Yay, GUNS!

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

When you attack a problem you do not start with the smallest things, those things are usually out of your control and stopping them would be meaningless.

This isn't true. When Rosa Parks refused to give her seat up on a bus it was a small thing. 

[rangerx]

22 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 You're on! 

The reason I do not know what country you are from is because it's not because I haven't read what you posted but anyone who uses the tactics you do are not honest and where you are from and it's superiority or lack thereof doesn't matter in this discussion anymore than the morals of the US in things outside gun control have any place here... 

Everything I presented in this thread has been thoughtfully presented in a context to how my country deals with gun laws compared to your country AND the double standards that inhibit the discussion. I am from Canada, I presented my country's gun laws as they were written by the government, not my opinion. Yet you have the audacity to call that a dishonest tactic? That's fucking rich, dude.

America loves to bash other countries, especially in the way you threatened to bash mine, but your country doesn't take it very well by the way you flipped me off for participating in this discussion with my opinion.

 

 

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You are really clueless aren't you... If one person urinates in the ocean it's nothing but if an entire country pumps their sewage in is can and has done huge amounts of damage. 

1

I can't support this argument any more than I can support ten oz's, we all have a responsibility and if we can't hands-on hearts say "I didn't piss in the sea" we are part of the problem, I don't place the blame on anyone that has fired a shot or owned a gun, because I'm guilty of both, but I would suggest we take a long look at ourselves.

[rangerx]

50 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It is not outright false. Even I think some people here ultimately want a ban.

Fact or opinion? It's hard to move forward with something like that hanging out there?

[Moontanman]

3 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Everything I presented in this thread has been thoughtfully presented in a context to how my country deals with gun laws compared to your country AND the double standards that inhibit the discussion. I am from Canada, I presented my country's gun laws as they were written by the government, not my opinion. Yet you have the audacity to call that a dishonest tactic? That's fucking rich, dude.

America loves to bash other countries, especially in the way you threatened to bash mine, but your country doesn't take it very well by the way you flipped me off for participating in this discussion with my opinion.

 

 

 Oh yeah, then you won't mind me asking why your countries gun laws are so good when the white majority destroyed the native population using those guns... Clean your own house before you tell me mine is dirty.. 

[Raider5678]

On 2/17/2018 at 12:05 PM, koti said:

It is binary but it also a utopian scenario. I don’t think there is any chance for people in the US (or anywhere for that matter) to agree to get rid of their guns. Off topic...is my mind playing tricks on me or have you said you were 16 early last year?

It's not binary.

Let's look at Vermont.

You can open carry any gun you like, without any license even.

No background checks, no registration, no license, no limit on how many you can buy, etc.

Sounds like gun control hell.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2013/08/28/armed-and-progressive/  This gives you an idea of all the nongun control Vermont has.

There were 420 gun deaths between 2011 and 2016.

373 of those were suicides. So quick subtraction, 47 deaths by guns left.

There were 47 homicides in those 5 years.

5 of them were by law enforcement. 

 

89% of gun deaths in the state with the most prevalent use of guns, were suicides. The national average is 60%. Guns have been proven to not have a correlation with suicide rates. 

http://projects.vpr.net/gunshots-vermont-gun-data

 

So. Your statement that we need strict gun control, or else we will have terrible things happening has an outlier. 

How can you explain away Vermont? 

 

Check out the two links.

 

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

 Oh yeah, then you won't mind me asking why your countries gun laws are so good when the white majority destroyed the native population using those guns... Clean your own house before you tell me mine is dirty.. 

Wow, obtuse or what?

Last time I checked, our native population was vibrant.

And there you go telling me what I have to do in my country, while insisting I have no input on yours.

You're making this easy. Really easy. Thank you.

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Wow, obtuse or what?

Last time I checked, our native population was vibrant.

And there you go telling me what I have to do in my country, while insisting I have no input on yours.

You're making this easy. Really easy. Thank you.

No, I am showing how OT is it to criticize something about someone that has nothing to do with the OP. As an aside I would suggest you do a bit more studying about North American Native peoples before you go down that road.. 

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

House and senate leadership merely need to let a vote happen, but have been spineless slaves. The support is there and legislators are ready, but one or two people have the bottleneck clamped tightly shut and won’t allow even an attempt at passage.

