More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[JoeWeber 2,807]

14 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

First and second, first and second

Go together like they're one amendment

This I tell you brother

You can't have one without the....other.

Sorry if I ever had a thought that you didn't have a perfectly serviceable sarcastic sense of humor.

[BIGUN 1,393]

More than 6,000 children killed, hurt by gunfire in 2022: Report

6,000. Think about that. 

That's more than the population of 50 of the smallest towns in the US - combined. 

Still not worthy of writing your representatives to reinforce your position and desired direction?

Here. I'll make it easier: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

EDIT: That's more than double the number of US Service Members killed in Afghanistan of 17 years. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by BIGUN

[JoeWeber 2,807]

2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

More than 6,000 children killed, hurt by gunfire in 2022: Report

6,000. Think about that. 

That's more than the population of 50 of the smallest towns in the US - combined. 

Still not worthy of writing your representatives to reinforce your position and desired direction?

Here. I'll make it easier: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

EDIT: That's more than double the number of US Service Members killed in Afghanistan of 17 years. 

Great idea, thanks. But instead of my rep's who would all ban not just Brents guns but Brent, too, can I write to other reps like in Texas or Florida and have the same hope? No? No matter, all citizens here on the Peoples Republic of Joe, the consensus is always rock solid.

[BIGUN 1,393]

9 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

can I write to other reps like in Texas or Florida and have the same hope? No? No matter, all citizens here on the Peoples Republic of Joe, the consensus is always rock solid.

Perhaps the People's Republic of Joe Bank could write a check to help cast a wide net: https://www.bradyunited.org/program/veterans-for-gun-reform

Edited December 28, 2022 by BIGUN

[JoeWeber 2,807]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

Perhaps the People's Republic of Joe Bank could write a check to help cast a wide net: https://www.bradyunited.org/program/veterans-for-gun-reform

Maybe on the next cycle. The fund just maxed out onboarding a supply of El Dorado 15 and 21 year.

[Phil1111 1,149]

Here is a good story about republicans, survivalists, bunkers, guns, QAnon, etc.  How the mentally ill and the conspiracy minded 2nd amendment rural gun totin minded. All see and understand the world.

He Built a Home to Survive a Civil War. Tragedy Found Him Anyway.

[billvon 3,058]

14 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Here is a good story about republicans, survivalists, bunkers, guns, QAnon, etc.  How the mentally ill and the conspiracy minded 2nd amendment rural gun totin minded. All see and understand the world.

He Built a Home to Survive a Civil War. Tragedy Found Him Anyway.

Very quick summary - he got radicalized and decided he needed a bunker because Obama was going to destroy the country, so he built one and got lots of guns.  Other people found out and wanted that bunker.  A guy broke in to take over the bunker and killed his daugther.  He was shot, then he got a gun and shot back at the intruder.  He decided to call the cops at that point rather than get another gun, and the intruder fled.  He then decided the intruder was under control of the government or something, and now lives in an RV.

[Phil1111 1,149]

11 hours ago, billvon said:

Very quick summary - he got radicalized and decided he needed a bunker because Obama was going to destroy the country, so he built one and got lots of guns.  Other people found out and wanted that bunker.  A guy broke in to take over the bunker and killed his daugther.  He was shot, then he got a gun and shot back at the intruder.  He decided to call the cops at that point rather than get another gun, and the intruder fled.  He then decided the intruder was under control of the government or something, and now lives in an RV.

Yep, a story to ruin the day for republicans, survivalists and gun lovers.

[Bigfalls 111]

18 hours ago, BIGUN said:

More than 6,000 children killed, hurt by gunfire in 2022: Report

6,000. Think about that. 

That's more than the population of 50 of the smallest towns in the US - combined. 

Still not worthy of writing your representatives to reinforce your position and desired direction?

Here. I'll make it easier: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

EDIT: That's more than double the number of US Service Members killed in Afghanistan of 17 years. 

I am not defending guns, I am just saying...

How many children were hurt or killed by second hand smoke or smoking themselves, alcohol, drugs, automobile accidents, skate boarding, skiing, drowning, domestic abuse, fast food, high fructose corn syrup.  

[gowlerk 2,241]

18 minutes ago, Bigfalls said:

I am not defending guns, I am just saying...

How many children were hurt or killed by second hand smoke or smoking themselves, alcohol, drugs, automobile accidents, skate boarding, skiing, drowning, domestic abuse, fast food, high fructose corn syrup.  

Not defending guns, just deflecting.

Edited December 28, 2022 by gowlerk

[billvon 3,058]

25 minutes ago, Bigfalls said:

How many children were hurt or killed by second hand smoke or smoking themselves, alcohol, drugs, automobile accidents, skate boarding, skiing, drowning, domestic abuse, fast food, high fructose corn syrup.  

Probably a lot.

