REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Gun Control Spin

POSTED BY: ANTHONYT
UPDATED: Sunday, November 25, 2007 09:08
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4507
PAGE 2 of 2

Thursday, November 8, 2007 3:10 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Who is "we"? The NRA?

If so, that's just a narrow, symbolic involvement for your freedom. I hope it's a little more borad-based group that gets to the fundamentals.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 3:25 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
A gun is just a symbol.



To you, apparently. To me, it's a tool.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 3:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Geezer

Some people here believe the 'gun industry' bears NO responsibility. It's ALL personal and individual.



Not me. But I do think that the individual bears a greater proportion of the responsibility, particularly if they intentionally use a firearm (or any tool, for that matter) in an unsafe or illegal manner.

Manufacturers should be held liable if their products don't perform to spec, or if they're dangerous to users or bystanders when used properly.

Quote:

"meat that's not full of chemicals"
Wanted to point out the problem with wasting disease.



Not an issue in the areas I hunt, or in the pronghorn antelope, the game I prefer. Also pretty easy to identify, and not communicable to humans.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 3:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Coming from different places, we agree on the fact that the gun industry needs to be proactive and forgo a small amount of profit to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane.



Hmmm. I agree that we should try "...to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, the inept, and the insane." I'm not so sure that the firearms 'industry', as in manufacturers, is the proper group on which to place this responsibility.

Laws and processes are already in place to prohibit sale of firearms to criminals and the adjudged insane. This is accomplished by background checks made by individual gun dealers through a federal program.

I'm trying to figure out how you could proactively identify 'the irresponsible' prior to a gun sale any more than you could before a car sale.

'Inept' could be taken care of by Fremd's requirement of a certificate of proficiency prior to sale. Most States which issue carry permits already have such a requirement.

Even with all of this in place the real problem - people obtaining guns through illegal means to commit illegal acts - will continue.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 4:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA


"The point is to organize."

SOMEONE has to point this out, since no one else dares lest they be viewed as a proto-suspect already.

After watching what happened at Waco, staring down the barrel of the Patriot Act, and now HR1955...

Anyone who was doing such a thing damned sure would not discuss it publicly, not THESE days, hell no - cause these idiotic and unconstitutional laws make even political organising outright illegal, read them carefully if you do not believe me.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not that it matters much, with the greater part of our fellow citizens diggin us in deeper, cheering all the way - frankly the one satisfaction imma have when things go to hell in a handbasket is watching them sink first, and small comfort it is, knowing they've chained ME to that boat anchor too.


-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 7:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

A gun is just a symbol.- Signy

To you, apparently. To me, it's a tool-Geezer

Well, regular hunters are an exception to my comment. But most people who wax poetic about the right to bear arms are often less-than-practical about how they might actually do any good. The only way to conceivably fight the "gummint" with guns is to have an organized militia with hundreds of thousands of members.
Quote:

Anyone who was doing such a thing damned sure would not discuss it publicly, not THESE days, hell no
I agree. You COULD be declared an illegal enemy combatant and clapped in jail forever for just discussing such a thing (conspiracy to commit terrorism or some such). I was just curious if Anthony T was referring to Ron Paul, the NRA or a third group. I think I have my answer.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 8:03 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
No. You missed my point. Banning tools because a small precentage of the population misuses them isn't a logical response. Further, it has a disproportinate impact on the majority who use them properly and responsably, and almost no impact on those who willfully misuse them.

Whatever, to suggest that banning guns will cause every tool to be banned is still a fundementally flawed argument, as it is a slippery slope fallacy. Beyond that I haven't said whether guns should be outright banned or not, so why you're getting all on at me I have no idea.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Lots of people use the internet to distribute or obtain kiddie porn. Terrorist and racist organizations use it to communicate and plan attacks. Others use it to perpetrate scams and identity thefts. Should we ban the internet, or work to identify and stop those who misuse it?

But child pornography sites are illegal, so this is a really bad analogy. Comparing guns to kitchen knives isn't great either, a gun is designed to kill people, a knife is designed to cut up food. Theres a big difference between a tool that *could* be used for a purpose, and a tool that is *designed* for that purpose.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 8:48 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


I wish you weren't done discussing it frem...

and I at least have hardly come to a solid conclusion on this...working through this discussion is how I'm gaining a better understanding of the issue and the perspectives involved.

