Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

[Deathsdoorstep]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

Nobody needs an assault rifle.

[Diesel]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

A sport bike or motorized vehicle could easily cause mass murder. A whack job could drive his car down the sidewalk on whyte ave and mow down dozens in a matter of seconds.

Western society is littered with thousands of examples of extreme or excessive inanimate objects that could be viewed by many as "not needed", yet we live in a free society where we can and do purchase and own these such things. Most of them could be used easily to cause severe mayhem and mass casualties, due to the person behind them.

You and I could go right now to home depot and for under $100 obtain all that we would need to make an IED and kill as many people as we would want to if we were so mentally unhinged. Banning inanimate objects does not solve the problem. Never has and never will

The key in the US is it is in their constitution to have the right to bear arms. Not certain types, not specific models, no distinctions. If you agree with it or not isn't the issue, it's their right as a citizen of that country, no better or worse than the right to vote and the right to free speech.

In the US the FBI's own statistical data clearly shows that in areas where legislated gun control his highest or most stringent, those same areas have drastically higher rates of violent crime, compared to areas where CWP's are higher and legislated gun control is not as stringent. Why is that?

Why do lunatics target the places they have in mass killings? Because they know they will meet little or no resistance to their personal jihad. Crime always flows along the path of least resistance. How does putting the 51st gun law in place do more than the other 50 currently in place? How does putting restrictions on law biding citizens stop non law biding citizens from breaking the law?

In the end all this debate is about is trying to put a band-aid on a herpes sore and saying, " See? All better, look what we did!" It accomplishes nothing. Put resources into law enforcement, give some teeth to the penal system to keep violent offenders off the streets and put resources into identifying and getting help to those with mental issues, and over time you would see real change, but those things don't get politicians elected.

[Diesel]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

Nobody needs an assault rifle.

Nobody needs a lot of things, yet hand guns cause more deaths in the US by an exponential number than all other firearms combined. As for US deaths these numbers are surprising as per leading causes of all deaths in the US for 2011

Cause

Percent of Total
1. Diseases of the heart 28.5%
2. Malignant tumors 22.8%
3. Cerebrovascular diseases 6.7%
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 5.1%
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries) 4.4%
6. Diabetes mellitus 3.0%
7. Influenza and pneumonia 2.7%
8. Alzheimer's disease 2.4%
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 1.7%
10. Septicemia (blood poisoning) 1.4%
11. Suicide 1.3%
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 1.1%
13. Primary hypertension and hypertensive renal disease 0.8%
14. Parkinson's disease (tied) 0.7%
15. Homicide (tied) 0.7%

Source: CDC/NHS, National Vital Statistics System

So 0.7% of all deaths are homicides. Lets say that half of those are cause by firearms. 0.35%, and out of those 80+% are caused by handguns alone so that leaves less than a tenth of a percent of all deaths potentially caused by all other firearms combined. Motor vehicle accidents are responsible for far, far more, so maybe we should ban all vehicles that go faster than 20 km/h? No I don't think so.

[Deathsdoorstep]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

Yet with all of these mass shootings it's always an assault rifle. And in situations like that fewer rounds per minutes saves lives.

[Diesel]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

So why should 99.92 % have their rights trampled on when <0.08% cause the problem? Why don't we go after them? Why don't we fund our police better? Why do we let out violent repeat offenders, that, guess what, commit further violent crimes? Why do mentally unstable people get pushed through the cracks repeatedly by schools, government agencies, and institutions instead of getting the help they need?

Why then should our elected officials receive protection from the same weapons they are trying to ban?

If we want to save lives, stop car accidents. They are responsible for 59 X more deaths.

[Inquiring Mind]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

While my libertarian streak is partial to Diesel's arguments... to go reductio ad absurdum, I'm just not real comfortable with the principle that nuclear weapons should be freely available to anyone that wants one and with the means to pay for one.

I guess my stance is, at a certain there is just no way the utility gun enthusiasts can garner from access to certain weapons that can possibly outweigh the damage they can do if a nut or two gets a hold of them and goes off.

My issue isn't so much with the power of a gun... but the reload function. Outside military functions, there is just very little practical usage for automatic and many classes of semi-automatic weapons. I'm sure they're fun to fire off and all, but there is just no reason for Joe Public to have one. From a practical standpoint other than performing a slaughter there is nothing that a single fire gun cannot provide them.

I concede there are practical reasons for guns, even if I don't necessarily agree with them, and the utility that conceivably can be had with most classes of gun can be argued to significantly outweigh their downsides (I grew up on a farm, we had a .22 and a shotgun and I imagine city dwellers would be quick surprised just how often they are put to legitimate use, and I don't just mean shooting gophers, though FWIW that can be fun too)... and I by no means suggest eliminating automatic weapons would in anyway eliminate or even lessen the number of school shootings etc, but just maybe it might lower the kill counts in a few.

I accept that one of the prices of living in a free society is that it enables people to do some horrendous things if they so choose... but there are certain things that I just do not feel provide any tangible utility to free society and in the cases where they can cause more carnage than would otherwise be realized, should be severely limited.

I guess at a certain point this debate is kinda like the abortion debate, and that there are only two absolutely consistent positions (every sperm is sacred, or all killing can be justified) and that anywhere in between requires some degree of arbitrary line drawing... as such, and in both cases, I choose to arbitrarily draw a line.

[pizmo]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

Why someone needs a bike that can go 350 km/hr, a truck with a 20" lift or a samurai sword is irrelevant.

Does killing boars, armadillos, gators, etc require automatic weapons? How many people kill boars, armadillos, gators?

If a criminal wants to harm people we can't do anything about it except after the fact? So banning anything doesn't matter?

The US constitution is 250 years old. I don't think their founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms entailed owning an assault rifle.

If crime flows along the path of least resistance then the more guns we have at large the safer we will be. "How does putting restrictions on law abiding citizens stop non law abiding citizens from breaking the law". What in hell is this supposed to mean. We're better off with no laws?

My understanding is that the US has a higher %age of citizens in jail than any other 'modern' country. That's helped.

Additional resources into mental health I agree with.

0.7% of deaths are homicides, a small number. Since we all die, we should just forget about laws that may reduce unnatural deaths.

The vast majority of people need a car. The vast majority of people don't need a gun.

Guns don't kill people but the easy availability of guns does kill people.

[pizmo]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

While my libertarian streak is partial to Diesel's arguments... to go reductio ad absurdum, I'm just not real comfortable with the principle that nuclear weapons should be freely available to anyone that wants one and with the means to pay for one.

I guess my stance is, at a certain there is just no way the utility gun enthusiasts can garner from access to certain weapons that can possibly outweigh the damage they can do if a nut or two gets a hold of them and goes off.

My issue isn't so much with the power of a gun... but the reload function. Outside military functions, there is just very little practical usage for automatic and many classes of semi-automatic weapons. I'm sure they're fun to fire off and all, but there is just no reason for Joe Public to have one. From a practical standpoint other than performing a slaughter there is nothing that a single fire gun cannot provide them.

I concede there are practical reasons for guns, even if I don't necessarily agree with them, and the utility that conceivably can be had with most classes of gun can be argued to significantly outweigh their downsides (I grew up on a farm, we had a .22 and a shotgun and I imagine city dwellers would be quick surprised just how often they are put to legitimate use, and I don't just mean shooting gophers, though FWIW that can be fun too)... and I by no means suggest eliminating automatic weapons would in anyway eliminate or even lessen the number of school shootings etc, but just maybe it might lower the kill counts in a few.

I accept that one of the prices of living in a free society is that it enables people to do some horrendous things if they so choose... but there are certain things that I just do not feel provide any tangible utility to free society and in the cases where they can cause more carnage than would otherwise be realized, should be severely limited.

I guess at a certain point this debate is kinda like the abortion debate, and that there are only two absolutely consistent positions (every sperm is sacred, or all killing can be justified) and that anywhere in between requires some degree of arbitrary line drawing... as such, and in both cases, I choose to arbitrarily draw a line.

^This. Remember, 'every sperm is sacred' is copyright.

[Diesel]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

Why someone needs a bike that can go 350 km/hr, a truck with a 20" lift or a samurai sword is irrelevant.

No, it's the heart of living in a free democratic society. We are free to make choices about how we want to live our lives. Those who make the wrong choices and harm others should be punished severely, not restrict rights of a people's constitution.

Does killing boars, armadillos, gators, etc require automatic weapons? How many people kill boars, armadillos, gators?

Not against the law to say they can't.

If a criminal wants to harm people we can't do anything about it except after the fact? So banning anything doesn't matter?

Do you want to cure the symptom or the disease? Did a single criminal in Canada use the gun registry? I rest my case

The US constitution is 250 years old. I don't think their founding fathers thought that the right to bear arms entailed owning an assault rifle.

I guess the bible's 10 commandments shouldn't be followed either because they're old? Until they change their constitution, it's black and white. What if the restriction was on free speech? It's also a constitutional right, and words have killed far more people in history than guns. Every war since the industrial revolution was started by a politician and his words. No less deadly.

If crime flows along the path of least resistance then the more guns we have at large the safer we will be. "How does putting restrictions on law abiding citizens stop non law abiding citizens from breaking the law". What in hell is this supposed to mean. We're better off with no laws?

It simply means that if you're more concerned about the symptom, the disease will continue to run rampant. Ban one thing and those who are dead set to cause mayhem will simply use another method. See terrorists for a prime example.