As a result there are laws against kids buying alcohol, and laws against adults serving them alcohol.  There are laws against kids driving, and stricter laws when they first start to drive.  There are laws that make it harder for kids to drown, and that significantly drive up the cost of private and public pools.  There are laws and testing standards that make cars safer for kids.  Billions have been spent on things like airbag research, seatbelt use, car seat testing, rollover testing, audible alerts, backup cameras, collision sensors etc to protect kids in cars (and kids vs cars.)  There are laws that prevent kids from buying cigarettes under a certain age, and tens of millions in spending to convince them not to smoke even when it is legal for them to do so.  These laws, and this spending, is not seen as onerous; indeed, they are seen as fairly commonsense.

Oddly, though, when laws are proposed that would protect kids from gun deaths, they are seen as the end of liberty as we know it.

[riggerrob 643]

19 hours ago, BIGUN said:

More than 6,000 children killed, hurt by gunfire in 2022: Report

6,000. Think about that. 

That's more than the population of 50 of the smallest towns in the US - combined. 

Still not worthy of writing your representatives to reinforce your position and desired direction?

Here. I'll make it easier: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

EDIT: That's more than double the number of US Service Members killed in Afghanistan of 17 years. 

Are you implying that American murderers, domestic terrorists and bumbling idiots have killed more Americans than the Taliban?

[Phil1111 1,149]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

...Oddly, though, when laws are proposed that would protect kids from gun deaths, they are seen as the end of liberty as we know it.

Well Wayne LaPierre knows how dangerous guns in America are. He testified under oath that he had to get out of the US to feel safe.

"LaPierre said he also made multiple annual trips around New Year’s Eve to the Bahamas to stay at a resort,²⁸ also paid for by the producer. ...LaPierre testified that these yacht trips were a “security retreat.”²⁹ His claim, in a pretrial deposition, that this more than one-hundred-foot yacht was “the one place” he could “feel safe” after high-profile school shootings...LaPierre testified, “I was basically under presidential threat without presidential security in terms of the number of threats I was getting,” and that “this [yacht] was the one place that I hope could feel safe, where I remember getting there going, ‘Thank God I’m safe, nobody can get me here.’”^31"

All the anti-gun, gun owners threatening the poor man. The horror, the horror.

[billeisele 130]

On 12/28/2022 at 2:39 PM, billvon said:

Probably a lot.

As a result there are laws against kids buying alcohol, and laws against adults serving them alcohol.  There are laws against kids driving, and stricter laws when they first start to drive.  There are laws that make it harder for kids to drown, and that significantly drive up the cost of private and public pools.  There are laws and testing standards that make cars safer for kids.  Billions have been spent on things like airbag research, seatbelt use, car seat testing, rollover testing, audible alerts, backup cameras, collision sensors etc to protect kids in cars (and kids vs cars.)  There are laws that prevent kids from buying cigarettes under a certain age, and tens of millions in spending to convince them not to smoke even when it is legal for them to do so.  These laws, and this spending, is not seen as onerous; indeed, they are seen as fairly commonsense.

Oddly, though, when laws are proposed that would protect kids from gun deaths, they are seen as the end of liberty as we know it.

Yet kids keep dying from all the above. There are laws on guns intended to do the same thing. One thing we don't know is how many lives are saved because of these laws. We also don't know how many laws exist that have little to no impact.

Most remember when containers didn't require a seal. People were nicer, politics wasn't as nasty and there were lines that weren't crossed. All it took was one person to decide to switch out some pills in a bottle to harm people. 

Could laws on all these things be improved, no doubt.

The gun thing is especially sticky because of the rights infringement or perceived rights infringement, and other issues and personalities that are difficult to overcome and manage. But that shouldn't stop our law makers from trying to enact effective legislation. IMO Until a bipartisan effort is made, nothing will change.

[wmw999 2,514]

10 minutes ago, billeisele said:

One thing we don't know is how many lives are saved because of these laws. We also don't know how many laws exist that have little to no impact.

Part of that is the ban on the CDC studying much of anything having to do with gun violence. Even the sponsor of the bill (the Dickey amendment) now says it was a mistake.

Wendy P.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Part of that is the ban on the CDC studying much of anything having to do with gun violence. Even the sponsor of the bill (the Dickey amendment) now says it was a mistake.

Wendy P.

It may be recognized as a mistake now, but at the time it certainly wasn't.

Back then, the anti-gun movement had suffered a series of major setbacks. 
The Rs had taken both houses of Congress in 96, in large part due to the Ds passing the Brady Bill and the "Assault Weapons" Bill.
They had a long list of proposed gun control legislation that died then and there when the Ds lost control (look up "Brady Bill 2" to see how far they wanted to go).

Without the power to legislate gun control, they tried a couple different 'end around' measures.

One of those measures was to get guns declared a 'public health issue'. To get the CDC to find that they were a threat to public health and to regulate them in that way.

Another was to file lawsuit after lawsuit against the gun manufacturers. None of the suit actually went anywhere, but the manufacturers had to spend a lot of money on lawyers to get the suits tossed. The plan was to bankrupt the manufacturers with those unsuccessful lawsuits.

With the power of the gun lobby and R control of congress, the Dickey amendment and the 'Protection of Lawful Commerce' (lawsuit protection for the gun industry) were passed, and both of those measures were thwarted.

