Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
MRandall25 wrote::roll:
Innocents aren't killed by law-abiding gun owners. Please stop demonizing law-abiding citizens because they legally obtained guns that haven't killed anyone.
MWB wrote:MRandall25 wrote::roll:
Innocents aren't killed by law-abiding gun owners. Please stop demonizing law-abiding citizens because they legally obtained guns that haven't killed anyone.
Yes, they are, just in different ways, typically, than those who aren't law abiding. Columbia referred to this earlier.
Gun restrictions are not going to get anywhere. But maybe the push for more responsibility would be helpful.
columbia wrote:I hate to be a scrooge, but the "USA" chanting at the end of the Bruins game kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
Geezer wrote:tifosi77 wrote:Geezer wrote:Problem definitely not solved; it's a helluva lot more violent now than 40 years ago.
While I don't disagree with the folly of banning guns, it is not more violent now than 40 years ago, never mind a helluva lot. In fact, nationally it's quite a lot less. The violent crime rate per 1,000 population is 15 today, versus nearly 48 in 1973. And in the oft-cited metropolis of Chicago, there were nearly 1,000 murders in 1974; last year, the number was right around 500.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
The numbers on this chart don't reflect that. I think that on a per thousand basis it was 4.2 in 1973 versus 3.9 in 201(Last year shown) unless I'm misinterpeting something. That;s a slight improvement comparing those 2 years but not a 2/3 drop.
You're right that in the last 10 years violent crime has returned to 1970's type numbers. I guess I'm stuck in the 60's and 90's The current better numbers are still significantly worse than the 60's the 90's seemed to the high water mark. I am surprised that there's an improvement since 2000. I guess George Bush deserves credit for that. (That's meant in jest people).
stinky wrote:columbia wrote:I hate to be a scrooge, but the "USA" chanting at the end of the Bruins game kind of rubbed me the wrong way.
Can I ask why?
tifosi77 wrote:Geezer wrote:tifosi77 wrote:Geezer wrote:Problem definitely not solved; it's a helluva lot more violent now than 40 years ago.
While I don't disagree with the folly of banning guns, it is not more violent now than 40 years ago, never mind a helluva lot. In fact, nationally it's quite a lot less. The violent crime rate per 1,000 population is 15 today, versus nearly 48 in 1973. And in the oft-cited metropolis of Chicago, there were nearly 1,000 murders in 1974; last year, the number was right around 500.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
The numbers on this chart don't reflect that. I think that on a per thousand basis it was 4.2 in 1973 versus 3.9 in 201(Last year shown) unless I'm misinterpeting something. That;s a slight improvement comparing those 2 years but not a 2/3 drop.
You're right that in the last 10 years violent crime has returned to 1970's type numbers. I guess I'm stuck in the 60's and 90's The current better numbers are still significantly worse than the 60's the 90's seemed to the high water mark. I am surprised that there's an improvement since 2000. I guess George Bush deserves credit for that. (That's meant in jest people).
I don't know where disastercenter.com got their numbers (they don't attribute a source), but I got my info from a gallup.com survey called Most Americans Believe Crime in U.S. Is Worsening. Their data came from the U.S Bureau of Justice Statistics, which falls under the U.S. Department of Justice.
Here is the specific graphic referenced:
Also, there's no way of knowing if the definitions of 'violent crime' are consistent between the two sources.MRandall25 wrote:I don't see how asking people to show ID when voting is in any way comparable to putting even more restrictions on guns.
Because voting is legal. Shooting people, generally, is not.
And the problem isn't necessarily the asking for IDs to vote, it's that the measures: 1) were only put up this year in battleground states with Republican governors/legislatures, 2) were specifically crafted to generate Republican outcomes, not voting integrity.
Perhaps the motives of these measures if the Republicans didn't have guys like Lee Atwater back in 1981 talking about the Southern Strategy and essentially saying that using the N-word might make the GOP unpopular, or Paul Weyrich (a co-founder of the Heritage Foundation) saying this in 1980:I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact [Republican] leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.
I mean, I'm just sayin'.
MWB wrote:MRandall25 wrote::roll:
Innocents aren't killed by law-abiding gun owners. Please stop demonizing law-abiding citizens because they legally obtained guns that haven't killed anyone.
Yes, they are, just in different ways, typically, than those who aren't law abiding. Columbia referred to this earlier.