My understanding is that the US has a higher %age of citizens in jail than any other 'modern' country. That's helped.

They also release more violent offenders back into society as well. Rehabilitation of the worst of the worst is pointless. Give me dead violent offenders over repeat violent offenders, thank you.

Additional resources into mental health I agree with.

0.7% of deaths are homicides, a small number. Since we all die, we should just forget about laws that may reduce unnatural deaths.

Or we could just ignore constitutional rights because they're insignificant really. I mean nobody died to protect those freedoms.

The vast majority of people need a car. The vast majority of people don't need a gun.

Very few people 'need' a car. It's a choice in most free societies. See #1

Guns don't kill people but the easy availability of guns does kill people.

That's ridiculous. So if my basement was filled with an armory's worth of weapons, I'm more likely to kill someone instead of the 3 that I own?

Explain to me why the existing 50 national US gun law statues have failed to stop violent crime, and then explain to me how 51 will. You can't because it won't happen.

[stamphater]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

The number of loopholes regarding current gun laws is disgusting...

[stamphater]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

[moontoscott]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

Repeat violent offenders should be executed by the various states and the same thing should happen here in Canada except that criminal law falls under federal legislation where such a bill will simply never be passed. I also believe that serial rapists should be forcibly castrated or publically hung (they would be given a choice).

Having said that, when you ask gun advocates why anyone should own an automatic weapon they basically say that there is a right to bear arms (no explanation of what these guns should be used for) and that the government has no right to ban anyone from owning such a weapon.

I wonder, if a billionaire decides that he wants to buy a used F-16 from a Mid-East country should he be allowed to own it? After all, it is a form of protection that is used (depending on your point of view) as a way that good guys with a weapon stop bad guys with a weapon. Isn't that the NRA mantra?

I say these things as an ardent conservative who has voted conservative all my life. If guns make you safer then why were there 10,000 handgun deaths in the U.S. just last year? Compare that to a few hundred in Britain?

[Deathsdoorstep]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

So why should 99.92 % have their rights trampled on when <0.08% cause the problem? Why don't we go after them? Why don't we fund our police better? Why do we let out violent repeat offenders, that, guess what, commit further violent crimes? Why do mentally unstable people get pushed through the cracks repeatedly by schools, government agencies, and institutions instead of getting the help they need?

Why then should our elected officials receive protection from the same weapons they are trying to ban?

If we want to save lives, stop car accidents. They are responsible for 59 X more deaths.

By that logic we should all be able to have a bazooka. Where's the line? For me the line is hunting rifles. Assault rifles don't make the cut. Banning assualt rifles doesn't trample on anyone's rights since I don't believe that anyone has the right to military grade weapons.

[pizmo]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

Do you want to cure the symptom or the disease? Did a single criminal in Canada use the gun registry? I rest my case.

So we don't have a gun registry. I could solve the problem right now. Make only assault weapons legal. Then the wackos won't be breaking the law.


I guess the bible's 10 commandments shouldn't be followed either because they're old? Until they change their constitution, it's black and white. What if the restriction was on free speech? It's also a constitutional right, and words have killed far more people in history than guns. Every war since the industrial revolution was started by a politician and his words. No less deadly.

Age is not the point. Common sense is. What does the 10 commandments have to do with assault weapons? Based on your argument, religion should be restricted also.


They also release more violent offenders back into society as well. Rehabilitation of the worst of the worst is pointless. Give me dead violent offenders over repeat violent offenders, thank you

They release more violent offenders because there is no room in their jails.



Or we could just ignore constitutional rights because they're insignificant really. I mean nobody died to protect those freedoms.

I don't think my uncle died over Holland to protect the right of people to arm themselves with assault weapons.


That's ridiculous. So if my basement was filled with an armory's worth of weapons, I'm more likely to kill someone instead of the 3 that I own? Explain to me why the existing 50 national US gun law statues have failed to stop violent crime, and then explain to me how 51 will. You can't because it won't happen

Let me explain my idea of easy availability. There are 20 houses in your terrace. You and 2 others have guns or all 20 households have guns. Which group would have a higher probability of using a gun in an argument? 3/20 or 20/20? I don't care if you have guns. I do care if you have guns that were designed to kill the maximum number of people.

stamphater thanks for the jon stewart.

[Diesel]

Re: Most American Politicians Are Self Serving Idiots

By that logic we should all be able to have a bazooka. Where's the line? For me the line is hunting rifles. Assault rifles don't make the cut. Banning assualt rifles doesn't trample on anyone's rights since I don't believe that anyone has the right to military grade weapons.

And the very valid argument made in that point is why would those elected to serve the people still be protected by the arms they ban for their constituents?