[olofscience 489]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

People were nicer, politics wasn't as nasty and there were lines that weren't crossed.

What you're experiencing is a cognitive bias known as Rosy Retrospection.

Try being a black person and being nostalgic, for example about the 1950s, or even better before the abolition of slavery.

[billvon 3,058]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Most remember when containers didn't require a seal. People were nicer, politics wasn't as nasty and there were lines that weren't crossed.

Let's consider Andrew Jackson, someone from very long ago.

He was, to simplify things, an asshole.  When he was young he started fooling around with a married woman, Rachel Donelson Robards, and married her while she was still married to her husband.

Charles Dickinson found out about this and started attacking him.  (There was also some arguments over a bet on a horse race that drove this.)  Jackson was a  “a coward and equivocator” and a “worthless scoundrel…a poltroon and a coward.”  He took out space in a local paper to say this.

They got mad enough to arrange a duel.  Dickinson fired first, wounding Jackson.  Jackson then took a minute to get back to his feet and took careful aim, killing Dickinson.

During the election itself, several ads were taken out proclaiming that Andrew Jackson was a cannibal.

Later, during Grover Cleveland's campaign, opponents decided to portray him as having illegitimate children.  There were several ads depicting a baby and woman, with the baby crying “Ma, ma, where’s my pa?”

So I would suggest taking a good look at history if you think those times were so very rosy.

[BIGUN 1,393]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Dickinson fired first, wounding Jackson.  Jackson then took a minute to get back to his feet and took careful aim, killing Dickinson.

They both fired. But Jackson's gun misfired. Jackson took a minute to get to his feet AND re-load after his first round misfired - violating the rules of a duel and essentially committing murder. He was never charged.  

Edited January 1, 2023 by BIGUN

[Phil1111 1,149]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

...During the election itself, several ads were taken out proclaiming that Andrew Jackson was a cannibal....

So republicans have been peddling this QAnon cannibal nonsense for 194 years.Now 38% of republicans actually believe it. America, a new year and nothings changed.

[jakee 1,556]

19 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yet kids keep dying from all the above.

But not as many. Does that not matter, or does everything have to be perfect to be justifiable? Murder is illegal but people are still murdered. Should we just not bother with homicide laws?

19 hours ago, billeisele said:

Most remember when containers didn't require a seal. People were nicer, politics wasn't as nasty and there were lines that weren't crossed.

What lines weren’t crossed?

[billeisele 130]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

But not as many. Does that not matter, or does everything have to be perfect to be justifiable? Murder is illegal but people are still murdered. Should we just not bother with homicide laws?

Of course it matters. The point is that laws don't prevent all deaths. 

BV implied that many dangerous things/activities had laws and stated that billions was spent on research. Then said, "... when laws are proposed that would protect kids from gun deaths." That implies that there are no laws on guns and that the proposed laws would be effective. I'm sure he didn't mean to imply that there were no laws. CA has many laws and the deaths continue. The new law in OR just started so we'll get to see if it's effective. One challenge is it's difficult to quantify how many deaths were avoided by the passage of a law. In CA a CCW is difficult to get and keep, and the purchase/manufacture/gift/loan of a large capacity mag is prohibited. Lastly, the sentence stated that the proposed laws would prevent deaths. That may have been the case but maybe not. Certainly, some of the proposed laws would have provided some benefit but the opposite is also possibly true.

IMO unbiased research needs to be done to determine what methods would be practical that would also effectively reduce gun deaths. The results would provide valuable information from which laws could be crafted. No doubt this is a tricky subject. The better the research the more difficult it will be for people to oppose the proposed laws.

Edited January 2, 2023 by billeisele
use of language correction

[Phil1111 1,149]

A photo provided by the Atlanta Police Department shows the weapons a man had carried into a Publix grocery store in Atlanta

Which is entirely legal. The panic that ensued in the store is just the price that Americans have to pay. In order to accommodate right wing gun nuts.

[kallend 2,099]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

Of course it matters. The point is that laws don't prevent all deaths. 

BV inferred that many dangerous things/activities had laws and stated that billions was spent on research. Then said, "... when laws are proposed that would protect kids from gun deaths." That infers that there are no laws on guns and that the proposed laws would be effective. I'm sure he didn't mean to infer that there were no laws. CA has many laws and the deaths continue. The new law in OR just started so we'll get to see if it's effective. One challenge is it's difficult to quantify how many deaths were avoided by the passage of a law. In CA a CCW is difficult to get and keep, and the purchase/manufacture/gift/loan of a large capacity mag is prohibited. Lastly, the sentence stated that the proposed laws would prevent deaths. That may have been the case but maybe not. Certainly, some of the proposed laws would have provided some benefit but the opposite is also possibly true.

IMO unbiased research needs to be done to determine what methods would be practical that would also effectively reduce gun deaths. The results would provide valuable information from which laws could be crafted. No doubt this is a tricky subject. The better the research the more difficult it will be for people to oppose the proposed laws.

"Infer" is not  a synonym for "imply".  You repeatedly confuse them.

[BIGUN 1,393]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

You repeatedly confuse them.

What are you implying? :)