MRandall25 wrote:MWB wrote:MRandall25 wrote::roll:
Innocents aren't killed by law-abiding gun owners. Please stop demonizing law-abiding citizens because they legally obtained guns that haven't killed anyone.
Yes, they are, just in different ways, typically, than those who aren't law abiding. Columbia referred to this earlier.
Gun restrictions are not going to get anywhere. But maybe the push for more responsibility would be helpful.
Sure. Won't disagree, but how do you judge/enforce responsibility?
Geezer wrote:doublem wrote:willfully ignorant and self-important but refusing to look at our own failures of a nation.
True to an extent. As is willfully ignorant, holier-than-thou and refusing to look at our successes as a nation. Basic difference as shown on this board is that some consider this a great country with its share of warts; but the good greatly outweighing the bad. Others view it as a terrible country with the little good far outweighed by the bad.
tifosi77 wrote:Sarcastic wrote:Making sure only the right people get can get weapons is one way to help the problem and, as I said, it does not have to affect regular people.
The problem with this line of argument is that it is entirely dependent upon the presumption that legal purchasers of firearms are then turning around and using them to commit crimes. That's just not the case.
tifosi77 wrote:I do personally support the expansion of background checks to cover all handgun sales. But not because I think it will have any sort of deterrent effect on crime.
tifosi77 wrote:Sarcastic wrote:I do believe that every purchased gun should be recorded in a national database. I don't see anything wrong with that.
When the ACLU is sounding the alarm bells about potential violations of civil liberties and privacy rights in a gun control measure, there is something amiss with the measure.
tifosi77 wrote:Sarcastic wrote:The pro-gun side, imo, is too combative in this regard.
As has frequently been pointed out, that's largely a by-product of being asked to surrender a measure of individual liberty.
Imagine: "There have been far too many riots incited by hate speech of late. We should curtail the speech rights of everyone to make sure this number is reduced." That doesn't seem..... logical, does it?
viva la ben wrote:Godwins law
Geezer wrote:doublem wrote:willfully ignorant and self-important but refusing to look at our own failures of a nation.
True to an extent. As is willfully ignorant, holier-than-thou and refusing to look at our successes as a nation. Basic difference as shown on this board is that some consider this a great country with its share of warts; but the good greatly outweighing the bad. Others view it as a terrible country with the little good far outweighed by the bad.
tifosi77 wrote:...Take me for example...... how would you characterize my personal view of this country?
Sarcastic wrote:tifosi77 wrote:Sarcastic wrote:Making sure only the right people get can get weapons is one way to help the problem and, as I said, it does not have to affect regular people.
The problem with this line of argument is that it is entirely dependent upon the presumption that legal purchasers of firearms are then turning around and using them to commit crimes. That's just not the case.
Not really. Reason for that is the private sale where anybody can buy one. That includes the criminal that goes out and robs a bank or kills someone. No sale should be done without a deep background check and documentation.
Sarcastic wrote:Create the database and then have every single gun owner show up or be inspected yearly by the police as far as those weapons are concerned.
Sarcastic wrote:The words 'individual liberty' get thrown around too freely for my taste.
Geezer wrote:Those GOP b*stards. Thankfully Dems don't gerrymander.
BurghersAndDogsSports wrote:By the way - I touched on this on the last page which also bugs me about these responses. It can be turned around quickly on you with the basic same argument.....dems chances get greater when people don't have to show IDs to vote.
I mean, just saying.
A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture” and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it.
The sweeping, 577-page report says that while brutality has occurred in every American war, there never before had been “the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody.” The study, by an 11-member panel convened by the Constitution Project, a legal research and advocacy group, is to be released on Tuesday morning.
*****************
While the Constitution Project report covers mainly the Bush years, it is critical of some Obama administration policies, especially what it calls excessive secrecy. It says that keeping the details of rendition and torture from the public “cannot continue to be justified on the basis of national security” and urges the administration to stop citing state secrets to block lawsuits by former detainees.
Sarcastic wrote:The words 'individual liberty' get thrown around too freely for my taste.
Gaucho wrote:His nickname clearly indicates that tifosi hates America and would much rather be Italian. 77 is probably code for GG, as in Greasy Ginny.
tifosi77 wrote:Please cite us to the many many instances of voter fraud that IDs would have prevented, and this debate can continue.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests