gun-fellator news: Missouri Bill Would Require All First Graders To Take Gun ed.

[boutons_deux]

Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require all first graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grant provided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first grade classroom.

Sen. Dan Brown, R-Rolla, told the Senate General Laws Committee Tuesday that his bill was an effort to teach young children what to do if they come across an unsecured weapon.[...]


“I hate mandates as much as anyone, :lol :lol ,but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate,” Brown said.


Senators watched a brief segment of the training video during the hearing. The segment featured a cartoon eagle telling children to step away from an unsecured gun and immediately report it to an adult.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/30/1513771/missouri-first-grader-guns/

gun safety? 6 or so gun-fellators accidentally SHOT at GUN SHOWS! :lol

When the answer to "who will think about the kids?" is the NRA, America is so fucked.

[Wild Cobra]

Another brilliant Think Progress link, brought to you by our forum hatemonger... ShazBot!

[coyotes_geek]

Before I pretend to be outraged over yet another proposed bill that has zero shot at actually becoming law, we're sure this time that this is actually a current story, right?

[Wild Cobra]

Before I pretend to be outraged over yet another proposed bill that has zero shot at actually becoming law, we're sure this time that this is actually a current story, right?
LOL...

I didn't look.

Maybe another 2011 story?

[boutons_deux]

whether they become law or not isn't the point. Just proposing insane shit and dog-whistling to bubbas ("all y'all paranoid locked-and-loaded bubbas ought to be even more pissed off that my insane shit got voted down") is indisputable proof how low, and venal, these Repug mofos will go,

[redzero]

Man, this is worse than that bill that would legalize killing doctors who perform abortions!

[Oh, Gee!!]

next republican bill will give 1st graders who have passed "gun safety 101" immunity from prosecution for killing abortion doctors

[coyotes_geek]

whether they become law or not isn't the point. Just proposing insane shit and dog-whistling to bubbas ("all y'all paranoid locked-and-loaded bubbas ought to be even more pissed off that my insane shit got voted down") is indisputable proof how low, and venal, these Repug mofos will go,

Whether or not it becomes law isn't the point to intellectually limited robots like yourself who just want pretend that every wingnut on the opposite political team is a perfect representation of everyone who disagrees with your team politically. To people who are actually capable of employing some critical thought, whether or not something becomes law is the entire point. If you're truly interested in whether or not an entire group of people supports something so that you can judge them, then you really do need to wait until that idea has progressed beyond the stage where only one person needs to be involved. It only takes one idiot to introduce a bill. It takes a bunch of idiots to make that bill into a law.

[boutons_deux]

"every wingnut"

not talking about obese, pot-bellied, weird facial hair bubbas down at the shooting range

these aren't "every wingnut", these are elected STATE and FEDERAL representatives, and major "Christian" hate groups, spewing this shit, just like Akin "rape caucus". 1000s or 100Ks "patriots" elect these wing-nuts REPEATEDLY and they get funds from Kock Bros, Repug PACs, etc, etc.

you'd like to marginalize, ignore the very politicians as atypical fringe wingnuts who in fact represent the white, male, low-pay bubba, red-state, Confederate Repug base and DOMINATE the Repug party at state and federal level :lol

[coyotes_geek]

"every wingnut"

not talking about obese, pot-bellied, weird facial hair bubbas down at the shooting range

these aren't "every wingnut", these are elected STATE and FEDERAL representatives, and major "Christian" hate groups, spewing this shit, just like Akin "rape caucus". 1000s or 100Ks "patriots" elect these wing-nuts REPEATEDLY and they get funds from Kock Bros, Repug PACs, etc, etc.

you'd like to marginalize, ignore the very politicians as atypical fringe wingnuts who in fact represent the white, male, low-pay bubba, red-state, Confederate Repug base and DOMINATE the Repug party at state and federal level :lol








Whether or not it becomes law isn't the point to intellectually limited robots like yourself who just want pretend that every wingnut on the opposite political team is a perfect representation of everyone who disagrees with your team politically. To people who are actually capable of employing some critical thought, whether or not something becomes law is the entire point. If you're truly interested in whether or not an entire group of people supports something so that you can judge them, then you really do need to wait until that idea has progressed beyond the stage where only one person needs to be involved. It only takes one idiot to introduce a bill. It takes a bunch of idiots to make that bill into a law.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

[TeyshaBlue]

RSS can't contextualize. thinkprogess doesn't even have that word in it's dictionary.

Vitamin I...so very delicious.

Originally Posted by boutons_deux
...you're not curious about anything outside of your close-minded, benighted blind ideology.

[TeyshaBlue]

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

CG :lol
GFY
:lmao

[spursncowboys]

that his bill was an effort to teach young children what to do if they come across an unsecured weapon.[...]
seems like a common sense idea...

Do you have a problem with the State wanting to use tax dollars to teach kids what to do if they come across an unsecured weapon?
Do you just not want them to use the word "weapon" anymore?

[Winehole23]

why should the state pay for gun safety? isn't that the parent's role?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Isn't the GOP the party against talking about birth control because it may lead teens to beleive that it is ok to have sex?

[Winehole23]

putting the NRA brand in every first grade classroom, essentially as an agent of the state in the area of education. how clever and cunning.

[Winehole23]

if American parenthood doesn't feel up to it, why not let public schools take over gun safety?

[boutons_deux]

gun education in school? hell yes!

sex education in school? hell no!

Fucking Americans. pornographic gun blood and gun gore and wars everywhere, but a lady's nipple on TeeVee, HORRORS! :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

lol coward

[Drachen]

Gun fellating sounds like a horrible pastime. It would create a bigger mess at the end than a bukkake flick.

[DarrinS]

boutons enjoys thinkprogress fellating

[spursncowboys]

why should the state pay for gun safety? isn't that the parent's role?

Me?
Yeah great point...Why should the state pay for it.

[spursncowboys]

Why do you care what another state, you'll probably never, visit does?

[mavs>spurs]

OP's obsession with phallic shaped inanimate objects is a testimony to his own penis issues more than anything imho.

[Drachen]

OP's obsession with phallic shaped inanimate objects is a testimony to his own penis issues more than anything imho.
TeyshaBlue What is the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Vitamin I?

I am afraid we may be passing it.

[mavs>spurs]

^lol you need to call back up to call me out? you're a bitch

[boutons_deux]

OP's obsession with phallic shaped inanimate objects is a testimony to his own penis issues more than anything imho.

Bushmaster ad for ar-15 talks about buying one to get you Mancard, your Manhood card. :lol

AR-15 = Man with BIG STEEL HARD DICK (but with huge penis issues) :lol

The whole gun ethic is MAN HOOD.

[mavs>spurs]

Do you really want to be known as that gay dick guy? I don't expect a serious response but I'm curious, are you married and do you have a job? How old are you?

[Winehole23]

Why do you care what another state, you'll probably never, visit does?Still, why should the state pay? regardless of what I think, why should it pay?

[Wild Cobra]

why should the state pay for gun safety? isn't that the parent's role?
Yes, along with sex education, and other agendas people push through the schools.

[Winehole23]

Do you really want to be known as that gay dick guy? I don't expect a serious response but I'm curious, are you married and do you have a job? How old are you?Why do you ask? Do you want to know if b_d's of the legal age of consent, available for dating and capable of maintaining you in the lifestyle to which you've become accustomed?

[Winehole23]

oops

[boutons_deux]

Do you really want to be known as that gay dick guy? I don't expect a serious response but I'm curious, are you married and do you have a job? How old are you?

:lol

Obviously, The Great Boutons has roused the gun-fellating rabble. :lol

Since we are asking personal questions, long long and wide is your dick? Does it ever get hard? Is you run barrel longer, wider, and harder? :lol

I got a gun. ahm uh mayun! ahm uh patriyut! ahm uh Amuricun!

[spursncowboys]

Still, why should the state pay? regardless of what I think, why should it pay?

That was meant for B_D. I have no clue except maybe because the State reps think it creates an investment that they think will benefit the entire population.

[Winehole23]

maybe because the State reps think it creates an investment that they think will benefit the entire populationisn't that the rationale for all public spending, that it serves the common good?

[Winehole23]

how is the common good served by showing every first grader how to operate firearms, for example?

[spursncowboys]

isn't that the rationale for all public spending, that it serves the common good?
That was my point.

[spursncowboys]

how is the common good served by showing every first grader how to operate firearms, for example?

It makes their constituents happy. I really don't know and wouldn't want my taxes going towards it. Just like I wouldn't want a sex class given to 1st graders.

[DMC]

Last year only about 6% of the bills introduced were actually passed. Congress spends a shit load of our time and money just running their fucking mouths and having expensive luncheons and parties, and being treated like royalty.

[Wild Cobra]

how is the common good served by showing every first grader how to operate firearms, for example?
I understood it to be different than that.

Where does anything say that? I thought the idea was to teach them what to do/not to do if they found one.

[Wild Cobra]

wIEBrb_wRYc

[Wild Cobra]

I can't believe all this discussion from people who don't even source the facts.

Link: SB 75 (http://www.senate.mo.gov/13info/pdf-bill/intro/SB75.pdf)

A smart person reads such things before following what their Think Progress masters tell them what to believe.

[Winehole23]

I understood it to be different than that.

Where does anything say that? I thought the idea was to teach them what to do/not to do if they found one.that was the rationale. it'd be pretty hard to teach gun safety without disclosing how guns work,

[Wild Cobra]

that was the rationale. it'd be pretty hard to teach gun safety without disclosing how guns work,
Did you watch the YouTube I linked? Did you read the bill?

