US President to push proposals to prevent further shootings

Page 2 of 4 [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

20 Dec 2012, 12:40 am

Dillogic wrote:
(perhaps due to seemingly popular opinion, even if it's not actually the majority, but let's say it is, as he thinks it is the majority in a latter clause).

Has there been a recent opinion poll on this issue to back this up? I'm also under the impression that the majority of Americans now favour a ban.


Dillogic wrote:
You don't do something to pander to the majority who're being irrational and emotional about it. That's unethical.

Ha! ethics and politics? C'mon, you know the game here. Obama has to been to be acting, whilst he and every other intellectual knows that safety in America is a lost cause. He needs the public support but also the NRA money and lobbyists, or in an one word answer: power.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,835
Location: Valproate Street and Thorazine Lane

20 Dec 2012, 12:51 am

No idea regards to any popularity (I'll just say it's more popular and that Obama has accurate data regarding "assault weapons", especially if I'm to assume he's right when he states no law will actually help).

A referendum would be interesting though.

Yeah, you're right regarding ethics; though perhaps I'm naive and I think an elected leader and his party should try and educate the public with objective facts without bias before they (the people) make their decision (elected officials equating to the people if a referendum never happens, which it never does).

Though I have to believe that people like old W. Bush were actually that dumb in regards to certain things, rather than manipulating the public for a certain end (whatever that may be).



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

20 Dec 2012, 1:35 am

Dillogic wrote:
No idea regards to any popularity (I'll just say it's more popular and that Obama has accurate data regarding "assault weapons", especially if I'm to assume he's right when he states no law will actually help).

You mean like how 90% of guns in Mexico were allegedly coming from the US, and when the Fast and Furious scandal broke, it was supposedly only a couple of rogue agents?


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,835
Location: Valproate Street and Thorazine Lane

20 Dec 2012, 1:54 am

John_Browning wrote:
You mean like how 90% of guns in Mexico were allegedly coming from the US, and when the Fast and Furious scandal broke, it was supposedly only a couple of rogue agents?


Nah, I don't objectively believe anything someone says without giving me a study with all of the figures (even then one should be suspect due to data manipulation); I'm speaking of if one is to take the actual speech on face value and right, which can't be determined by reading it in reality due to providing no statistics. Just pointing out the illogical argument he put forward. Though I will say what he says regarding no law passed will affect the so-called gun violence is most likely right as far the the US goes; nothing can be done with that from everything I've read (it doesn't seem to affect it anywhere if you're looking at actual murders and violent crime by all causes).



collectoritis
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 737

20 Dec 2012, 4:21 am

Yeah , and he has also said hes gonna close Gitmo :roll: :lol:



Appleisbetter
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 224
Location: Australia

20 Dec 2012, 9:42 pm

america will still make fully automatic weapons they will just be sold to foreign powers instead of locally. in australia the government did a gun buy back scheme somehow i don't think this will work in the states.can someone please explain to me your second amendment the right to bare arms, is this only for knives and guns or can you walk into a bar with a bazooka . would this affect weapons that have not been invented as of yet.for example if someone invented a new weapon in their garage that could vaporise people at fifty paces would he have have the right to use it under your second amendment assuming no laws have been passed on this new device as no one has seen one yet.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,061
Location: The Berkshires

20 Dec 2012, 10:16 pm

Appleisbetter wrote:
america will still make fully automatic weapons they will just be sold to foreign powers instead of locally. in australia the government did a gun buy back scheme somehow i don't think this will work in the states.can someone please explain to me your second amendment the right to bare arms, is this only for knives and guns or can you walk into a bar with a bazooka . would this affect weapons that have not been invented as of yet.for example if someone invented a new weapon in their garage that could vaporise people at fifty paces would he have have the right to use it under your second amendment assuming no laws have been passed on this new device as no one has seen one yet.
interpritation of the second amendment varies from state to state.
in vermont you can carry any gun around as long as you dont conceal it.yes you could walk through downtown burlinton holding a 50 caliber machine gun if you wanted.as far as a bar,anywhere in the u.s unless you have a holstered pistol store owners would interprit you as a robber and either call the police or even shoot you.walking into a private establishment is the proprieters discresion and the 2nd amendment would not apply other than that you couldnt be charged unless you pointed it at someone.the police wouldnt arrest you but they would come as a precaution,that is if the store owner doest shoot you in that case an ambulance would come.

in massachusetts the 2nd amendment means you are entitled to a FID card(fire arms identification card)if your not a felon but if caught with a gun without a mass fid card its 5 years in the walpole pen.to carry a long gun in public it must be in a locked carrying case and not visible to the public.to carry a holstered pistol you need a class B FID card and to conceal a pistol or to own a assault type rifle you need a class A FID.which includes more indepth background checks and a formal interview with detectives.

a bazooka would fall under federal macine gun statues,it is almost impossible anywhere in the us to own a full automatic rifle or authentic military equipment.


_________________
Bringing New England's local news to Wrongplanet every day


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,399

20 Dec 2012, 10:25 pm

People are spending so much time talking gun control but what it comes down to really is the way people are raising their kids. How are you going to change that?



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,835
Location: Valproate Street and Thorazine Lane

20 Dec 2012, 11:52 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
People are spending so much time talking gun control but what it comes down to really is the way people are raising their kids. How are you going to change that?