Citizens United has a big role in this problem as well... 

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I can't support this argument any more than I can support ten oz's, we all have a responsibility and if we can't hands-on hearts say "I didn't piss in the sea" we are part of the problem, I don't place the blame on anyone that has fired a shot or owned a gun, because I'm guilty of both, but I would suggest we take a long look at ourselves.

I don't think I know a single person that hasn't shot a gun. My point isn't about the guns we already own or bullets we've already fired. It is about adjusting our behaving moving forward to force the hands of govt (which is currently heavily influenced by industry lobbying). No different than Climate Change. We've all used fossil fuels. The idea is to start using less and supporting alternatives with our consumption rather than just changing nothing and lamenting about what we wish Washington would do.  

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Citizens United has a big role in this problem as well... 

Right, and where do those corporations get the money they're using as speech?

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't think I know a single person that hasn't shot a gun. My point isn't about the guns we already own or bullets we've already fired. It is about adjusting our behaving moving forward to force the hands of govt (which is currently heavily influenced by industry lobbying). No different than Climate Change. We've all used fossil fuels. The idea is to start using less and supporting alternatives with our consumption rather than just changing nothing and lamenting about what we wish Washington would do.  

Right, and where do those corporations get the money they're using as speech?

 You do make a point but trying to get 350 million people to do something is not productive especially when those people have been brainwashed by the people in control. You have to stop the flow of bribes before you can get a grip on the rest of the problem... 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Ten oz said:

No different than Climate Change. We've all used fossil fuels. The idea is to start using less and supporting alternatives with our consumption rather than just changing nothing and lamenting about what we wish Washington would do.  

No argument here.

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I can assure you that something or someone IS pushing back against it. That part is not in doubt.

Who, and why?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Controversial subjects need extra patience, understanding, and civility from all involved in discussing them. 

 

[rangerx]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

No, I am showing how OT is it to criticize something about someone that has nothing to do with the OP. As an aside I would suggest you do a bit more studying about North American Native peoples before you go down that road.. 

There's audacity for you.

I am a first nations person who never lived on the rez. I'm 61 years old, been employed all my life. I own my own property in a small town and operate a shellfish farm and jade mine. Both on first nations territory.

Don't preach to me about introspect, when clearly yours is in the ditch.

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Fact or opinion? It's hard to move forward with something like that hanging out there?

Not exactly sure this answers your question, but it is true that I believe the type of approach taken by some in this thread leads gun rights activists to believe that their ultimate goal is a ban on guns. No one here said they support a ban on guns, and I'm not claiming they did. I am only saying the way they present themselves can lead others to think a ban is what they'd ultimately like to achieve.

The reason I think that is so bad is because if gun rights activists believe someone ultimately wants a ban on guns, then they will not trust them and will tend to oppose them. IMO we need guns rights activists to trust us so that we can work together toward reform.

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, rangerx said:

There's audacity for you.

I am a first nations person who never lived on the rez. I'm 61 years old, been employed all my life. I own my own property in a small town and operate a shellfish farm and jade mine. Both on first nations territory.

Don't preach to me about introspect, when clearly yours is in the ditch.

That is interesting, I am Cherokee, our people were destroyed by the US government but that has no place in this discussion.. 

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Let's look at Vermont.

Vermont has a population of 620,000 people. It is the 49th smallest state and has a below average population density. I don't think Vermont is a good state to use as representative of anything.  

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Vermont has a population of 620,000 people. It is the 49th smallest state and has a below average population density. I don't think Vermont is a good state to use as representative of anything.  

 Yes and no one that one, while the low population is the key the lower population allows for an environment much like the good ol' days . The crowding into small spaces of lots of people contribute at least in a small way... 

[rangerx]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Not exactly sure this answers your question, but it is true that I believe the type of approach taken by some in this thread leads gun rights activists to believe that their ultimate goal is a ban on guns. No one here said they support a ban on guns, and I'm not claiming they did. I am only saying the way they present themselves can lead others to think a ban is what they'd ultimately like to achieve.

The reason I think that is so bad is because if gun rights activists believe someone ultimately wants a ban on guns, then they will not trust them and will tend to oppose them. IMO we need guns rights activists to trust us so that we can work together toward reform.