When you do, ask your questions again.

[Winehole23]

neither are linked in this thread. did you link them somewhere else?

[Winehole23]

also, why can't you use your own fucking words?

if you linked them elsewhere, tell us what they said and how that relates to this thread. if you can't, you're basically oblivious to your own previous posts.

[Wild Cobra]

neither are linked in this thread. did you link them somewhere else?
Post 41 is the Youtube. Post 42 has an embedded link, right after the word "link:"

[Wild Cobra]

Part of the Bill Text:

171.410

1. Each school district and charter school shall annually teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program to first grade students. School districts and charter schools may also teach any substantially similar program of the same qualifications or any successor program in lieu of the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program.

2. The purpose of the educational program shall be to promote the safety and protection of children. The educational program shall emphasize how students should respond if they encounter a firearm. School personnel and program instructors shall not make value judgments about firearms.

3. No school district or charter school shall include or use a firearm or demonstrate the use of a firearm when teaching the program.

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe I should have copied the text of the whole bill. It's only 2 pages. The bulk of it, section 170.315, is about the schools and teachers. Not the students.

[boutons_deux]

Part of the Bill Text:

171.410

1. Each school district and charter school shall annually teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program to first grade students. School districts and charter schools may also teach any substantially similar program of the same qualifications or any successor program in lieu of the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program.

2. The purpose of the educational program shall be to promote the safety and protection of children. The educational program shall emphasize how students should respond if they encounter a firearm. School personnel and program instructors shall not make value judgments about firearms.

3. No school district or charter school shall include or use a firearm or demonstrate the use of a firearm when teaching the program.

Once that "gun instruction in school" door is opened, we know, like the "Christians" teach the Bible in public schools, that gun-nut administrators and teachers will bring guns into school to let the kids touch them, to become familiar with, to stimulate their curiosity about them. Has fuck all to do with kids' safety, like no-gun-regulations has fuck all to do with the 2nd Amendment :lol .

It's all about recruiting kids to the gun (buying) culture, just like criminal cigarette companies recruit kids to smoking as young as possible.

[Winehole23]

Post 41 is the Youtube. Post 42 has an embedded link, right after the word "link:"missed thembed, thanks. youtubes my eye skips over.

[Winehole23]

you make a good point about MO bill, WC. it's a rather limited form of gun safety that's been proposed. still, one wonders why schools should teach gun safety to children and what benefit to the public justifies the expense.

[Wild Cobra]

you make a good point about MO bill, WC. it's a rather limited form of gun safety that's been proposed. still, one wonders why schools should teach gun safety to children and what benefit to the public justifies the expense.
It's like any other agenda. Personally, I wish the schools would stick to reading, writing, spelling, etc. No agenda driven training that may rub some parents the wrong way. It is the parents responsibility to teach personal agendas.

[Useruser666]

you make a good point about MO bill, WC. it's a rather limited form of gun safety that's been proposed. still, one wonders why schools should teach gun safety to children and what benefit to the public justifies the expense.

I think you missed the following from the article:

Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require all first graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grant provided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first grade classroom.

It would seem the NRA would pay for the program. Now it doesn't give exact details if this is 100% funded or not. I think it should be up to the school districts to decide if they would participate or not. That would give local communities more of a say as to if this class/course is needed or not.

I am not sure of the need for a law mandating such a course, or that it couldn't be included into a general safety course that could cover many different topics like stragners, drugs, and abuse.

[Drachen]

I think you missed the following from the article:

Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require all first graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grant provided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first grade classroom.

It would seem the NRA would pay for the program. Now it doesn't give exact details if this is 100% funded or not. I think it should be up to the school districts to decide if they would participate or not. That would give local communities more of a say as to if this class/course is needed or not.

I am not sure of the need for a law mandating such a course, or that it couldn't be included into a general safety course that could cover many different topics like stragners, drugs, and abuse.

I didn't want to make this comment as a snarky sarcastic comment, but it works soooooo much better as one, so here it goes.

Great, now I can't wait for my McDonalds Sponsored Health and Nutrition class!

[DMC]

What, did someone here think they were going to the firing range and running off a few magazines of wad cutters?

[TDMVPDPOY]

who benefits the most of out this? NRA and gun manufactures ....you clowns should go buy some shares....

dunno how a minority group is making the majority bend over, at least the 1% makes sense over the population, but the NRA; :(

[Winehole23]

What, did someone here think they were going to the firing range and running off a few magazines of wad cutters?nope.

[Winehole23]

It's like any other agenda. Personally, I wish the schools would stick to reading, writing, spelling, etc. No agenda driven training that may rub some parents the wrong way. It is the parents responsibility to teach personal agendas.agreed 100%

[Winehole23]

I didn't want to make this comment as a snarky sarcastic comment, but it works soooooo much better as one, so here it goes.

Great, now I can't wait for my McDonalds Sponsored Health and Nutrition class!I can't wait either. It's gonna be great.

[Capt Bringdown]

Teaching firearm safety to children: failure of a program (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11943968)
The present study investigated the effectiveness of a skills-based firearm safety program on reducing children's play with firearms. In a randomized control study, 34 children aged 4 to 7 years participated in a week-long firearm safety program; the Control Group was composed of 36 children. After the program, pairs of children were observed playing in a structured setting in which they had access to a semiautomatic pistol. A total of 53% of the pairs played with the gun, and there was no difference in gun-play behavior between those children who did and did not receive the intervention.


In lab test, boys find hidden gun and pull trigger (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-06-04-boys-guns.htm)
In a disturbing laboratory experiment in which a gun was hidden in a drawer, many boys found the weapon, played with it and even pulled the trigger without knowing whether it was loaded.

"They did everything from point it at each other to look down the barrel themselves," said Dr. Geoffrey Jackman, who led the study. "The scariest thing is when the children picked up that gun and looked straight down the barrel."

More than 90% of the boys who handled the gun or pulled the trigger reported having received some sort of gun safety instruction, ranging from an informal talk with their parents to formal instruction from a teacher or a police officer at school, Jackman and colleagues said in the June issue of the journal Pediatrics.

[spursncowboys]

thanks for the link

[RandomGuy]

Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require all first graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grant provided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first grade classroom.

Sen. Dan Brown, R-Rolla, told the Senate General Laws Committee Tuesday that his bill was an effort to teach young children what to do if they come across an unsecured weapon.[...]


“I hate mandates as much as anyone, :lol :lol ,but some concerns and conditions rise to the level of needing a mandate,” Brown said.


Senators watched a brief segment of the training video during the hearing. The segment featured a cartoon eagle telling children to step away from an unsecured gun and immediately report it to an adult.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/30/1513771/missouri-first-grader-guns/

gun safety? 6 or so gun-fellators accidentally SHOT at GUN SHOWS! :lol

When the answer to "who will think about the kids?" is the NRA, America is so fucked.

Growing up in wyoming all 7th graders were required to take hunters safety courses.

given the number of kids that are accidentally killed by guns every year, this would seem to be a prudent thing to do, IMO.

[boutons_deux]

Growing up in wyoming all 7th graders were required to take hunters safety courses.

given the number of kids that are accidentally killed by guns every year, this would seem to be a prudent thing to do, IMO.

6 ADULTS accidentally, supposedly safety trained and experienced, shot in recent gun shows! :lol I'm sure 6-year-old first graders would benefit from gun safety training. :lol

[RandomGuy]

6 ADULTS accidentally, supposedly safety trained and experienced, shot in recent gun shows! :lol I'm sure 6-year-old first graders would benefit from gun safety training. :lol

This is one case where my standard of evidence would be rather low.

If the benefit is "children not shot to death", I am prepared to accept even a very marginal benefit of 1 prevented death for every 100,000 children.

Such a margin of prevention would easily be missed by all but the most widely-scoped rigorous studies.

Cost to benefit.

I would however, also repeal the 2nd amendment if I could. Owning a gun should require at least a license on par with operating a motor vehicle, and is very arguably NOT a right on par with freedom of speech.

The 2nd amendment long ago outlived its usefullness, and now serves little more than to give shield to gun fetishists, crazies, gun manufacturers, and criminals.

If we took all the time/effort/money we spent on firearms and spent it particpating in goverment, and educating ourselves about issues, we would more surely prevent tyrants than any billion firearms.

[TeyshaBlue]

This is one case where my standard of evidence would be rather low.

If the benefit is "children not shot to death", I am prepared to accept even a very marginal benefit of 1 prevented death for every 100,000 children.

Such a margin of prevention would easily be missed by all but the most widely-scoped rigorous studies.

Cost to benefit.

I would however, also repeal the 2nd amendment if I could. Owning a gun should require at least a license on par with operating a motor vehicle, and is very arguably NOT a right on par with freedom of speech.

The 2nd amendment long ago outlived its usefullness, and now serves little more than to give shield to gun fetishists, crazies, gun manufacturers, and criminals.

If we took all the time/effort/money we spent on firearms and spent it particpating in goverment, and educating ourselves about issues, we would more surely prevent tyrants than any billion firearms.

The first amendment gives shield to nutbars like Westboro and the Aryan Brotherhood. Perhaps we should eliminate the 1st amendment as well? (Since it was on the plate right next to the second amendment, I would assume that 1 & 2 were equally important at least during inception.) Or perhaps we accept these 1st amendment lunatics as an artifact of liberty, since that's exactly what they are.


And no, education is not the panacea we wish it to be. Often, it's nothing more than a feel good placebo when dealing with important issues. I'm very tired of the "If only we could educate people!" argument.

[TeyshaBlue]

"And no, education is not the panacea we wish it to be. Often, it's nothing more than a feel good placebo when dealing with important issues. I'm very tired of the "If only we could educate people!" argument. "

Raise your hand if you've never considered drinking and driving to be a poor choice.

[boutons_deux]

"I would assume that 1 & 2 were equally important at least during inception"

and now? are the equally important?

The 1st is important the Corporate-Americans because they can, in secret from the public, buy politicians at all levels.

The 2nd is important to specific death-peddling Corporate-Americans for the same reason.

[Useruser666]

I didn't want to make this comment as a snarky sarcastic comment, but it works soooooo much better as one, so here it goes.

Great, now I can't wait for my McDonalds Sponsored Health and Nutrition class!

I believe I was addressing your point of who was funding it, as in, not the tax payers. As I stated:

I think it should be up to the school districts to decide if they would participate or not. That would give local communities more of a say as to if this class/course is needed or not.

If McDonalds would fund a health and nutrition class that was approved by the school district as a reasonable or responsible program, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I did, I could go to the school district and voice my concerns. That to me is good local representation.

Again, I don't think the course is necessary or something that couldn't be covered by general "DANGERS!" curriculum. That point is probably moot, as one would think it has little chance of becoming law.

[Wild Cobra]

As I stated:

I think it should be up to the school districts to decide if they would participate or not. That would give local communities more of a say as to if this class/course is needed or not.

Agreed.

Community first. The community should be responsible for all issues they can handle. As issues arise that cannot be dealt with in the community, only then should the next step up the ladder take action.

[RandomGuy]

The first amendment gives shield to nutbars like Westboro and the Aryan Brotherhood. Perhaps we should eliminate the 1st amendment as well? (Since it was on the plate right next to the second amendment, I would assume that 1 & 2 were equally important at least during inception.) Or perhaps we accept these 1st amendment lunatics as an artifact of liberty, since that's exactly what they are.


And no, education is not the panacea we wish it to be. Often, it's nothing more than a feel good placebo when dealing with important issues. I'm very tired of the "If only we could educate people!" argument.

No one has ever gone into a school and speeched 22 children to death.

First and second amendments are not equal.

I am willing to shield Westburo's nutbars as a cost of the first amendment.

I am not willing to offer up children on the altar of the 2nd amendment.

How many dead children are you willing to allow to keep the 2nd amendment? If you can't, or won't, answer that, we can't really have an honest discussion.

Give me an acceptable yearly casualty count of dead kids, and we can proceed.

[RandomGuy]

"And no, education is not the panacea we wish it to be. Often, it's nothing more than a feel good placebo when dealing with important issues. I'm very tired of the "If only we could educate people!" argument. "

Raise your hand if you've never considered drinking and driving to be a poor choice.

Just because doing something might not be 100% proven or cost effective, doesn't mean we should do nothing at all.

Fail.

[TeyshaBlue]

No one has ever gone into a school and speeched 22 children to death.

First and second amendments are not equal.

I am willing to shield Westburo's nutbars as a cost of the first amendment.

I am not willing to offer up children on the altar of the 2nd amendment.

How many dead children are you willing to allow to keep the 2nd amendment? If you can't, or won't, answer that, we can't really have an honest discussion.

Give me an acceptable yearly casualty count of dead kids, and we can proceed.

Not even attempting to equate the two. Odd you would take that route. What I was trying to establish is that unintended consequences are an artifact of liberty. You either accept that or not.
No, nobody has speeched 22 children to death (dafuck?). But the ability to speak freely (hello hate groups and various flame fanners) has claimed it's share of victims. It's not a stretch.

[TeyshaBlue]

Just because doing something might not be 100% proven or cost effective, doesn't mean we should do nothing at all.

Fail.

Did I say we shouldn't do it?

Fuck dude. I simply said it's not the panacea we wish it to be.

[TeyshaBlue]

How many dead children are you willing to allow to keep the 2nd amendment? If you can't, or won't, answer that, we can't really have an honest discussion.


Fucking begging the question rarely results in an honest discussion. Want to have one? leave that bullshit at home.

[Capt Bringdown]

A Hospital Offers a Grisly Lesson on Gun Violence (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/07philly.html)

PHILADELPHIA — In a darkened classroom, 15 eighth graders gasped as a photograph appeared on the screen in front of them. It showed a dead man whose jaw had been destroyed by a shotgun blast, leaving the lower half of his face a shapeless, bloody mess.

Next came a picture of the bullet-perforated legs of someone who had been shot with an AK-47 assault rifle, and then one of the bloated abdomen of a gunshot victim with internal injuries so grievous that the patient had to be fitted with a colostomy bag to replace intestines that can no longer function normally.

The unusual program, called Cradle to Grave, brings in youths from across Philadelphia in the hope that an unflinching look at the effects that guns have in their community will deter young people from reaching for a gun to settle personal scores, and will help them recognize that gun violence is not the glamorous business sometimes depicted in television shows and rap music.

The hospital program also includes listening to tapes of victims’ families.

- more ->> (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/us/07philly.html)

[TSA]

It's good to show kids these things, especially in Philly. You post this like its some revolutionary new shit. They should also been shown real life videos of crack heads, alcoholics, hookers, welfare recipients, and car accidents. I'm all about teaching with shock and fear. These kids in Philly are most likely the ones who need to learn about the dangers of guns, considering the guns they'll get their hands on will most likely be purchased illegally.

[boutons_deux]

"guns they'll get their hands on will most likely be purchased illegally."

from "legal" gun dealers who repeatedly sell to straw buyers and bogus background checks, and who repeatedly are shielded from prosecution.

[RandomGuy]

Fucking begging the question rarely results in an honest discussion. Want to have one? leave that bullshit at home.

If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

The question was meant to be somewhat hyperbolic, but based on these two assumptions.

Do you, can you, dispute either of them?

If you cannot, then the question, however unpleasant, remains relevant to the discussion. It is rather central to the cost-benefit analysis.

[RandomGuy]

Did I say we shouldn't do it?

Fuck dude. I simply said it's not the panacea we wish it to be.

Panacea? No. We would agree on that much.

As for whether we should do it or not, what do you think?

[RandomGuy]

Not even attempting to equate the two. Odd you would take that route. What I was trying to establish is that unintended consequences are an artifact of liberty. You either accept that or not.
No, nobody has speeched 22 children to death (dafuck?). But the ability to speak freely (hello hate groups and various flame fanners) has claimed it's share of victims. It's not a stretch.

I would, for the most part, agree.

Would you say that the first and second amendment are equally important? Why or why not?

I would say no, simply because guns do not in any way guarantee liberty. If one wants to claim that, then you have to tell me why that is more effective than simply being enganged and informed in our democrative political process. Guns = lazy and ignorant way of guaranteeing liberty.

I do acknowledge that free speech can be used for evil purposes, like any tool, as you point out. Even so, the ONLY real use of the gun-tool is to kill people. Free speech is not quite as limited, and used for far more noble purposes.

[spursncowboys]

If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

The question was meant to be somewhat hyperbolic, but based on these two assumptions.

Do you, can you, dispute either of them?

If you cannot, then the question, however unpleasant, remains relevant to the discussion. It is rather central to the cost-benefit analysis.
It cannot be disputed because there are no truths to it. No facts. Pure assumptions.

post hoc fallacy

[boutons_deux]

TX asshole spewing lies

GOP Senator Peddles Debunked Misinformation On Gun Violence (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/12/1575571/gop-senator-peddles-debunked-misinformation-on-gun-violence/)


CRUZ: San Antonio has 7 murders per 100,000 people. Austin has four murders per 100,00 people. El Paso has two murders per 100,000 people. That means Detroit, the murder rate is 24 times higher than it is in El Paso…None of those cities I discussed, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, are isolated islands. Indeed, in the entire state [of Texas] you can purchase firearms and what we see with the murder rates is that the murder rates are consistently lower. My question to you, is not your subjective beliefs, but are you aware of any empirical data — every one of us wants to reduce murder rates — my question to you is there any basis to say that stripping the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens would result in decreasing murder rates rather than increasing them which, unfortunately, is the pattern I think we’ve seen.

State level data contradicts Cruz’s assertion. The two states with the highest per capita murder rates in 2011, Louisiana and Mississippi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state), have F ratings (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws-matter-2012-understanding-the-link-between-weak-laws-and-gun-violence/) from the pro-reform Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the third highest, South Carolina, gets a D-). Louisiana (http://smartgunlaws.org/louisiana-state-law-summary/) and Mississippi (http://smartgunlaws.org/mississippi-state-law-summary/) don’t, among other things, require background checks on private sales, require firearm dealers to acquire licenses in order to sell guns legally, or limit the number of guns any one person can purchase at once.


Moreover, there are many factors that go into total homicide rates beyond simply gun laws, like lead saturation (http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/#statsfail) or gang violence (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/04/1536671/what-we-can-learn-from-minneapolis-progressive-approach-to-reducing-gun-violence/)) in addition to gun laws. Indeed, a recent crime spike (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0702/Chicago-passes-revised-gun-law-allowing-handgun-ownership) in Chicago (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/02/chicago-murder-rate-surges-as-new-york-s-drops-to-record-low.html) (one of Cruz’s examples of places with firearm regulation and high rates of death) was long predated by gun regulations, indicating that the cause of the recent increase in violence isn’t a change in gun laws one way or another.

So the question isn’t simply whether we can point to cities or states with lax gun regulation that have higher gun murder rates than those that don’t; it’s whether stricter regulations in any given city would reduce that particular city’s homicide rate relative to its current baseline. That’s something that’s best tested by empirical evidence that takes into account confounding factors.

And this systematic evidence, contra Cruz, strongly suggests that gun regulations save live and that there is no real evidence (http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/#moreguns) for Cruz’s suggestion that more guns lead to less crime. Three papers that studied homicides by county found that, when you control for factors like poverty, counties with more guns have more gun deaths (http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/#chicago). Another study found that, at the state level, stronger gun regulations are reasonably well correlated (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/) with fewer gun deaths. And research comparing the United States to other countries found that our greater access to guns that led to our higher murder rates (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/01/gun_violence_summit_at_johns_hopkins_researchers_p resent_data_and_analyses.single.html).


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/12/1575571/gop-senator-peddles-debunked-misinformation-on-gun-violence/

Cruz telling lies, and the bubbas suck it down as Divine Truth. :lol

[boutons_deux]

Guns in homes can increase risk of death and firearm-related violence (http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx)
Having a gun at home not only increases the risk of harm to one's self and family, but also carries high costs to society, concludes an article in the February Southern Medical Journal, official journal of the Southern Medical Association. The journal is published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a part of Wolters Kluwer Health, a leading provider of information and business intelligence for students, professionals, and institutions in medicine, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy.

"Firearm-related violence vastly increases expenditures for health care, services for the disabled, insurance, and our criminal justice system," writes Dr. Steven Lippmann of University of Louisville School of Medicine, and colleagues. "The bills are paid by taxpayers and those who buy insurance."

Guns at Home Increase Dangers, Not Safety

Based on a review of the available scientific data, Dr. Lippmann and co-authors conclude that the dangers of having a gun at home far outweigh the safety benefits. Research shows that access to guns greatly increases the risk of death and firearm-related violence. A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder.

The most common cause of deaths occurring at homes where guns are present, by far, is suicide. Many of these self-inflicted gunshot wounds appear to be impulsive acts by people without previous evidence of mental illness. Guns in the home are also associated with a fivefold increase in the rate of intimate partner homicide, as well as an increased risk of injuries and death to children.

Gun-related violence also has psychological and other consequences for survivors—especially children. Dr. Lippmann and colleagues point out that easy access to guns also enables tragic episodes like the mass killings at Virginia Tech University, in which a background check might have prevented the shooter from obtaining a weapon. Such "tragically recurrent" events are in addition to gun deaths related to criminal activities, gang violence, interpersonal disagreements, and other incidents.

Gun Violence Carries High Costs for Society

Dr. Lippmann and colleagues cite research showing the massive economic consequences of firearm violence. Medical care for gunshot victims in the United States is up to $4 billion per year. Including indirect costs such as disability and unemployment, the costs may total up to $100 billion. In the authors' city of Louisville, expenses for uninsured gun-injury victims alone exceed the money allotted for indigent medical care costs for the entire community.

"Taxpayers often bear a large percentage of these financial burdens," according to the authors. Other costs show up in the form of increased insurance premiums. Gun violence costs the U.S. criminal justice system approximately $2.4 billion per year—nearly equal to all other crimes put together.

Despite these high costs, "[F]irearms remain so much a part of our culture that gun-related violence and legal expenses are routinely accepted as a normal part of our life," Dr. Lippmann and colleagues write. "Politically, gun control remains unpopular, but raising awareness among doctors about the relationship between firearms, the rates of violence, and expenses involved may have an impact on their thinking."

In publishing the review, the editors of SMJ hope to promote a conversation within the medical profession about the health, economic, and social consequences of guns in the United States. In an editorial in the same issue, Editor-in-Chief Dr. Ronald C. Hamdy writes, "Our goal…is to provide solid, scientific evidence regarding these often controversial topics, in an attempt to avoid the personal and emotional quagmire which is so easily adopted in issues such as these." The SMJ website features a podcast in which Dr. Lippmann discusses his findings.





http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx

Insurance companies should require disclosure of gun ownership so they can raise their premiums to cover the statistically proven costs.

[TeyshaBlue]

TX asshole spewing lies

GOP Senator Peddles Debunked Misinformation On Gun Violence (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/12/1575571/gop-senator-peddles-debunked-misinformation-on-gun-violence/)


CRUZ: San Antonio has 7 murders per 100,000 people. Austin has four murders per 100,00 people. El Paso has two murders per 100,000 people. That means Detroit, the murder rate is 24 times higher than it is in El Paso…None of those cities I discussed, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, are isolated islands. Indeed, in the entire state [of Texas] you can purchase firearms and what we see with the murder rates is that the murder rates are consistently lower. My question to you, is not your subjective beliefs, but are you aware of any empirical data — every one of us wants to reduce murder rates — my question to you is there any basis to say that stripping the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens would result in decreasing murder rates rather than increasing them which, unfortunately, is the pattern I think we’ve seen.

State level data contradicts Cruz’s assertion. The two states with the highest per capita murder rates in 2011, Louisiana and Mississippi (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state), have F ratings (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-laws-matter-2012-understanding-the-link-between-weak-laws-and-gun-violence/) from the pro-reform Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (the third highest, South Carolina, gets a D-). Louisiana (http://smartgunlaws.org/louisiana-state-law-summary/) and Mississippi (http://smartgunlaws.org/mississippi-state-law-summary/) don’t, among other things, require background checks on private sales, require firearm dealers to acquire licenses in order to sell guns legally, or limit the number of guns any one person can purchase at once.


Moreover, there are many factors that go into total homicide rates beyond simply gun laws, like lead saturation (http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/#statsfail) or gang violence (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/04/1536671/what-we-can-learn-from-minneapolis-progressive-approach-to-reducing-gun-violence/)) in addition to gun laws. Indeed, a recent crime spike (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0702/Chicago-passes-revised-gun-law-allowing-handgun-ownership) in Chicago (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/02/chicago-murder-rate-surges-as-new-york-s-drops-to-record-low.html) (one of Cruz’s examples of places with firearm regulation and high rates of death) was long predated by gun regulations, indicating that the cause of the recent increase in violence isn’t a change in gun laws one way or another.

So the question isn’t simply whether we can point to cities or states with lax gun regulation that have higher gun murder rates than those that don’t; it’s whether stricter regulations in any given city would reduce that particular city’s homicide rate relative to its current baseline. That’s something that’s best tested by empirical evidence that takes into account confounding factors.

And this systematic evidence, contra Cruz, strongly suggests that gun regulations save live and that there is no real evidence (http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/#moreguns) for Cruz’s suggestion that more guns lead to less crime. Three papers that studied homicides by county found that, when you control for factors like poverty, counties with more guns have more gun deaths (http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/#chicago). Another study found that, at the state level, stronger gun regulations are reasonably well correlated (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/) with fewer gun deaths. And research comparing the United States to other countries found that our greater access to guns that led to our higher murder rates (http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/01/gun_violence_summit_at_johns_hopkins_researchers_p resent_data_and_analyses.single.html).


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/12/1575571/gop-senator-peddles-debunked-misinformation-on-gun-violence/

Cruz telling lies, and the bubbas suck it down as Divine Truth. :lol

lol fuck thinkprogress. The studies it links do not say what tp spins them to say. Read the fucking article, coward.


And this systematic evidence, contra Cruz, strongly suggests that gun regulations save live (sic)


As usual, I point out that correlation does not imply causation, but simply points to associations between variables.

lol thinkregress

[TeyshaBlue]

lol at the fucktarded leftbots that suck this pablum down.

[boutons_deux]

Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit


Author David Hemenway studied the various risks of having a gun in the home, including accidents, suicide, homicide, and intimidation. Additionally, the benefits of having a firearm in a household were also examined and those benefits included deterrence, and thwarting crimes (self-defense). From this in-depth look, it was concluded that homes with guns were not safer or deter more crime than those that do not. In fact, it was found that in homes with children or women, the health risks were even greater. "Whereas most men are murdered away from home," wrote Hemenway.

"Most children, older adults, and women are murdered at home. A gun in the home is a particularly strong risk factor for female homicide victimization." It's not just the increased risk by others in a home with a gun, but also an increased risk of suicide.

"Even though suicide attempts with guns are infrequent, more Americans kill themselves with guns than with all other methods combined," wrote Hemenway. "That is because among methods commonly used in suicide attempts, firearms are the most lethal."

After weighing the evidence on both sides, the review concluded that the risks greatly outweighed the benefits or perceived benefits.

"There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes, and it appears that a gun in the home may more likely be used to threaten intimates than to protect against intruders," wrote Hemenway.

"On the potential benefit side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in."

More information: ajl.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/01/1559827610396294.full.pdf+html


http://phys.org/news/2011-04-guns-home-greater-health-benefit.html

gun fellator TB :lol getting his bitch slapped, and HE REALLY DOESN'T LIKE IT! :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

lol moving the goal posts again. let's go back to the thinkregress article on Cruz since that was what I was refering to.

[TeyshaBlue]

gun fellator TB :lol getting his bitch slapped, and HE REALLY DOESN'T LIKE IT! :lol

Please. Come slap my bitch. See how that works out for you, coward.

[boutons_deux]

lol moving the goal posts again. let's go back to the thinkregress article on Cruz since that was what I was refering to.

ok I posted it, YOU go back to it and tell us all what's wrong about Cruz's pure rabble-rousing bullshit.

Repugs really know how to find non-white garbage: Gonzo, Clarence Thomas, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, etc.

[TeyshaBlue]

This ring a bell?

And this systematic evidence, contra Cruz, strongly suggests that gun regulations save live (sic)


As usual, I point out that correlation does not imply causation, but simply points to associations between variables.

[Wild Cobra]

If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

The question was meant to be somewhat hyperbolic, but based on these two assumptions.

Do you, can you, dispute either of them?

If you cannot, then the question, however unpleasant, remains relevant to the discussion. It is rather central to the cost-benefit analysis.
I thought you were against logical fallacies, and the likes.

[boutons_deux]

This ring a bell?

just chicken-shit "associated with" weasal words.

Listen up, you weasal, coward bitch: MORE GUNS = MORE GUN VIOLENCE, MORE GUN DEATHS

[TeyshaBlue]

:cry my studies didn't say what I wanted them to. :cry

Calm down, coward
:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Wtf is a weasal?:lmao:lmao

[Darkwaters]

if American parenthood doesn't feel up to it, why not let public schools take over gun safety?

That was the whole point of sex education, wasn't it?

[boutons_deux]

STUDY: Gun Homicides Increased 25 Percent After Missouri Background Check Law’s Repeal (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/13/1589161/study-gun-homicides-increased-25-percent-after-missouri-background-check-laws-repeal/)

Preliminary evidence suggests that the increase in the diversion of guns to criminals linked to the law’s repeal may have translated into increases in homicides committed with firearms.
From 1999 through 2007, Missouri’s age-adjusted homicide rate was relatively stable, fluctuating around a mean of 4.66 per 100,000 population per year.

In 2008, the first full year after the permit-to-purchase licensing law was repealed, the age-adjusted firearm homicide rate in Missouri increased sharply to 6.23 per 100,000 population, a 34 percent increase.

For the post-repeal period of 2008-2010, the mean annual age-adjusted firearm homicide rate was 5.82, 25 percent above the pre-repeal mean.

This increase was out of synch with changes during that period in age-adjusted homicide rates nationally which decreased ten percent and with changes in other states in the Midwest which declined by 5%.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/13/1589161/study-gun-homicides-increased-25-percent-after-missouri-background-check-laws-repeal/

:lol

[RandomGuy]

It cannot be disputed because there are no truths to it. No facts. Pure assumptions.

post hoc fallacy

It is only a post hoc fallacy if it is unproven that guns aren't involved in accidental gun deaths.

Props for trying to use and show good logic, but you failed rather badly in the execution.

I generally contend that most conservatives or people who call themselves conservative suck at constructing logical arguments, and constantly commit logical fallacies. Sorry but your post rather plainly added evidence to support that assertion. I don't think you understand what that fallacy means.

What a post hoc fallacy would look like in this case:

There was a gun in the home.
A child died in the home.
Therefore the gun caused the death.

or similar.

I hope that helps.

You should, if you are going to be serious about actually trying to catch real logical fallacies, go to this website:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Anything that you can actually show is clearly a logical fallacy, I will happily withdraw, and thank you for.

Otherwise... you simply add more evidence to my general assertion regarding "conservatives".

[RandomGuy]

I thought you were against logical fallacies, and the likes.

I generally am.

I also find it highly amusing when you seem to assume that SNC was correct, without fact checking him. Simply more evidence.

I have come under the impression that you cannot be both logical and considered a "true" conservative. What is generally held out to me as "conservative" seems to invariably boil down to flawed logic or factually false underpinnings.

[TeyshaBlue]

Parenthetical fail. lol

[spursncowboys]

It is only a post hoc fallacy if it is unproven that guns aren't involved in accidental gun deaths.

Props for trying to use and show good logic, but you failed rather badly in the execution.

I generally contend that most conservatives or people who call themselves conservative suck at constructing logical arguments, and constantly commit logical fallacies. Sorry but your post rather plainly added evidence to support that assertion. I don't think you understand what that fallacy means.

What a post hoc fallacy would look like in this case:

There was a gun in the home.
A child died in the home.
Therefore the gun caused the death.

or similar.

I hope that helps.

You should, if you are going to be serious about actually trying to catch real logical fallacies, go to this website:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Anything that you can actually show is clearly a logical fallacy, I will happily withdraw, and thank you for.

Otherwise... you simply add more evidence to my general assertion regarding "conservatives".


Well thank you for the help. ALthough it is correct, it doesn't mean that mine is incorrect. I used your websites to doublecheck :toast . Maybe you should click on it. While your at it maybe you could bring in some kinds of facts. There by taking away my point that your entire post lacks them completely.

RandomGuy
[b]If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

[b]If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

hmmm


Do you, can you, dispute either of them?

If you cannot, then the question, however unpleasant, remains relevant to the discussion. It is rather central to the cost-benefit analysis. What can be disputed? Your opinion? Post hoc

[RandomGuy]

Well thank you for the help. ALthough it is correct, it doesn't mean that mine is incorrect. I used your websites to doublecheck :toast . Maybe you should click on it. While your at it maybe you could bring in some kinds of facts. There by taking away my point that your entire post lacks them completely.
hmmm[/COLOR]

What can be disputed? Your opinion? Post hoc


(sighs)

[patiently]If it is a post hoc fallacy, ,then you should be able to easily fit it into the format.

Please, try to do so, and show me what you come up with.

Neither of these are really "opinion".

If you need proof that children are killed by mis-used guns, I can provide tens of thousands of concrete examples.Do you need proof that children are killed by guns, really? It isn't my opinion, but an observable fact, readily ascertained.

[spursncowboys]

(sighs)

[patiently]If it is a post hoc fallacy, ,then you should be able to easily fit it into the format.

Please, try to do so, and show me what you come up with.

Neither of these are really "opinion".

If you need proof that children are killed by mis-used guns, I can provide tens of thousands of concrete examples.Do you need proof that children are killed by guns, really? It isn't my opinion, but an observable fact, readily ascertained.

You're a pretentious idiot...You doucheness comes off well but not your information or your facts.


If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

I would love to see you prove this...

[RandomGuy]

You're a pretentious idiot...You doucheness comes off well but not your information or your facts.



I would love to see you prove this...

[/B][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Man the irony in someone using the word "pretentious" when trying to use words and concepts he doesn't understand is more than a bit rich.

I also noticed that instead of trying to fit what I said into the "post hoc" fallacy, you simply changed the subject.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt31qhGk2n1qcbfrv.gif

Make you a deal. I will back up my statement when you try to fit my statement into post hoc fallacy form, or, simply admit you fucked up. You first, then I will go. Your claim, your burden of proof, and handwavy "you did it" bullshit doesn't cut it.

What is more important to you here, the truth or your ego? Man up and we can go on.

[DarrinS]

Man the irony in someone using the word "pretentious" when trying to use words and concepts he doesn't understand is more than a bit rich.



bwV-Qulog5I

[DMC]

I'm still trying to understand the point of this thread. Kids take sex ed, does that mean schools are supporting kids having sex? Kids go through tornado and fire drills. Does that mean schools support kids being in fires and in tornadoes?

What exactly is the point or did someone just see "gun" and "kids" and "Missouri" and ejaculate their liberally tainted swimmers all over their keyboard and start a thread?

[spursncowboys]

Man the irony in someone using the word "pretentious" when trying to use words and concepts he doesn't understand is more than a bit rich.

I also noticed that instead of trying to fit what I said into the "post hoc" fallacy, you simply changed the subject.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lt31qhGk2n1qcbfrv.gif

Make you a deal. I will back up my statement when you try to fit my statement into post hoc fallacy form, or, simply admit you fucked up. You first, then I will go. Your claim, your burden of proof, and handwavy "you did it" bullshit doesn't cut it.

What is more important to you here, the truth or your ego? Man up and we can go on.
What's with all the build up... Why can't you just explain your point from the beginning.


If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.


If you have guns, you will have accidents... Wtf!?? If you have a gun as in own? If you have a gun in your hand?
Accidents...What? Accidents involving alleged gun? Or just accidents in general like you fell down? If you cannot answer this, then we cannot debate any further.

Also I would love to see where you got this data to conclude this as facts. If you don't mind.

[mavs>spurs]

fuck the op

[Wild Cobra]

I'm still trying to understand the point of this thread. Kids take sex ed, does that mean schools are supporting kids having sex? Kids go through tornado and fire drills. Does that mean schools support kids being in fires and in tornadoes?

What exactly is the point or did someone just see "gun" and "kids" and "Missouri" and ejaculate their liberally tainted swimmers all over their keyboard and start a thread?
I think that's what it is. So many people want their values and agenda taught in our schools like sex ed, political correctness, cultural diversity, etc. When it comes to gun safety however...

Again, I think it should all be determined at the lowest level possible. Let the communities decide.

[boutons_deux]

fuck the op

translation from gun-fellator-ese: shoot the OP

[RandomGuy]

What's with all the build up... Why can't you just explain your point from the beginning.




[/B]If you have guns, you will have accidents... Wtf!?? If you have a gun as in own? If you have a gun in your hand?
Accidents...What? Accidents involving alleged gun? Or just accidents in general like you fell down? If you cannot answer this, then we cannot debate any further.

Also I would love to see where you got this data to conclude this as facts. If you don't mind.

[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

I will take that as "My ego won't let me admit I fucked up, so let's talk about where I am sure you fucked up."