That said,

my problem with your throw-away solution is that it isn't entirely genuine, I don't think. You suggest that the industry will regulate itself because of the looney's or ambulance chasers that are sue happy over the manufacturers, but in an ideal government and legal system you would see such litigation thrown out of court as frivolous,

leaving you with a self-regulating industry that has no reason to self-regulate.

why in that circumstance would gun retailers bother to screen who they let have a gun? It's money in their pocket after all...and we all know corporations don't have a conscience...they aren't actually people...

...........................

as to your driver's license argument....people who are deemed unstable don't get to drive, people who are blind don't get to drive, people with too many tickets don't get to drive. It is regulated...somebody decides that based on some criteria of competence that the american people, by proxy, agree upon.

............................

I'm not looking to take all risk out of life in favor of safety. But I see no sanity in having an entirely unregulated system that is likely to infringe upon peoples rights to life and liberty in a cascadingly dramatic fashion.

............................

I don't know if anybody on the board has suggested that there should be no way to legally obtain a gun, for the purpose of self-defense, hunting...collection..etc, though I might have missed it.

The discussion has been about regulation and liability, mostly. I want some sort of screening process is all, though it occurs to me that it wouldn't be a bad thing if gun owners were a little liable for the weapon they own. I'm just throwing that out there, because I see some problems with the idea, but personal responsibiliy for the registered weapons people have taken into their homes maybe could be done. You can't entirely blame somebody if their gun gets stolen, but if it got stolen or misplaced 3 days ago and wasn't reported, I think that might be something we could insist a gun-owner be on top of. This is just me thinking out loud though.
............................


I do share your concerns...I see a very real reason why the second amerndment could be important to hold up high, given that we live in an ever tenuous democracy, and I see legitimate reasons for carrying a gun for self defense(I think even Kucinich must agree on this one...he did carry one himself after getting death threats)

and I saw the confiscation of firearms during katrina as a blatant assault on the second amendment, especially given the circumstances(when has there been more of an absence of a well regulated militia?)

And I see a real danger, as I talked about in my other post, in not watching closely the agencies that would regulate gun control(the criteria should never be allowed to be a secret)

............................

And quite possibly its not the big issue of the day. I'm not sure what the ratio fo gun owners to gun-deaths is in this country, though we certainly have the highest gun related deaths of all devoloped countries, but it's probably lower than the ratio of car owners to car related deaths...etc.

On the flip side of the coin, self-defense is always touted as a reason to need your own weapon to defend yourself, and while cases do arise, and it isn't the government's business to tell you you can't defend yourself or your person with a weapon when truly threatened, I would say this is a little bit of a boogie man also, at least for most of us, (some communities excluded). And the reality is there are far more accidental shootings than self-defense related shootings.

.............

anyway, seems like I could write a few more paragraphs contradicting myself right and left...I'm still not sure how I feel on the issue

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 9:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


AFA actual "gun control" is concerned (as opposed to gun registration, which is an entirely different thing), obviously you don't want to sell a gun to a minor, or to a criminal with a history of violence. The only problem I have with the "background check" process is the same problem I have with the "no fly" list, voter registration rolls, driving records, sex-offender lists, credit rating, grocery-store "club" cards, and ALL databases:

1) They need to be known to the person on the DB
2) Said person must have an opportunity to review and correct information at least once a year
3) The criteria for being on... or getting off... the list must be known and uniform.

AFA liabillity: It belongs to the registered owner, except in the case of an illegal sale in which case it belongs with the seller. If a gun is stolen or sold it must be reported otherwise- just like with cars- the person holding the last registration is "IT".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 9:08 AM

RIGHTEOUS9


agreed with that, I almost added a couple of those points but post was getting long

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 8, 2007 9:27 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA liabillity: It belongs to the registered owner, except in the case of an illegal sale in which case it belongs with the seller. If a gun is stolen or sold it must be reported otherwise- just like with cars- the person holding the last registration is "IT".

Over here each car has a log book, which includes details of all it's previous owners and a form to send back to the DVLA on change of ownership. Perhaps gun ownership could have a similar thing?

At the very least someone could make a fortune making "gun logbook covers" and "gun and logbook storage boxes".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 23, 2007 10:37 AM

KIRKULES


Looks like the Supremes might rule on some of the issues brought up in this thread. If there recent decisions are any indication of how they will rule in this case, it will probably be a very narrow ruling only applying to DC. Then both sides will declare victory an the debate will continue.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22797253-1702,00.html

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 23, 2007 1:55 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Comparing guns to kitchen knives isn't great either, a gun is designed to kill people, a knife is designed to cut up food. Theres a big difference between a tool that *could* be used for a purpose, and a tool that is *designed* for that purpose."


