Reply With Quote
That's not to say it wouldn't be abused though. Like I said, ultimately you can trace the answer of this to very cultural/political criteria, which is what really makes this a wedge issue.
That's exactly why you would want such a list, IMO. I don't see any 'abuse' there.
That's not to say it wouldn't be abused though. Like I said, ultimately you can trace the answer of this to very cultural/political criteria, which is what really makes this a wedge issue.
You know who else had a list? Hitler.
Or was it Schindler.
Your mom probably did too. True story.
Frankly it's nice to know both the left and right are wary of what can be done with lists and take it seriously. Cross issues like this give me faith in this country.
*cue National Anthem*
hah, no one knows if we are standing, sitting, kneeling, or belching.
It says "little peepee" by your name.
Good comeback, tbh
You talk a lot and never say anything. All you had to say was "I know you are, what am I?"
Why does it matter? What's the next step either way?
neither, I'm pro pointing out the dumb iness of making sure everyone knows you own guns while also being scared the govt is going to kick down your door to take them if they know you have them
How's that different from advertising who you're supporting but wanting privacy in the voting booth?
So maybe we can say in areas with a high % of legal gun ownership there really is a correlation with low crime rates as compared to a very similar area in a state where guns are illegal to possess in that area.That private ownership does very likely prevent crimes. Now do you want the next step after that...
Sooooo kind of like people like you that act like flaming gots and then wonder why people call them a got?
Cheesecake fattery refused service to armed cops
That's what I wanted in the first place. What are you going to do with that information? It does nothing for the individual, it's only a talking point for the left. With all the sensitivity against words these days, the 1st Amendment is up next. Maybe the CDC should do a study to see if barring certain types of speech affects hate crime stats in certain areas by tracking who says what and seeing if aggressive, offensive statements like "Make American Great Again" should be banned.
Corrections officers, not cops.
Sure thing. You got led along like a puppy as we have already discussed this in another thread when people put up their particular "studies" like your pile o crap and claim validity. You don't trust the CDC. They do get things wrong so F their knowledge of proper statistical studies. So keep putting up your laughable stats. And the left will counter with theirs.
Public safety is not a concern for you. You belittle it with ridiculous examples.
Gun accidents/violence is unimportant in this country. It's an unimportant issue.
You don't want data. You don't want studies, it's clear.
How many different ways can you be asked what will be done about any of it? You keep saying how trustworthy the CDC is, how important information gathering is, the importance of public safety yet you've still not answered the simple question: then what?
Until you can show why the information is needed and how it will be used, you don't have an argument. If it's just so you can have talking points, I'm not for repealing laws just to satisfy that.
You are being especially thick on this one since you stepped in it.
So you don't think better information concerning gun accidents and crimes is important. Some people do. I can't help it if you don't get the importance of having actual data vs. the crap you put up. You don't want better data. Some people do.
So forget about putting it to the legislature of government to decide if the information is important enough to consider whether laws should be adjusted or left alone. They now have better information. But it's not necessary in your view. It is actually possible high gun ownership areas do have less crime. There may be some interesting correlations that might suggest apportionment of law enforcement. But we won't ever know. Done.
Last edited by pgardn; 12-23-2016 at 11:14 PM.
You are using argument by repe ion. You keep saying it's important but you haven't established just why it's important, other than talking points for forums and political debates. What will change based on the information? Of course you'll just repeat the same "it's important" line without specifying.
Assume they have less crime. What is the next step? Assume they don't have less crime. What is the next step? Information is useless if it doesn't guide actions.So forget about putting it to the legislature of government to decide if the information is important enough to consider whether laws should be adjusted or left alone. They now have better information. But it's not necessary in your view. It is actually possible high gun ownership areas do have less crime. There may be some interesting correlations that might suggest apportionment of law enforcement. But we won't ever know. Done.
You don't need civilian gun ownership data to show policing needs. The populace isn't a policing agency so using crime statistics tied to gun ownership to staff police forces seems like an idea you struggled to pull from your ass.
Here's what you do: focus resources toward figuring out how to solve all that other instead of focusing on "teh evil guns." Mental illness, poverty, ty cultural values, low education, high unemployment.
Why are liberals still on this ? This is one of those issues which, if they'd had a better gameplan for (one that didn't idiotically focus on/scapegoat the "inherent" evils a physical object rather than on the many & interweaving factors that produce criminals), they probably would've won the election.
For the love of God Read again. And it's total BS you assuming we can't use better information for policing needs. That's absolutely re ed. We might not even know a problem exists in certain areas with the crap statistics we have. Do you think a guy limping into the hospital in the middle of the night gets a report written up that is sent to the CDC? It lies there in the hospital or reported to the police which DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITIES of good analysis. File that, next. And absolutely nothing is known about ownership in that particular area.
And if you can't go beyond this I can't hep you. You seriously can't think of any more remedies than I have ALREADY mentioned. And if I have to go into Why police are specifically placed... And you do understand that allowing gun ownership or some other carry law could possibly prevent gun violence? Do I need to explain why this might be as well or do you need the NRA to do it for you?
Lets assume the CDC suggests vaccination and the rate of the disease goes down like polio. What's the next step? Really? What's the next step?
How about keep the law intact or keep that police presence if it brings gun related crime down?
Holy .. Why do YOU think the CDC wants to be involved in data concerning gun deaths etc... Why do we need the CDC at all, how exactly do they act to prevent a public health problem? Why don't you go through it in your head before typing.
Thick.
Very thick.
Or you like playing do nothing games because doing SOMETHING needs explaining which you can't handle. It is also possible some sort of list will accomplish nothing. But at least I can see the reasoning behind the argument for keeping track and having data.
Last edited by pgardn; 12-24-2016 at 12:40 PM.
As I suspected; your only suggestion to allow people their 2nd Amendment rights by "need". That's been covered already.
You spent a lot of time talking about how this information is important. All you could offer as a corrective measure using that information is allowing people the right that they already are supposed to have and that most states have already.
You basically have no idea why you want a national gun registry. Somehow you think it will make you feel safer.
The CDC is answerable from everything to the press to the president.
DMC doesn't seem to understand the nature of US democracy and checks and balance. He apparently thinks that the gun industry who has no such inhibitions is the best way to set policy.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions