FWIW, copying this to a new thread after the fact kinda screwed up the quoting that was in my first lengthy response, which made it clear which of your statements I was referring to, but whatever...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanningZ
A.) All those places have exceptionally high crime rates especially D.C. They are not enacting gun laws because liberals hate guns. People have a knee jerk reaction to violent crime. They need something to scapegoat (Marilyn Manson, video games, gang culture, etc.) People call their congress person because they want something done about it. They call their friends and because its on the back of lets say a dead child, it makes it hard to argue against. Generally gun laws aren't being enacted because people hate guns, its because they hate dead kids.
|
Yes, everyone hates dead kids. However, these knee-jerk reaction gun laws don't help the situation, they hurt it. Time and again, it has been shown that increased gun laws = increased crime, including gun crime. It's hard to do any kind of rational, factual evaluation of the available academic literature on the subject and not come to that conclusion.
If the politicians in those areas had *any* real interest in preventing gun crime, at some point during the years they would have read the available academic literature and realized that their own attempts at gun control were helping to feed the skyrocketing crime rates, and they would have repealed them.
They use crime scares as a crutch for banning guns. The high end liberal politicians actually do have an active goal of trying to remove every gun from the face of the planet, as ridiculous and impossible as that sounds. Here's a direct quote from Dianne Feinstein, (D) CA, author of the original Assault Weapons Ban, when she appeared on CBS: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." In context here, she's referring to every gun in the country. Only politics prevents her from reaching her goal.
It is not "hard to argue" against gun laws being knee-jerk enacted in reaction to some stupid gun death news story being pumped. All it takes is a few facts.
Here's the facts on accidental gun deaths (in all age ranges, compared to other sources of accidental death):
GunCite-Gun Accidents Looks like child<->gun accidents are actually a bit overblown by the media.
Homicide rates:
GunCite: Gun Control - Gun Homicides
School Gun Violence:
Schools and Gun Violence
I can keep posting these links, or you can go to guncite and read the available literature for yourself before you come back to this thread, choice is yours.
Quote:
|
B.) Why do you think I am against people that carry concealed gun permits?
|
Because of your statements in your first response. I'll quote you *again*, from the first response:
Quote:
|
Making comments like that give people from other countries the opinion that we are ALL gun toting rednecks. Most U.S. gun owners are responsible people who aren't running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals.
|
The position you are clearly espousing here that people who carry (as opposed to "regular" gun owners who just keep it locked up at home) are irresponsible "gun-toting rednecks" who run around afraid of the government and crazy criminals.
Quote:
C.) Wow I never thought of rednecks necessarily as "poor" but thanks for defining the term you refer to as offensive. Also you think that redneck is equivalent to the N word.
You are welcome to your opinion but I think there are many that would disagree and I am one of them.
Lets see: Comedy central constantly airs "The redneck comedy tour". In fact the guys in it proudly say they are rednecks and named the tour. My big fat redneck wedding is another example. There is no N-word comedy tour that I am aware of, neither is there a "My big fat N-word wedding". The African American community(for the most part) has embraced the N-word in order to change its meaning and slowly disassemble its negative connotation within their community. They are allowed to use the word.
I'm not rollin' in the cash, and I'm one of the palest people I know, but I am not able to use the term redneck? What if I want to turn it into a positive like Ron White or Jeff Foxworthy? I don’t see a lot of picketers outside of their shows being reported on.
|
Well, you have to take into account that race doesn't exist on the internet (nobody knows what your skin looks like, dude), and you also have to remember that even moreso than the black equivalent, "redneck" is a class slur as much as it is a racial one. White people do get offended at being called a redneck by other white people who are richer than them.
Of course, because it's against whites instead of a real "minority" (I put that in quotes because whites in some areas (where they are actively called rednecks and crackers), are the minority), it doesn't get the attention of other slurs, or the sensitivity from bleeding heart equality types. A slur is a slur. If you'd like to read up on the history of "Redneck" and what it means: you can find it here:
Redneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It's an offensive, racist, classist term, and you were using it to demean people who carry.
Quote:
|
I never implied that carrying a gun is irresponsible.
|
You did. I quoted it earlier...
Quote:
|
It was your response to Nogood that I disagreed with. I am an advocate for concealed gun permits and have never said I wasn't, yet some how you conjured that out of my statement earlier.
|
Alright, if you insist, one more time, I'll re-quote you, this time with more context
Quote:
Please don't lump Oregon in to the places you claim are so different then Canada. Canadians are not a different species from a strange planet. Have you been there? I have many times both, East coast, West coast, and in the middle. Also lots of people in Canada own guns. I support the NRA and the right to bear arms but out of control, rampant violence does not exist in my state or for that matter any state (at least that I'm aware of).
