Gun control is withering on the vine.

Post Reply New Topic

Be more explicit about the connotations of the word.

Last edited by Sand on 29 Jun 2010, 5:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Okay, here is what you said:



Here, in bold, are the key phrases for which you are wrong:



Why are you wrong about each one?

First one, "Jumping to conclusions again." This is wrong because my post was not meant to be serious, hence the ending sentence fragment "News at 11".

Second one, "You assume prevailing conditions remain constant", I of course make that faulty assumption for the sake of ludicrousness, however, I know that such a rate of unqualified deaths due to firearm usage varies with time. Prior to the middle ages such a death rate would have been phenomenally low, however death by swords and arrows had a higher rate than today.

Third one, "are therefore too optimistic about getting rid of Americans." That is such a piece of crap I don't even know why you'd put it there other than just to be horrid.

There is no current population. Our populaton changes by the minute.

ruveyn

Yes, so what? If you wish for more of a qualifier to attach to my joke, then it could be "Current quantity of population" if you wish.

Here is a darn fine word that you all need to learn: ludicrous.

But all your posts can be taken as farcical so yo cannot claim only one should not be taken seriously. I just assumed we both were being funny except I concede you are better at it than me.

Are you assuming deaths by swords, by historical progression, should be higher today than in the Middle Ages? It seems to me you're still conclusion jumping.

So...with all this withering on the vine, the Supreme Court ruled that cities/states cannot ban the possession of handguns.

Really withering.


/they took our jerbs!
//they're gonna take our guns!! !
///then they're gonna take NASCAR!! !! !! !

Nope that's not what I'm assuming at all.

Prior to the refinements in firearms seen in the 1800's, the sword, pike, and other melee weapons were still of some tactical value on the battlefield, such as with cavalry rushing upon ranged infantry so as to not allow them time to reload. With repeating rifles and semi-auto and full-auto weapons such tactical advantage is no longer present. As such, the quantities of death due to obsolete, although still deadly, weaponry is probably nil or at least close to nil.

Like land mines?

Clarify.

Well sand, since you are anti-gun, would you also happen to be anti-laser?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=680xwwEs7Lg[/youtube]

Land mines from previous wars are still killing all over the world. People in Vietnam are still sufferance and dying from agent orange. Are these considered obsolete weapons?

In the lands of former conflicts in which they were used they have not been properly dealt with yet. Herbicide used in Vietnam is still causing problems? Agent orange must have one heck of a half life, I suppose it shouldn't have been used since its effects are so long term. But no, land mines are not obsolete.

No, what the Supreme Court did was first recognize that the 2nd Amendment refers to individual rights rather than a vague "militia" in the Heller case, and now in McDonald it has ruled that the states are bound by the same rules as the federal government when it comes to guns. What that does is impose a significant legal hurdle for any new gun control to be passed, and opens up all existing local gun laws to legal scrutiny and challenge, a pretty big deal.

As far as the state of the gun control movement, the OP was referring to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control Inc) trying to sell their donor list, a move that would seem to indicate that they are low on funds, perhaps due to a lack of interest. As I've noted numerous times, gun control has become a toxic issue for politicians in this country and only a few fanatical organizations like "the Brady Bunch" even try to keep the issue alive. Anti gun people may have a variety of motivations, but gun owners feel that we are fighting to preserve cherished pastimes, possessions, sometimes even our safety and way of life. That makes us far more motivated and active over the long term, we have a lot more to lose by political inaction and miscalculation and there are a lot of us, up to 40% of US households by some estimates. Compare the state of the gun control movement to it's heyday during the Clinton years, and you'll be forced to agree that it's "withered" quite a bit since then.

Last edited by Dox47 on 29 Jun 2010, 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Here's an interesting little thing I found:

Gun laws of Vermont

Compare with:

Gun violence by state
(you'll have to scroll down, Vermont is near the bottom).


Notice that Vermont has the most permissive gun laws in the US, concealed carry without a permit, machine guns are OK, no registration or licensing, etc. Then notice that not only do they rank near the bottom in crime, but on those rare occasions when Vermonters do decide to kill one another, they reach for their abundantly available guns only 18% of the time, preferring knives (43%) or other weapons (37%) instead. I'm not surprised by the low crime in general, but it's the weapon preference that really interests me given the oft repeated argument that the presence of firearms causes tense situations to turn violent and deadly. This place is swimming in guns, and as a rural state they probably tend to keep them handy, yet they commit their very few murders with knives more than 2 to 1 against their guns, and an even 2 to 1 with other weapons versus guns.

These aren't decades old studies done with push polling and gerrymandered samples by biased researchers, this is current raw data that is easily verified. Anyone who cares to can easily scroll to the states with the most stringent gun laws and the most permissive, and match them up with the crime table, the results speak for themselves. To make things completely clear, the hysterical predictions of a new Wild West being the result of widespread civilian gun ownership are now in the ground, clearly shown to be the fables they always were.

I go to Vermont every summer - leaving next week, as a matter of fact. It's where my husband grew up.

I think the statistic has a lot more to do with how life is lived there, and the rural aspect. The gun culture isn't very evident there; it's not celebrated or advertised. If you hadn't told me the statistic, I would not have guessed it. Kind of a pragmatic way of life. And a very, very liberal state overall.

I think you've heard me state that I think the place of guns in life varies by region and many other factors. To me, the statistic confirms it. It would be really, really interesting to delve further into the factors that make ownership and presence something relatively safe in some locations and circumstances, but not in others.