Fair enough, although you would do well to man up and admit your fuckups when they happen. This is a life skill that is very much worth learning even outside of pointless message boards. Well meant and freely given.

On to the item you want to talk about, then.

Let me rephrase because it appears you are not quite understanding what I am trying to communicate.


If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

Accidents happen.
We can both agree on this. I mean this in the most general sense. We trip and fall, we crash cars, wind knocks things over, etc.

Gun accidents exist.
We agree on this, I would hope. I can provide all sorts of youtube videos about this, if you wish. More than enough data to support that. Mechanical failure, human error, and negligence.

Accidents of all kinds involve children.
Need data for this statement?

Therefore, children will be involved in gun accidents.
This is meant in the most general sense, and flows logically from the previous statements. If you accept the first three statements as real and true, then you have to accept the conclusion.

I can very easily prove this.

You might be able to mitigate the risk, but not eliminate it.

I haven't even begun to address the issue of the sheer human malice factor involved in deliberately pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger, and I can already logically and rightfully ask how many children you are willing to sacrifice to have guns. So, the unpleasant question remains. I have an answer to it, and it is "very few, and less than we lose now".

How many are you willing to sacrifice to be able to have guns?

[TeyshaBlue]

If you have guns, you will have accidents. If children have guns they will have accidents.

If you have guns they will be mis-used, and children will get in the way of those bullets.

The question was meant to be somewhat hyperbolic, but based on these two assumptions.

Do you, can you, dispute either of them?

If you cannot, then the question, however unpleasant, remains relevant to the discussion. It is rather central to the cost-benefit analysis.

Sorry, RG. I completely missed your response.

Cost-benefit analysis? Ummm. no.

Nobody did a cost benefit analysis on any article of the bill of rights other than the conventional wisdom gut-check that was available to clear thinkers.
But now, we should do this to the second amendment or should we put them all under the scope?
I'm not sure of the argument your building here.

[TeyshaBlue]

Panacea? No. We would agree on that much.

As for whether we should do it or not, what do you think?

Of course we should do it. Incremental improvement is better than none. But it's importance as a tool is very over hyped.

[TeyshaBlue]

I would, for the most part, agree.

Would you say that the first and second amendment are equally important? Why or why not?

I would say no, simply because guns do not in any way guarantee liberty. If one wants to claim that, then you have to tell me why that is more effective than simply being enganged and informed in our democrative political process. Guns = lazy and ignorant way of guaranteeing liberty.

I do acknowledge that free speech can be used for evil purposes, like any tool, as you point out. Even so, the ONLY real use of the gun-tool is to kill people. Free speech is not quite as limited, and used for far more noble purposes.

Guns, as a tool, absolutely established our liberty. As a tool, they continue to do so. Our entire defense strategy is predicated upon this incredibly basic observation.
And just because a tool has a good purpose, doesn't mean it outweighs the negative, true.

[boutons_deux]

When Wars Come Home

Europe provides a clear contrast to the United States. Since World War II, as the United States became the sole superpower, Europe largely renounced militarism and war. Demilitarization is one of the reasons why many European countries, such as Sweden, have high levels of gun ownership for hunting and sports, but have one-tenth the US level of gun violence. Demilitarization weakens the cultural foundation of violence in civil society - If violence is not acceptable abroad, it can hardly be seen as honorable at home.

Europe provides a clear contrast to the United States. Since World War II, as the United States became the sole superpower, Europe largely renounced militarism and war. Demilitarization is one of the reasons why many European countries, such as Sweden, have high levels of gun ownership for hunting and sports, but have one-tenth the US level of gun violence. Demilitarization weakens the cultural foundation of violence in civil society - If violence is not acceptable abroad, it can hardly be seen as honorable at home.

The military has been directly involved in shaping cultural attitudes for centuries. Since 1916, Junior ROTC, for example, which now operates in 1,645 high schools, has tried to mold civilian society and bring military moral messages to America's young. JROTC defines its mission as "The study of ethics, citizenship, communications, leadership, life skills and other subjects ... focusing on character building and civic responsibility ... being presented in every JROTC classroom."
The power of military culture in civilian life is not lost on the gun industry. It knows that 50 percent of all sporting rifle owners in the US are present or former veterans or work in law enforcement. The industry is now actively working to increase that percentage, targeting veterans and their families with advertising, particularly for the kinds of assault guns veterans used in the service, which the gun industry argues are both necessary for the safety of your family in your neighborhood and for fun in civilian life. They highlight that gun use is part of the fabric of US constitutional and moral values and makes our society morally exceptional.

As spelled out in Shooting Industry Magazine in July 2012, the industry praised the social network of "America's modern veteran," involving "hundreds of thousands of dads, brothers, uncles, wives, sisters, aunts, cousins and extended family and friends, who served or are serving in Iran and Afghanistan. They are respected and admired. They carried firearms to protect our country. That factor, that imagery, has had a huge positive impact on how firearms are viewed in our country."

The military does not act alone in causing gun violence. Gun violence is partly a response to poverty, but it also has roots in American culture. America enshrines gun ownership as a fundamental right in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The gun culture is particularly important in the South and the West, where it evolved largely to keep blacks and Native Americans in their place (http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery). In fact, one of the motives for passing the Second Amendment was to establish patrols to capture escaped slaves. Today, the South and the West are the regions that have the highest rate of domestic gun violence and the largest percentage of their population in the military, as well as the most military bases and the strongest support for military adventurism.

The military does not act alone in causing gun violence. Gun violence is partly a response to poverty, but it also has roots in American culture. America enshrines gun ownership as a fundamental right in the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The gun culture is particularly important in the South and the West, where it evolved largely to keep blacks and Native Americans in their place (http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery). In fact, one of the motives for passing the Second Amendment was to establish patrols to capture escaped slaves. Today, the South and the West are the regions that have the highest rate of domestic gun violence and the largest percentage of their population in the military, as well as the most military bases and the strongest support for military adventurism.

Military societies cannot reproduce themselves without sustaining the commitment to guns and the morality of gun violence in the larger society. In his Farewell Address, President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the penetration of the values and economic interests of the military-industrial complex into the heart of civil society.

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14539-when-wars-come-home

The NRA, along with tea baggers and Repugs, and the 2nd-Amendment-Liberty!-Freedom! gun culture, is a shit stain on American civilization.

[RandomGuy]

Sorry, RG. I completely missed your response.

Cost-benefit analysis? Ummm. no.

Nobody did a cost benefit analysis on any article of the bill of rights other than the conventional wisdom gut-check that was available to clear thinkers.
But now, we should do this to the second amendment or should we put them all under the scope?
I'm not sure of the argument your building here.

I have come to the conclusion that our current constitution should be scrapped and re-written in its entirety. Blasphemous, I know. It has taken on something of a holy status to some people, but in the end it is simply a basic document sketching out our system of government. No more, no less.

The second amendment would be one of the things I would simply get rid of, as its purpose has long ago lost its meaning and relevence. I don't think there is any "right" to own such things, any more than there is a "right" to possess nuclear weapons. People should be allowed, under limited circumstances to own firearms though, just like people may drive cars if they prove mentally and physically capable.

Conventional wisdom of 1791:
Gun = smoothbore, frontloading musket

Conventional wisdom of 2012:
Gun= fully automatic assault rifle.

Kind of hard to have a mass shooting when you ROF is 1rpm, with practice, c'est va? THe world has changed in innumerable ways since our nations founding, yet some people think our constitution shouldn't.

The cost of swimming in an ocean of guns is a steady stream of dead children and adults, because we have made murder far easier for those who wish to commit that act than we should. This is a clear example, readily verifiable and quantifiable, of the cost.

I will ask you, what is the benefit? Be ready to defend that answer, if you want to be a proponent for keeping the 2nd amendment.

[RandomGuy]

Guns, as a tool, absolutely established our liberty. As a tool, they continue to do so. Our entire defense strategy is predicated upon this incredibly basic observation.
And just because a tool has a good purpose, doesn't mean it outweighs the negative, true.

We used guns to overthrow a monarch. We have used guns to fight other monarchies, fascist dictatorships, and totalitarian regimes.

Name functioing democracy in which a tyrant whose rise to power within his country was stopped by armed rebellion.

Quite frankly our fear that something horrible *might* happen drives us to accept horrible things happening all the time.

Doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff.

Lastly, I could use a screwdriver as a tool to bang nails, and it would do that. That doesn't mean that it is the best tool for the job.

Can you think of other methods to prevent the rise of tyrants? If so, what would they be?

[TeyshaBlue]

I have come to the conclusion that our current constitution should be scrapped and re-written in its entirety. Blasphemous, I know. It has taken on something of a holy status to some people, but in the end it is simply a basic document sketching out our system of government. No more, no less.

The second amendment would be one of the things I would simply get rid of, as its purpose has long ago lost its meaning and relevence. I don't think there is any "right" to own such things, any more than there is a "right" to possess nuclear weapons. People should be allowed, under limited circumstances to own firearms though, just like people may drive cars if they prove mentally and physically capable.

Conventional wisdom of 1791:
Gun = smoothbore, frontloading musket

Conventional wisdom of 2012:
Gun= fully automatic assault rifle.

Kind of hard to have a mass shooting when you ROF is 1rpm, with practice, c'est va? THe world has changed in innumerable ways since our nations founding, yet some people think our constitution shouldn't.

The cost of swimming in an ocean of guns is a steady stream of dead children and adults, because we have made murder far easier for those who wish to commit that act than we should. This is a clear example, readily verifiable and quantifiable, of the cost.

I will ask you, what is the benefit? Be ready to defend that answer, if you want to be a proponent for keeping the 2nd amendment.

Good points, RG. I think we have some common ground but I'm a bit reluctant to chunk the existing doc for a complete rewrite. #1. I don't think our Congress could do this. #2. Were I to attempt a bloodless coup, invalidating the constitutional protections would be step#1.

[TeyshaBlue]

We used guns to overthrow a monarch. We have used guns to fight other monarchies, fascist dictatorships, and totalitarian regimes.

Name functioing democracy in which a tyrant whose rise to power within his country was stopped by armed rebellion.

Quite frankly our fear that something horrible *might* happen drives us to accept horrible things happening all the time.

Doesn't seem like much of a tradeoff.

Lastly, I could use a screwdriver as a tool to bang nails, and it would do that. That doesn't mean that it is the best tool for the job.

Can you think of other methods to prevent the rise of tyrants? If so, what would they be?
notsurifsrs. A functioning Democracy can't give rise to a tyrant. A dysfunctional one certainly could.

[spursncowboys]

I have come to the conclusion that our current constitution should be scrapped and re-written in its entirety. Blasphemous, I know. It has taken on something of a holy status to some people, but in the end it is simply a basic document sketching out our system of government. No more, no less.



So you think the clowns in congress who couldn't vote in a budget, for four years and counting, can do better than our Founding Fathers?

[boutons_deux]

So you think the clowns in congress who couldn't vote in a budget, for four years and counting, can do better than our Founding Fathers?

that's the problem, as outdated as the Constitution is, Congress is so fucked that it would never fix it. iow, America is fucked and unfuckable, in permanent, unstoppable decline, as the 1% and corps bleed the wealth from the 99% and rape the environment.

[mavs>spurs]

oh hi

[mavs>spurs]

^hit ya knees trick..time to fellate this big gun :eyebrows

[Clipper Nation]

:cry The Constitution is automatically "outdated" and needs replacing because I don't agree with it! :cry

[boutons_deux]

Congressman Says Americans Need Guns To Protect The Nation From Sharia Law (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/02/21/1622561/congressman-says-americans-need-guns-to-protect-the-nation-from-sharia-law/)
guess who? :lol

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Screen-shot-2013-02-21-at-1.31.19-PM-e1361471536932.png


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/02/21/1622561/congressman-says-americans-need-guns-to-protect-the-nation-from-sharia-law/

[z0sa]

that's the problem, as outdated as the Constitution is,

:lol no idea how the Constitution works
:lol no idea why it exists
:lol no ideas what amendments are
:lol retard on auto pilot through a confusing world
:lol would gladly be a corporate shill if Blue team consolidated power permanently

[boutons_deux]

:lol no idea how the Constitution works
:lol no idea why it exists
:lol no ideas what amendments are
:lol retard on auto pilot through a confusing world
:lol would gladly be a corporate shill if Blue team consolidated power permanently

You Lie

GFY

[boutons_deux]

Gun Activists Warn Obama is Raising a Private Black Army to Massacre White Americans

Gun Owners of America president Larry Pratt appeared Tuesday on the Talk to Solomon Show alongside conservative blogger Greg W. Howard, of Twittergate fame (http://gawker.com/5659351/twittergate-how-internet-jerks-pranked-the-tea-party), for another chance to spew anti-Obama conspiracy theories (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/larry-pratt).


Pratt predicted that President Obama may begin confiscating guns in order to provoke a violent response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqxafCHrcbM&feature=youtu.be) to justify further oppression, which host Stan Solomon feared would lead to the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people.

Pratt once again insisted that Obama is acting like King George III, a sentiment with which Solomon concurred, saying, “That will happen quickly and they will wipe those people out to set an example.”

But Solomon wasn’t finished: “I believe they will put together a racial force to go against an opposite race resistance, basically a black force to go against a white resistance, and then they will claim anyone resisting the black force they are doing it because they are racist.”

Howard agreed: “You may be right because he has been sowing the seeds of racial hatred; we were healing quite well as a nation on racial issues :lol :lol until Obama came along and now we have a lot of racial discord.”

After arguing that Obama is “not American” and not a natural born citizen, Howard maintained that Obama may begin “wiping out a few hundred people who own guns, pull a large scale Waco or a Ruby Ridge type incident” and have it “tinged it with racial overtones.” But just in case Obama goes through with his plans to “take down” the Internet, “people are setting up phone-trees all over the place” to stop Obama in his tracks.

“If Obama can take your guns away he can take your car, he can take your home, he can take your bank account, he can take your very life,” Howard said.

Unsurprisingly, Pratt agreed with their insane ramblings: “I do agree that the Obama administration would definitely be capable of something as evil as you were suggesting.”

However, Pratt warned that “a lot of people resolved, ‘no more free Wacos,’” and that if Obama “starts playing the massacre game the way you did at Waco, well, you’re going to get surrounded, you won’t be able to go home safely, your family won’t be safe.”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/gun-activists-warn-obama-raising-private-black-army-white-massacre-americans


And we all can be assured this asshole knows that Ms of racist, white, rural bubbas suck down his propaganda as Gospel truth.

[z0sa]

You Lie

GFY

You do realize you followed this post by fringe religious propaganda. right? I mean, millions buy into anti-American rhetoric when they burn flags (IE your parallel to bubbas). It's a big business in the Mid east and North Africa. I know the parallel isn't exact but there's nuts out there everywhere - making fringe red teamers look bad doesn't mean blue team is always right, which is what you imply by constantly making excuses (shilling) for Dems.

[boutons_deux]

"making fringe red teamers look bad doesn't mean blue team is always right"

means that to you and other dumbfucks, not to me

"which is what you imply by constantly making excuses (shilling) for Dems."

The main, overwhelming advantage of the Dems is that they ARE NOT Repugs.

now GFY

[boutons_deux]

The REAL reason for America's gun frenzy finally obvious. It's All About The Benjamin$$$

Firearms-makers to politicians on gun rights: You balk, we walk

Firearms companies ranging from gun shops to machinists are joining forces to oppose new gun control laws. Some are threatening to move away from states that crack down on guns, others are refusing to sell gear to police that can't be sold to citizens.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0223/Firearms-makers-to-politicians-on-gun-rights-You-balk-we-walk?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29

Liberty! :lol

Freedom! :lol

2nd Amendment! :lol

Water the Tree! :lol

Marans! :lol

Sharia! :lol

UN! :lol

Barry's n!gg@ army gonna getcha! :lol

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[boutons_deux]

oilco puppet from bloody redd Okie land

Coburn: Congress should ‘eliminate the recordkeeping’ on guns in the U.S.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) on Sunday said that Republicans would block any effort to extend background checks to include private firearms sales unless Congress agreed to “eliminate the recordkeeping” on guns in the United States.

Coburn, who is one of four senators working for a bipartisan bill to expand background checks, recently refused to comment to The Washington Post about his position on keeping records on private sales, saying that “I don’t negotiate through the press.”

But on Sunday, the Oklahoma senator drew a line in the sand.

“I don’t think we’re that close to a deal, and there absolutely will not be recordkeeping on legitimate law-abiding gun owners in this country,” Coburn insisted. “And if they want to eliminate the benefits of trying to prevent the sales to people who are actually mentally ill and the criminals, all they have to do is create a recordkeeping. And that will kill this bill.”

“So if you really want to improve it, you have to eliminate the recordkeeping and give people the right and the responsibility to do the right thing. And that’s check on the [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] NICS list to make sure you’re not selling a gun to somebody who’s in one of those two categories.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/24/coburn-congress-should-eliminate-the-recordkeeping-on-guns-in-the-u-s/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

NRA/Repugs have already forced ATF to use only paper, not computers, for gun records. Now, it's NO RECORDS at all.

More Guns = More Gun Violence and More Gun Profits

[boutons_deux]

Black Lawmaker Receives Death Threat Over Gun Bill: ‘There Will Be Blood! I’m Coming For You, N—–’ (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/26/1642511/lawmaker-receives-death-threat-over-gun-bill-there-will-be-blood-im-coming-for-you-n-b/)



http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Sain.jpg



“I guarantee there is not enough law enforcement or military to stop an all-out overthrow of this government if you or that n—– president tries to take our guns,” one e-mail dated Feb. 13 reads. “Guarantee we will make World War I and II look like child’s play, many will die. Be prepared.”

Another e-mail expresses hope that someone would “Giffords” both Fields and Rep. Beth McCann, a reference to the 2011 mass shooting that nearly killed Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords.

The paper letter attributed to Sain states, “There will be blood! I’m coming for you, n—– b—–.” . . . “Limiting magazine sizes is stupid and will not work,” he wrote on Feb. 13. “I for one have 100+ 30 round mags and 150 round drums. I will never give those up and I am far from being some whack job.”

In an email to Fields the following day, Sain wrote: “I ordered a ton of new 30 round magazines today C***bag…go f*** yourself and your new law…we won’t abide by it…C*** N*****.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/26/1642511/lawmaker-receives-death-threat-over-gun-bill-there-will-be-blood-im-coming-for-you-n-b/

gun fellators, just gotta luv 'em! :lol

[Slutter McGee]

When Wars Come Home

Europe provides a clear contrast to the United States. Since World War II, as the United States became the sole superpower, Europe largely renounced militarism and war. Demilitarization is one of the reasons why many European countries, such as Sweden, have high levels of gun ownership for hunting and sports, but have one-tenth the US level of gun violence.



