Senate Gun Control

Or credible sources that support his argument.

 

I cant see how the NRA would be against universal back ground checks...

you should watch the recent Bill Maher episode.. Great piece on the gun issue... A gentleman said both sides have great points. He even though a gun license should be equal to a car license.

 

Juliet316 - stop spamming the thread with gun control stuff please. Jeez....

 

dude British Journal of Medicine.. you need more than that odnt you...


so google it yourself and find some material on it. You asked me for sources, I gave you 3 super credible sources. you choose not to like them that's your problem.

 

Poor Juliet.

 

I can slap an important sounding name on my argument too. Doesn't mean it's properly sourced. Plus I am not the one making claims, the onus is on you to support your argument.

 

british journal of medicine and two super credible NY Tinmes articles...

youre proven wrong now go play in the yard.

 

NY Times isn't a peer-reviewed source.

 

Again...not cited. - Journal of Logic and Reason, Harvard University, 2013

EDIT: I'm also confused how I can be proven wrong when I have yet to make any sort of claim...what-so-ever.

 

OK, so the former mod in me is taking over and he is saying this is wholly and wildly off topic. If you wish to discuss deficiencies in the criminal justice system and how vengeance is not sated by justice nor does jurisprudence give sufficient weight to revenge, then you should start a new thread.

This thread is about gun control, it should therefore limit it's scope to... gun control.

Sup, GrandAdmiralJello, MarcusP2, JoinTheSchwarz ?

 

Listen Capes, it's been shown that your NYT articles are opinion pieces and not the peer reviewed data that was asked for in support of your scientific claims.

The BMJ page was certainly credible looking, but on brief inspection proved not to support the argument you were making.

Your evidence, such as it is, does not support your argument, such as it is.

 

british journal of medicine is....

it included a 10 year study as well.

and the TIMES has some credibility wouldn't you say???

 

youre 100% wrong. like you usually tend to be on just about everything I see you posting.

 

I remember the days when that didn't work

I think the desire shown by some to assassinate criminals rather than afford them a trial by jury and civilised sentencing for their crimes is a good reason for fewer guns. BOOM, TIED IT ALL UP SUCKAS

EDIT: YOU DIDN'T LINK THE GODDAMN BMJ YOU LINKED A STORY ABOUT AN EDITORIAL IN THE BMJ THAT DIDN'T SAY WHAT YOU SAID IT WAS SAYING HOLY ****

 

Does it have to be either/or?

Sorry, sorry. I'll be good now.

 

I think as this relates to gun control I'd say that the vigilantism and auto-executions for these crimes are relevant. Not that they should dominate this thread, but that they are tangentially-related.

Edit: made before Jello crashed the party.

 

Can we give him an Arlol type thread where those who are entertained by his "arguments" can go to satiate their entertainment? Happy middle ground?

 

I will just jump in here and reiterate that Obama is looking in the wrong direction if he wants to prevent another Newtown massacre. He needs to look to better and more specialised law enforcement. That is the key. Universal background checks and restrictions on weapons and ammo is of course helpful but those measures only deal with the process of acquiring a gun legally. If somebody is intent on owning a certain kind of gun, then they will own one. In Australia, we have had a strict weapons ban in place since 1996 but we still find Uzis showing up in urban shootings.

The problem is what happens after the gun is legally acquired. That is a law enforcement issue. This is where the focus needs to be. This is where real change can be made without the pesky second amendment and the NRA crying foul about the government taking away God given rights.

 

I propose the UN forces the USA to change the constitution to allow Piers Morgan to rule over America as God Emperor.

 

Hoth, I think you need to crucially note the Uzi (from the images it was a micro-uzi, I believe) was linked to OMC/biker gangs, and there was never any scope for that weapon to be made available legally in Australia. Similarly the shootings, whilst useful in so far as ridding us of ********* in southwest Sydney (note: their participation in petty crime and generally anti-social disposition is what earns my ire and not their location or ethnicity), are confined to criminal enterprise.

So I actually think the focus needs to be on as much before it is acquired, and by that I mean barring certain people access, as it does about what happens after it's acquired.

*You should know better

 

I think you're overestimating the liklihood of the NRA acting reasonably. Case in point: The Pediatricians vs. the NRA

 

If the NRA was smart, which they most assuredly are not, they would give up a bit of territory (by supporting something like universal background checks, with no loopholes) to preserve most of what they already have. Instead, they continue to fight for every last bit of ground, which is a poor strategy. They'll end up giving up a lot more later on than they would have if they had been more reasonable earlier on. It may take years, but it will happen.

 

Universal background checks might mean slower gun sales, which would hurt the gun manufacturers who bankroll the NRA. Financial incentive is the only thing that could drive them to be so vociferous in the face of overwhelming public opinion.