Looks at large steak on plate. Pulls out gun. blam! blam! blam! ... blam! ... blam!

Sits down with fork to carefully eat meat bits scattered all over the table.



***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 23, 2007 2:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


While looking up the source of the quote attributed to Franklin I came across an interesting discussion. The colonists at the time were reported as being attacked by 'Indians' (whom they had displaced, but that's another story). Apparently the Pennsylvania governor (a British authority) was claiming the legislature (elected by colonists) was preventing him from disbursing guns to the local militias. Meanwhile the legislature had no money to purchase said firearms, and there was a lot of debate over whether the colonists should gets guns and defend themselves.

The issue of 'militias' was quite an active one at the time. It gave me a little insight into how the phrase "a well regulated militia." Looking further I came across this - "Cornell, a leading constitutional historian, shows that the Founders understood the right to bear arms as neither an individual nor a collective right, but as a civic right--an obligation citizens owed to the state to arm themselves so that they could participate in a well regulated militia."

Assuming that the purpose of bearing arms is to be able to form 'well regulated militias', things like hunting, target shooting and even self-defense aren't constitutionally sound reasons for bearing arms.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 23, 2007 3:43 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

excerpt from New York Times

A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: May 6, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html

There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.




The argument about whether the Second Amendment is a collective right or individual right will probably go on even if the courts make a ruling on this issue. Even though as suggested in the article above most Constitutional scholars including some liberal anti-gun ones agree that it is an individual right. I think it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights(all individual rights)is conclusive for me.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 23, 2007 3:59 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”




***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 23, 2007 4:25 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Looks at large steak on plate. Pulls out gun. blam! blam! blam! ... blam! ... blam!

Sits down with fork to carefully eat meat bits scattered all over the table.

**Mental note. When inviting Rue over for dinner, be sure not to use the good china.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, November 23, 2007 9:50 PM

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA


Well, I am all for the banning of guns which have no possible practical purpose other than killing people ((Heavy Machine guns, Grenade Launchers, All manner of Vulcan Cannon, et al.)) for just that reason.

However, I believe that Citizen had the right idea for all firearms not falling into this category. Also, the idea of making one take a class beforehand is a good idea.

Holding the manufacturer liable for anything other than a manufacturing issue is nonsense. Holding the seller liable to some degree when there is reason to believe that selling to the person in question was a bad idea or simply failing to check up on them makes sense.

Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. After a brief initial period of increased violence , I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it. Remember, Machiavelli himself said - "The Swiss, Absolutely Free, Absolutely Well Armed."

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:31 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. After a brief initial period of increased violence , I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it. Remember, Machiavelli himself said - "The Swiss, Absolutely Free, Absolutely Well Armed."

The other possibility is that any potential home invader would realise that they can't break in without an armament of their own...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:57 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
...
Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. After a brief initial period of increased violence , I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it. Remember, Machiavelli himself said - "The Swiss, Absolutely Free, Absolutely Well Armed."

It's been mentioned in various RWED threads before; and its an idea I could get behind. Likely need to make some provision for the absolute pacifists (Quakers, et al) being permitted an exception.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 24, 2007 5:12 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:

Ultimately, I think one possible solution that we've not considered is the Swiss Solution. Give everyone an assault rifle to keep at home, and train them on it. After a brief initial period of increased violence , I suspect we will have a serious drop in gun violence, as no one would be stupid enough to try and invade someone's home or attack them otherwise knowing full-well that there is at least one, probably more, assault rifle in there and that someone there knows very well how to use it.




This is exactly the intent of the "militia" clause in the Second Amendment. It gives individuals, neighborhoods, communities and States the right to bear arms for self defence, but also implies that there is some responsibility to do so.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 24, 2007 6:45 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Guess no one remembers the tale of two cities.

It's been done, you see.

Two towns - one banned guns, one made them mandatory.

At the time, the mainstream papers screamed a fit about how it would lead to horrific violence and make the place into the wild west, gunfights on every corner, panic in the streets yadda, yadda...

And then, when that *didn't* happen, it was like the place never even existed, cause it did not fit the view (of which no real evidence can seem to be found) that legal gun ownership of ordinary citizens leads to crime and chaos.