You are a fucking idiot. Europe was able to demilitarize because we have subsidized their goddamn military.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[sjacquemotte]

You are a fucking idiot. Europe was able to demilitarize because we have subsidized their goddamn military.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee Also the way they were able to socialize medical care.

[boutons_deux]

And I guess you fucking idiots believe the Marshall Plan was purely altruistic?

[boutons_deux]

highly favored NRA Dem shill gets clobbered.


Robin Kelly Rolls in Chicago Primary, Takes Aim at NRA

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-2nd-congressional-district-jackson-20130226,0,3160469,full.story



Federal Appeals Court: There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Concealed Firearm (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1637831/federal-appeals-court-there-is-no-second-amendment-right-to-a-concealed-firearm/)

A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which included a Reagan and a George W. Bush appointee, held unanimously on Friday that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed firearm (http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/11/11-1149.pdf):

[T]he Heller opinion notes that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” As an example of the limited nature of the Second Amendment right to keep and carry arms, the Court observed that “the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.” And the Court stressed that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions.”

There can be little doubt that bans on the concealed carrying of firearms are longstanding. In Heller, the Supreme Court cited several early cases in support of the statement that most nineteenth century courts approved of such prohibitions. We note, however, that this view was not unanimous. Nevertheless, “[m]ost states enacted laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons” in the nineteenth century.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1637831/federal-appeals-court-there-is-no-second-amendment-right-to-a-concealed-firearm/

[boutons_deux]

hey, you racist, dickless gun fellators, this guy is talking 'bout YOU! :lol

Illinois Republican Legislator Compares Gun Regulations To Castration (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1647781/illinois-republican-legislator-gun-regulations-castration/)

SACIA: Don’t blame the rest of us. This isn’t about Democrats, it’s not about Republicans. It’s because Chicago wants a warm fuzzy. “Let’s pass a bill that will eliminate assault rifles.” Last year, there were more people killed with hammers than with assault rifles. Here’s an analogy folks, I ask you to think of this: You folks in Chicago, want me to get castrated because you’re families are having too many kids. It spells out exactly what is happening here! You want us to get rid of guns. … You bet I used Chicago as an example, because you’re the folks that want this craziness.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1647781/illinois-republican-legislator-gun-regulations-castration/

Add this asshole to The List!

[boutons_deux]

Cop humiliates Sen. Graham at gun hearing: ‘You’re wrong’ on background checks


Echoing the National Rifle Association, Graham argued before the Senate Judiciary Committee that enhanced background checks are not needed because the laws currently on the books are not enforced well enough.

“When almost 80,000 people fail a background check and 44 people or prosecuted, what kind of deterrent is that?” he asked. “I mean, the law obviously is not seeing that as important, if it’s such an important issue, why aren’t we prosecuting people who fail a background check?”


“Just for the record, from my point of view, the point of a background check…” Milwaukee police chief Edward A. Flynn began. “Senator…”

“How many cases have you made?” Graham pressed. “How many cases have…”

“You know what?” Flynn said. “It doesn’t matter. It’s a paper thing.”

“Can I ask the questions?” Graham interjected.

“I want to finish the answer,” Flynn replied.

“I want to stop 76,000 people from buying guns illegally,” he said. “That’s what a background check does. If you think we’re going to do paperwork prosecutions, you’re wrong.”

The Senate committee’s audience erupted into applause, which committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinsten (D-CA) asked to quiet down.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/27/cop-humiliates-sen-graham-at-gun-hearing-youre-wrong-on-background-checks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

:lol The Old Confederate Lesbian gets bitch slapped! :lol

[boutons_deux]

Idaho Lawmaker Wants To Draft All Adults Into Militias (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/28/1650691/idaho-lawmaker-wants-to-draft-all-able-bodied-men-into-militias-to-fight-the-federal-government/)


While Rice hasn’t offered specific language for his proposed amendment, he indicated that the age and gender requirements would be dropped, making all adults eligible for service.

“Today we held a print hearing on my proposed state constitutional amendment that will eliminate age and gender discrimination from our definition of the state militia,” the lawmaker wrote in a message posted to Twitter. “This will allow the state to backstop the individual right to keep and bear arms in an effective way that is supported by the reasoning in all the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/28/1650691/idaho-lawmaker-wants-to-draft-all-able-bodied-men-into-militias-to-fight-the-federal-government/

[boutons_deux]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0IVSGctQIg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[boutons_deux]

Texas school employee shot in gun safety class (http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/texas_school_employee_shot_in_gun_safety_class/)

At the conclusion of the CHL training on February 27, 2013, one certified person stayed for private instruction with the instructor and had a mechanical malfunction with his weapon. With the assistance of the instructor, the malfunction was addressed, but the gun misfired and the bullet ricocheted coming back to strike the VISD employee in the left leg. The VISD employee was attended to at the scene and transferred to Tyler for further treatment. The injury is not life threatening or disabling. Because of privacy and security issues we cannot make any further statement.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/28/texas_school_employee_shot_in_gun_safety_class/

[z0sa]

lol boutons with 6 copy pastas
lol laughingstock of the forum
lol spreading blue team propaganda at all time
lol shill

[boutons_deux]

lol boutons with 6 copy pastas
lol laughingstock of the forum
lol spreading blue team propaganda at all time
lol shill

weak shit, zizi, ya got nothin, dickless, absolutely nothing

[z0sa]

Like I said before youre a classic outer party member. You dont buy into everything but youre quick to make a hundred excuses since the opponent is soooo much more terrible. Its lame man.

[boutons_deux]

Its lame man.

It's TRUE, man.

The REPUGS ARE so much worse than the Dems.

Here's a non-copy-paste deep, original, insightful thought: GO FUCK YOURSELF, GUN FELLATOR MAN

[DMC]

I will take that as "My ego won't let me admit I fucked up, so let's talk about where I am sure you fucked up."

Fair enough, although you would do well to man up and admit your fuckups when they happen. This is a life skill that is very much worth learning even outside of pointless message boards. Well meant and freely given.

On to the item you want to talk about, then.

Let me rephrase because it appears you are not quite understanding what I am trying to communicate.


Accidents happen.
We can both agree on this. I mean this in the most general sense. We trip and fall, we crash cars, wind knocks things over, etc.

Gun accidents exist.
We agree on this, I would hope. I can provide all sorts of youtube videos about this, if you wish. More than enough data to support that. Mechanical failure, human error, and negligence.

Accidents of all kinds involve children.
Need data for this statement?

Therefore, children will be involved in gun accidents.
This is meant in the most general sense, and flows logically from the previous statements. If you accept the first three statements as real and true, then you have to accept the conclusion.

I can very easily prove this.

You might be able to mitigate the risk, but not eliminate it.

I haven't even begun to address the issue of the sheer human malice factor involved in deliberately pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger, and I can already logically and rightfully ask how many children you are willing to sacrifice to have guns. So, the unpleasant question remains. I have an answer to it, and it is "very few, and less than we lose now".

How many are you willing to sacrifice to be able to have guns?

How many are you willing to sacrifice to have cars? Swimming pools? Matches?

[TeyshaBlue]

It's TRUE, man.

The REPUGS ARE so much worse than the Dems.

Here's a non-copy-paste deep, original, insightful thought: GO FUCK YOURSELF, GUN FELLATOR MAN






Lol Jr. High.

[RandomGuy]

How many are you willing to sacrifice to have cars? Swimming pools? Matches?

All good questions.

Since you ask, I have never much considered the answers to any of them.

I think we sacrifice far too many people on the bloody car altar, quite frankly. 30,000+ dead per year is far in excess of what I am willing to pay.

Seems to me that we could spend about as much money on trains and changing zoning to make cities dense enough for that to be a bit more economical and we could avoid the economic losses.

Assuming each one of those people had $20,000/year jobs, that is $600,000,000 in lost GDP every year... cumulative. $600M this year, pluse $600M next year...

Sure we get a lot of economic activity relating to cars, but I honestly wonder if the sheer loss of human life, injuries, and trauma makes up for it.

[boutons_deux]

"Assuming each one of those people had $20,000/year jobs, that is $600,000,000 in lost GDP every year"

each motorcycle accident avgs $1M+, so accidents so generate GDP in medical, etc, care.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2012/12/motorcycle-crashes-cost-16b-a-year-report.html

[DMC]

All good questions.

Since you ask, I have never much considered the answers to any of them.

I think we sacrifice far too many people on the bloody car altar, quite frankly. 30,000+ dead per year is far in excess of what I am willing to pay.

Seems to me that we could spend about as much money on trains and changing zoning to make cities dense enough for that to be a bit more economical and we could avoid the economic losses.

Assuming each one of those people had $20,000/year jobs, that is $600,000,000 in lost GDP every year... cumulative. $600M this year, pluse $600M next year...

Sure we get a lot of economic activity relating to cars, but I honestly wonder if the sheer loss of human life, injuries, and trauma makes up for it.

People die on trains as well.

[RandomGuy]

People die on trains as well.

Yes they do. No form of transportation is risk-free.

Since you seem so dead set on pointing out the obvious, it might be interesting to look into the stats.

[boutons_deux]

People die on trains as well.

Therefore, since more people die in road transport, we should ban road transport?

how about first dropping the blood alcohol limit to 0.04 with mandatory loss of license for 1 year for 1st offense?

(can't do it. BigAlcohol buys politicians to block it)