I find it hilarious that literally anyone can have a child, and as many as they want, without actually having to be sensible enough to raise said child appropriately. Naturally, I'd never want to inhibit that, but I find it amusing nonetheless.

-Removing the glorification of violence in media and the institutes that promote that would be a start; teach people when violence is legally and ethically justified
-Removing the common held belief of someone needing to be a certain "ideal" to be worth something to others, and the expectations people put on others to live to this
-Removing the stigma of being poor, mentally ill, disabled, uneducated, "dumb", and other words that have a negative connotation, even though these things aren't ethically negative
-Make it known that all ways of life are just as valid as another as long as you don't harm others
-Make bullying and other abuse that people see as "commonplace" a crime
-Provide free therapy for people who're found to have psychopathic traits (there's an interesting form of treatment proposed recently, which goes along the lines of showing more emotion to them as children due to them having problems seeing it); try to pick these people up as children

Lots more, and these things don't really encroach upon the homes of people.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,399

21 Dec 2012, 12:02 am

And parents shouldn't teach their kids it's okay to beat people up over stupid reasons...



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

21 Dec 2012, 12:16 am

Appleisbetter wrote:
america will still make fully automatic weapons they will just be sold to foreign powers instead of locally. in australia the government did a gun buy back scheme somehow i don't think this will work in the states.can someone please explain to me your second amendment the right to bare arms, is this only for knives and guns or can you walk into a bar with a bazooka . would this affect weapons that have not been invented as of yet.for example if someone invented a new weapon in their garage that could vaporise people at fifty paces would he have have the right to use it under your second amendment assuming no laws have been passed on this new device as no one has seen one yet.

No new automatic weapon has been sold to the public since 1986. There are still some in private collections but are almost never less that $4,000 at a minimum, and the sky is the limit. Fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons can easily look cosmetically identical. On extremely rare occasions an illegally obtained automatic weapon will be used in a more conventional type of crime like a bank robbery, but have never been used in at least the last half century for the sole purpose of going on a killing spree. Before then, people were rarely shot with a machine gun unless they were bootleggers or had some sort of business with the mafia.

The 2nd amendment was meant to apply to any infantry weapon, but some foolish people decided to try and water down it's meaning. Since the authors didn't have a problem with ownership of cannons, it can be reasonably safe to assume they would not have a problem with modern [conventional] projectile explosives and military vehicles, in part because they believed in a balance of firepower that was at minimum equal to the government, which did not keep a large standing army during peacetime and relied heavily on the civilian population for defense. Most new weapons that did not fall under any other law would be legal until banned or regulated, unless they were made of regulated items like radioactive materials or something like that.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
People are spending so much time talking gun control but what it comes down to really is the way people are raising their kids. How are you going to change that?
That is by far one of (if not) the biggest contributions to violent crime. Even bad influences in media can be controlled by parental guidance- not just censoring it, but talking about it and giving it some context.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,835
Location: Valproate Street and Thorazine Lane

21 Dec 2012, 12:22 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
And parents shouldn't teach their kids it's okay to beat people up over stupid reasons...


Yep. Fighting and violence should be the absolute last course of action people see, and then it's only justified and right in a set few instances (such as self-defense); when it's "right", it should still be seen as something sad and then people trying to stop it from happening again through education of children.

Removing the glory of violence and how that it's seen to make someone "right" because they show "might" over someone else.

Plus, making people treat others in an ethical and gentle manner, even when disagreements are shown (see how common it is for disagreements to be seen as something that's a reason to attack someone personally).



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

21 Dec 2012, 12:46 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
People are spending so much time talking gun control but what it comes down to really is the way people are raising their kids. How are you going to change that?


Exactly! However, it's easier to lay the blame on an inanimate object than to resort to thoughtful parenting. Often these are the same people that blame McDonald's and the Play Station for their kids being fat.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


JBlitzen
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 372
Location: Rochester, NY

21 Dec 2012, 12:56 am

If guns lead to violent behavior, then the president should disarm his secret service detail immediately.



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,835
Location: Valproate Street and Thorazine Lane

21 Dec 2012, 2:04 am

You also need to stop glorifying, demonizing and personifying firearms:

Glorifying: [and personifying]: an honorable identity of those who protect you (it's just an object they use); something that's attributed to masculinity; something that makes you cool, a "badass"; something that makes you "strong"; something that'll give you the ability and/or mind-state to fight and survive (it's often your actual mind-state that determines whether you fight and/or survive, no matter what object you have with you) -- I've seen these things far too much amongst those interested in shooting and those who portray it to the masses

Demonizing [and personifying]: an evil identity of those who want to kill you (again, just an object they use); giving it "life", making it change a person's mind-state for the simple reason of it existing with them (objects won't change how you think); making it something to blame, when it's irrational to blame an object (you can look at how people use the object and note this, of course, but you should look at everything involved in the crime itself to an equal amount to discern the real reason, which is never the object itself); something that makes you "weak" -- I see this far too much in the media and from people who should think about these things before letting emotions talk for them (even if you don't like something for the simple reason of not liking it and saying others don't need it because you don't think you do, that's an emotion)

I suppose most of these things come under "free speech" though as they don't directly harm anyone, and the US has an amendment for these things (just like with firearms -- the irony there is awesome, i.e., the former can start to encroach upon the second if enough people get into a frenzy due to free speech and also how firearms don't harm others directly in the same way). Free speech being equally as important as anything else, of course.

Good luck with it all anyway, and Obama said it: no law or set of laws will change anything.