from 1939 to 1945. There was a strong, well-equipped and determined Home Army fighting an irregular war against the Germans throughout the war, and it managed to accomplish exactly nothing. The Yugoslavs were a bit more successful, but only in the sense that they managed to tie down a million German soldiers and substantially delay Operation Barbarossa; had the Nazis gone in there in force rather than handing most of the operations off to the Italians and Romanians, Tito would have been even less of a footnote to history than he actually was. The idea of Germany's Jewish citizens staging a civil war against them in 1933 - before anyone, even their political opponents, really understood what the Nazis were planning and how well armed and prepared they already were, never mind that they were already in bed with the military - is simply ludicrous.
To sum things up, the 2nd amendment is and always has been a joke, and it exists as an issue today at all because both of the supposed 'sides' of the debate collude to keep it one as a distraction from actual issues that no one has a clue how to resolve.
To be blunt: no matter what your position on this matter, if you care about it at all, you're being had.
-
The idea that a State militia could repel a persistent attack by a large and well-armed national force was quite pointedly disproved in 1865
I wonder if anyone here thinks that this outcome was a bad thing.
-
Know what accounts for 90% of gun deaths? Suicide.
Wrong.
Seriously, gun deaths account for less than 12,000 a year in the US last I checked.
Wrong.
FastStats
FastStats is an official application from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and puts access to topic-specific statistics at your fingertips.
Suicide: ~21k
Homicide: ~11k
Total (with other causes): 33,636Please, continue.
-
OK, I have to admit that I was (pardon the pun) dead wrong in this regard. The numbers are radically different from what I understood them to be, and I should have made the point to fact check on the before writing this. In this regard, I withdraw my statements, as death by firearms is a much more signfiicant factor than I was led to believe.
Still, the general points - that suicide by firearms outstrips homicide by the same means, that both represent a only a small percentage of mortality overall, that the public perception of gun violence is massively exaggerated, that self-defense by firearm is negligible, that personal defense was never a significant factor in the adoption of the second amendment, and most of all that the second amendment's primary goal was untenable almost from the outset - still stand, in my opinion.
Note also that when describing the political motivation for the debate over firearms, I used the word 'collude', rather than 'conspire', quite deliberately. I don't see any evidence for any express or even conscious attempt at deception; rather, I am noting that from the standpoint of seeking election, grandstanding and provocation are usually a lot more effective than deliberation and pragmatism. Just as with other hot-button issues, the issue itself fades into the background; no matter what one's actual goals and beliefs are, being shrill and defiant is more effective than being thoughtful and balanced, especially in areas where no easy answers exist. No politician is going to say he or she doesn't have a solution to their constituents problems, so it is simple a matter of practicality to sidestep the hard questions and draw attention to ones where irreconcilable differences make actual change impossible anyway. The majority of politicians care nothing at all about guns except for the topic's ability to raise voter turnout in their favor.
-
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GUN GRABBERS
Awww, you're so cute when you're wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI&t=20
"If I could have got 51 votes [in the Senate] for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, 'Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in', I would have done it."
-
Yeah, but she just said that stuff. You can't prove that she, like, meant it or would actually do it.
-
Yeah, but she just said that stuff. You can't prove that she, like, meant it or would actually do it.
-
Another gun grabber, this one of more recent vintage. Well, the gun-grabbing wishful thinking, not the person.
Column: Can Hillary Clinton change the gun debate?
Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed a list of tough new gun control measures this week, seeking to channel public outrage after yet another mass murder on a school campus.
[Granny Clinton] said she would revive the defunct ban on military-style assault weapons and repeal a law that bars victims of gun violence from suing gun manufacturers.
-
Not only that, but she said she would "close the loophole" that allows a sale if the background check is not finished in 3 days.
After that, all you have to do is cut funding for background checks and you have extreme gun control, with no actual gun laws passed.
She sees the loophole as the problem, not the government failing in its duty.
-
She sees the loophole as the problem, not the government failing in its duty.
The term "loophole" here is wrong, too--implying it's a mistake. No, it's a feature. It says "if we can't do our jobs in a timely manner we're not going to hold you up indefinitely."
Same deal with the "gun show loophole", which is no such thing.
-
I don't disagree with you. But even if it is a loophole, you can close it by making sure that the background checks get done.
Do they have to do them for each purchase? If they want to lighten the load, do something like TSA Pre-check. Pay once, you are good for the year.
-
Do they have to do them for each purchase? If they want to lighten the load, do something like TSA Pre-check. Pay once, you are good for the year.
In at least some states, a concealed carry permit (which is typically good for 4-5 years before needing to be renewed) means you don't have to pass a NICS, since you've already passed one.