A thoughtful reply, thank you. Opinion about the contributors here and a fact about the grand scale of things? If yes, would you also agree that the opposite is true? That being so long as people "stick to their guns",  nothing can move forward? If yes, then why mention it at all?

 

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 You do make a point but trying to get 350 million people to do something is not productive especially when those people have been brainwashed by the people in control. You have to stop the flow of bribes before you can get a grip on the rest of the problem... 

We don't need 350 million people to act. 42 percent of households in the U.S. have firearms. There are 126 million households. So that is 52 million people. For a appreciable economic impact on the industry we'd not about 10% of those 52 million people to act. So we'd need about 1/70th of the 350 million people you referenced. That isn't an impossible number. 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, rangerx said:

A thoughtful reply, thank you. Opinion about the contributors here and a fact about the grand scale of things? If yes, would you also agree that the opposite is true? That being so long as people "stick to their guns",  nothing can move forward? If yes, then why mention it at all?

The gun rights activists are the ones in the position of power. They don't need us, we need them. But we don't need all of them, just enough to make changes happen.

The extremists on either end of the spectrum are unlikely to change their minds and frankly I'd like to keep them at arms length so they don't poison the well. We need conversations between those who are willing to work together toward meaningful reform from both the right and the left. But at the moment people don't trust each other. We must build that trust. And that means honest conversation. No generalizations, no extreme positions, no ultimatums, and a willingness to actually listen and understand the other's perspective.

Gaining trust usually starts in small ways. Countries do it through things like cultural exchanges. Men do it with women by things like respecting personal space. And IMO the way we start the trust on gun control is by taking on the least controversial issue, and proving we will work as a team.

[koti]

48 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

It's not binary.

Let's look at Vermont.

You can open carry any gun you like, without any license even.

No background checks, no registration, no license, no limit on how many you can buy, etc.

Sounds like gun control hell.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2013/08/28/armed-and-progressive/  This gives you an idea of all the nongun control Vermont has.

There were 420 gun deaths between 2011 and 2016.

373 of those were suicides. So quick subtraction, 47 deaths by guns left.

There were 47 homicides in those 5 years.

5 of them were by law enforcement. 

 

89% of gun deaths in the state with the most prevalent use of guns, were suicides. The national average is 60%. Guns have been proven to not have a correlation with suicide rates. 

http://projects.vpr.net/gunshots-vermont-gun-data

 

So. Your statement that we need strict gun control, or else we will have terrible things happening has an outlier. 

How can you explain away Vermont? 

 

Check out the two links.

 

Kids are being shot at school (again) and I need to explain Vermont? Why don’t you explain Australia?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, koti said:

Kids are being shot at school (again) and I need to explain Vermont? Why don’t you explain Australia?

Aren't there places where guns are allowed but there are not problems like we have in the US? Say, Canada, or Switzerland? Isn't Vermont an example of that in the US?

I don't think anyone questions that Australia's approach has been successful, but I think countries that allow guns more freely also have reasonable results.

[rangerx]

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

That is interesting, I am Cherokee, our people were destroyed by the US government but that has no place in this discussion.. 

I'm Nuu chaa nulth. Our people were decimated but not destroyed by European diseases, not government. Your take is too extreme and stipulates to what many are saying here about the discussion being confounded. I'm chocked full of reasons why our people and government have issues, but guns isn't one of them.

In the early 1800's my ancestors attacked and massacred the ships Boston (guns) and Tonquin (black powder), solely for guns, ammunition and retribution. Sadly the retribution was native on native and annihilated two nations who live to the south of us. The guns (well blunderbusses and fowling pieces) eventually broke or rusted. The powder got wet, blew up in our faces or was spent.

Yet again, the common denominator was the abuse of guns. To even begin to suggest our current gun laws had anything to do with our history misses the point..

[koti]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Aren't there places where guns are allowed but there are not problems like we have in the US? Say, Canada, or Switzerland? Isn't Vermont an example of that in the US?

I don't think anyone questions that Australia's approach has been successful, but I think countries that allow guns more freely also have reasonable results.

I wouldn’t know, I don’t like weapons and fortunately theyre not a part of my life.