Making comments like that give people from other countries the opinion that we are ALL gun toting rednecks. Most U.S. gun owners are responsible people who aren't running around afraid of the government and crazy criminals.
The violence in our country is in no way to a point, nor has it been, where we all need guns to fight off the hordes of criminals.
|
Quote:
|
Can you elaborate on how I reinforced negative stereotypes of Americans with the comment that said it is a common opinion of people living outside the U.S.A.? I don't like the mentality of out of sight out of mind(i.e.: if I don't listen to it, it doesn't happen).
|
First off, domestic policy should not be determined by an exterior popularity contest. If France thinks we're losers for doing the right thing, who gives a crap? You are participating in a debate on domestic US gun policy, and you're citing external popularity as reason to (putting your arguments in the best possible light) suppress saying the truth about the situation just because it "looks bad". I really don't think we want to drag this debate all the way to geopolitics, although it could be taken there by bringing in the UN Small Arms Treaty.
Basically, I don't accept "I don't want to scare the foreigners" as an acceptable basis for any argument. If that somehow changes what you would say, you're a coward. If it doesn't, then just speak your mind without using the shield of "I just said it because of the foreigners".
Quote:
|
Statistical analysis is constantly being revisited, because as months, years and decades move on, these studies become irrelevant because society changes. That's why studies are constantly being performed, and every once in a while they will release a study in the media and people go, "Didn't they already show that in a study a couple of years ago?" One year statistics say eggs are bad, the next year they "find" that eggs are good for you, (other examples include: coffee, wine, etc.) most likely these are due to inside interest contaminating the study.
|
Ah yes, the classic retreat in the face of overwhelming statistics: "Statistics suck anyways". What do you suggest then? We roll the bones? Ask a Ouija board? Consult the Oracle at Delphi? This is how we do things in the modern world: we conduct science and analyze statistics. It's the best we've got to go on, and while individual studies can be flawed, the aggregate of scientific knowledge tends to work out pretty well.
Quote:
|
When you live in a nation of over 300 million citizens, violence occurs. Ever seen a cage full of rats? Higher populations in cities means more violence. The Cities like D.C. that have stricter gun laws, are attempting to prevent a naturally occurring tide.
|
Enacting stricter gun laws only serves to accelerate the rising crime rate. The facts have been out there for years. Either every politician in those areas are morons, or they're being disingenuous about their motives.
Quote:
|
I support responsible gun ownership. I think responsible gun owners should treat the second amendment like a privilege not a right.
|
Hang on right there. The Second Ammendment is in fact a Right. That's why it's part of a document called the Bill of Rights. In this country, you have (among others) a right to free speech, a right to legal representation, a right to keep your mouth shut on the witness stand (against yourself), and a right to keep and bear arms. It is not a privilege. It is a right. This is not debatable, it's pretty straightforward.
Quote:
|
Rights can be abused, so can privileges but the problem with rights is they tend to be more abused than privileges. People that are given something that they earn are generally more appreciative of the gift, than people that are handed that gift. Drivers licenses are a privilege, and because its a privilege people are more likely to be responsible because that privilege can be taken away. Don't get me wrong there are plenty of crummy drivers out there but generally people that are in charge of dangerous things are required to have training and pass some form of requirement in order to operate that piece of equipment.
|
I don't know what kind of fascist utopia you're shooting for with that line of reasoning... repeal the bill of rights? I don't think you've thought this argument through...
Quote:
All in All that's okay though. I agree to disagree. I try to find a happy medium between being a responsible gun owner and my second amendment right to own a gun. The problem is I think far too few try to do the same thing. When you lump 90% of the country into one group I disagree with that, especially when people from other countries may be viewing you as a a representative for our country. I don't wish to attack you and I think you get that impression. I enjoy argumentative discourse and I prefer to to remain civil.
Cheers! 
|
I lumped 90% by landmass (but far less by population) into the group of areas that don't have excessively strict gun laws. NYC, Chicago, DC, and California have unreasonably strict gun laws. Oregon, Texas, and everywhere else generally don't. It's a fair way to split the country when discussing this issue. I'm sorry if it offends some friend of yours in Spain or whatever that you live in a State that allows guns to be owned and carried, but that's no reason not to discuss facts as they are.