You have to go deep into the alternative media (admittedly not all of which is quality journalism) to hear even a peep about it.

And here we are, ever so much later...

"In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted."


Very little research on this topic ever gets done, even less by anything even remotely resembling a non-partisan source, so all one can do is observe for themself and make their own decision.

You can earnestly believe that words on paper will keep criminals from having or using guns.

Or you can choose not to believe that and level the playing field a bit.

A great part of it is the utter vilification of self-defense, something the police as a whole despise, because if folk start defending themselves, they might start wondering why we have them, and especially wonder why they're allowed to lord over us like a privledged elite...

Sure, they have their uses, but the idea of them protecting you, when they have no legal responsibility to protect any specific individual, plus a minimum response time of avg over 18 minutes under the best of circumstances - is a bit ridiculous.

As the old joke goes...
"Why do you carry a gun ?"

"Cause a whole cop's too heavy."


Same reason you have a fire extinguisher, or a first aid kit - to do what you can while awaiting the cavalry.

As political as police forces have become, do you really think they'll go for measures that would lead to a need for less police, smaller budgets and less toys ?

Or, look at it this way - automobiles are dangerous, and individual automobile use is wasteful, unnecessary and irresponsible, you should just give up your car and use public transportation, right ?

You can trust the Gov to run it efficiently, and get you where you need to be on time and safely, right ?

In the end, it's your choice what to believe, and it's your choice what to do.
And I believe in trusting you, fellow person, enough to make that decision.

All I ask is the same courtesy in return.

-Frem

LINKS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/27/223955.shtml
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 24, 2007 8:05 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Guess no one remembers the tale of two cities.

A great part of it is the utter vilification of self-defense, something the police as a whole despise, because if folk start defending themselves, they might start wondering why we have them, and especially wonder why they're allowed to lord over us like a privledged elite...





I'm sure many of you have seen this video.

When it comes to self-defense rocker Ted Nugent states my position much better than I could.

"Rock Chalk, Jayhawk, KU"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:07 AM

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA


Citizen, I agree with your analysis in theory, however, in the two instances I can find ((Granted, I won't be publishing this study in L'Année Sociologique any time soon)) the evidence seems to support the opposite.

I think that this is an issue best studied by sociologists and historians in a scientific and unbiased manner. That way we can base our legislation on scientific data rather than truthiness ((Which is a generally difficult thing to do in our increasingly partisan world, especially in an election year.))

Can we agree, however, based upon the evidence we have that it seems to point to the "Swiss-Solution" as I so dub it? The Scientist in me would like to see more evidence gathered, granted, but in its absence I'd have to conclude that this seems to work the best, but I refuse to make any hard and fast decisions without more evidence. ((Was that suitably 'cover my ass' enough ?))

I love that this forum seems to be a haven for intellectuals in addition to Browncoats. Y'all are an interesting bunch.

Edit: Just so you know, I meant I wouldn't be publishing this in L'Année Sociologique because it doesn't yet meet the standards for scientific research, not because this journal has been defunct since 1942.

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:47 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by BrowncoatSandinista:
Can we agree, however, based upon the evidence we have that it seems to point to the "Swiss-Solution" as I so dub it? The Scientist in me would like to see more evidence gathered, granted, but in its absence I'd have to conclude that this seems to work the best, but I refuse to make any hard and fast decisions without more evidence. ((Was that suitably 'cover my ass' enough ?))

I think America's problems with gun crime, are more to do with the attitude of many Americans to guns, rather than how those guns are distributed.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 25, 2007 9:08 AM

BROWNCOATSANDINISTA


I'll agree to that. Both sides of the argument are becoming so polarized that they cannot possibly see the logic of the other side ((which both sides do have)).

"I'm not going to say Serenity is the greatest SciFi movie ever; oh wait yes I am." - Orson Scott Card

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
MAGA movement
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:04 - 14 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:53 - 113 posts
Any Conservative Media Around?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:44 - 170 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:40 - 42 posts
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:01 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 23, 2024 23:46 - 4761 posts
Australia - unbelievable...
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:59 - 22 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:33 - 4796 posts
More Cope: David Brooks and PBS are delusional...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:32 - 1 posts
List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:27 - 168 posts
Once again... a request for legitimate concerns...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:22 - 17 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 23, 2024 15:07 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL