New gun control push because of Tucson shooting

[FArchivist]

History has a very bad habbit of repeating itself, it's very pertinent. I don't know why so many people get so hung up on "Just because this happened years ago has no meaning today!"....oh it has a lot of meaning.

Not really. History actually doesn't repeat itself at all; it just looks like it does. Even if you see an event that is the 'same' it will have entirely different causes, agenda, problems, and results. The reoccurrence is only superficial at best. To quote Mark Twain, "History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

Tyrants also had czars. Guess who has had and who else currently has czars today? Oh, but that doesn't count because that's in the past, I'm sure there's a logical reason to explain that, or I'm just totally wrong here.

Unfortunately, yes, you are incorrect. Tyrants DIDN'T have czars.
Czar is a term derived from the Latin word for emperor, Caesar. It was adopted by those Eastern European nations who learned it from the Byzantine Empire and generally became the term used to denote the king of a Eastern European principality. It was either used as 'czar' or 'tsar' and remains a staple word of Eastern European languages.

Czar in English slang terminology is an informal title for certain high-level officials in the United States and United Kingdom. Political czars can run or organize governmental departments, and may devote their expertise to a single area of work. It has been in use in English since 1866 as a metaphor for positions of high authority. Vice-Presidents, the chairpeople of Congressional Committees, CEOs, bankers, and Supreme Court Justices have all been referred to as 'czars'.

But no tyrant or dictator has ever used the term. In Eastern Europe and Russia, it's a title of nobility. When tyrants and dictators came to power there, they wiped out the term wherever possible.

On the other side of English political slang, it's only been used in the UK and the USA. No other country uses it as political slang - or has used it.

[FArchivist]

Really? bolded are what the US currently has going on

Forthwith do I counter:

Supposition: civil unrest attributed to Marxist groups

Counter: The majority of 'civil unrest' that has occurred has been shown to come from extremist Christian groups or far-right white nationalists. There have been no insurgencies from Marxist groups. Furthermore, there hasn't actually BEEN civil unrest. All of the loud protests you've seen, from anti-war activists to Tea Parties, comprise NORMAL action and protest on the American scene, no different than any other decade. We just have better media coverage now.

Supposition: the global Great Depression of the 1930s

Counter: The recent financial drop that is being called the Great Recession has little resemblence at all to the Great Depression of the 1930s and falls very short of it. Differences explicitly pointed out between the recession and the Great Depression include the facts that over the 79 years between 1929 and 2008, great changes occurred in economic philosophy and policy, the stock market had not fallen as far as it did in 1932 or 1982, the 10-year price-to-earnings ratio of stocks was not as low as in the '30s or '80s, inflation-adjusted U.S. housing prices in March 2009 were higher than any time since 1890 (including the housing booms of the 1970s and '80s), the recession of the early '30s lasted over three-and-a-half years, and during the 1930s the supply of money (currency plus demand deposits) fell by 25% (where as in 2008 and 2009 the Fed "has taken an ultraloose credit stance"). Furthermore, the unemployment rate in 2008 and early 2009 and the rate at which it rose was comparable to most of the recessions occurring after World War II, and was dwarfed by the 25% unemployment rate peak of the Great Depression

Supposition: hyperinflation

Counter: There has been NO hyperinflation. We are not having to pay $100,000 for a loaf of bread, as Germany did in the Great Depression. Our currency has not been devalued in any way, shape, or form similar to that which occurred in Germany back then.

Supposition: supporting far right-wing and far left-wing political parties,

Counter: There are no far-right OR far-left political parties being broadly supported in the USA. The Democrats under Obama are centrist-left, being more center than anything else. Don't believe it? Look and see what the rest of the world considers left to be.

As for far-right, not even the Tea Parties meet that equation. Conservatives are more right at this time than they have been at the past, but they haven't stepped towards fascism at all. The Tea Parties are, at worst, regressive Libertarian & Social Conservatives, with a large dollop of loudness.

The Nazis used lists of registered firearms to confiscate them from legal owners, that can't happen in the US? Guess what, it already has, it took Lawsuits to get law-abiding citizens property that was ILLEGALLY SEIZED returned. In a few cases it took YEARS.

I'm sorry, but your example is actually very weak. Reasons why:

1) The "martial law" that was declared was actually an State of Emergency ordered by the state government. Mayor Nagin of NOLA interpreted that as "martial law" and ordered the law enforcement in the area under his control (which included US Marshals and National Guard seconded to his command) to stop to observing civil rights and Miranda rights in stopping the looters and to begin a confiscation of privately-held firearms. This was in accordance with Louisiana state law in regards to his powers during a state of emergency, but was contrary to federal law.

2) After that, the Senate voted and put into law a ban on emergency gun confiscation in a state of emergency or martial law, which supersedes and nullifies the LA state law on the subject.

[Mytical]

People are surprised that they call for stricter gun control? Really? Wow. I expected it as soon as I heard about the shooting. Forget that as mentioned only non-criminals will be affected, people are kinda sheepish. The bleating for gun control was inevitable. I do not own a gun, not sure I could use one if I had it. I am a very peaceful person, but gun laws do not make things safer.

[Gravekeeper]

Forthwith do I counter:

Are you mad? Facts have no place on the Internet!

I'm with std in that being Canadian, I just don't and can't understand the American thing with guns. But by the same measure, I don't think any legislation should be done in a kneejerk response to tragedy.

Frankly its not gun control that failed here, its Arizona's mental health services. If no gun was available to him, he still would have walked up and shanked her with a kitchen knife. Because he's crazy. Remember he was thrown out of two colleges for acting like a lunatic in class. One college even declared he couldn't return unless he got a report from a doctor stating he was not a danger to himself or others. Needless to say, he didn't get said report.

[Andara Bledin]

Maybe if we stopped jailing people for victimless crimes, we'd have more resources to spend on helping those who are ill.

Yeah, I know, makes too much sense...

^-.-^

[protege]

When you research these kind of issues through doing research on your own through reading books and the internet and other alternative sources, and compare what you hear through the mainstream media, doesn't it paint a completely different picture to you?

It does, at times. Mainly, because I try to see through the bias, the rhetoric, etc. and attempt to uncover the truth. For example, when the Messiah was constantly making speeches about how bad the economy was...I took it with a grain of salt. Mainly, because even though I work in the financial services industry, we didn't take a huge hit like he was claiming. In fact, because people were changing their investment needs...we had our best year ever. Things have slowed down now though, which is typical for us. It always tends to slow down a bit over the winter, and pick up again later. I've always felt that my own observations is the best "research"

Back on topic here, mental health care is what it is in many areas. Doesn't help with things like this place either. I'm sure everyone has heard of Pennhurst, and the abuses that went on there. In those days, from what I understand, people were dumped into mental hospitals by force. All of it done legally...since (at least in PA) laws weren't passed to protect against abuse...until 2010

[Hyena Dandy]

Tyrants also had czars. Guess who has had and who else currently has czars today? Oh, but that doesn't count because that's in the past, I'm sure there's a logical reason to explain that, or I'm just totally wrong here.

It doesn't count because the word 'Czar' in this context is pretty much completely divorced from the historic meaning of the word 'Czar'. The closer term would probably be 'Minister of *thing*'. Saying that our 'Car Czars' are like historic Czars because they're both called Czars is like me asking people to address me as 'Your Majesty' because I'm a queen. Word's the same, meaning's completely different.

[ditchdj]

From the "No Shit Sherlock" Department.........

"I don't think it really changes anything," Republican state Sen. Ron Gould said of the mass shooting. "I don't see how gun control could have prevented that shooting unless you take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens."

First thought that came through my mind after reading this quote????

There's bound to be someone in the British Isles saying, "Oy, what a bloody Yankee idiot!"

[Rapscallion]

There's bound to be someone in the British Isles saying, "Oy, what a bloody Yankee idiot!"

Seeing as you mention it, yes.

The point is not to take them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. It's to stop them being used by irresponsible or those who mean harm.

Can you say that your system works? This whole thread is testament to how it didn't. Nothing in the articles I've read suggested that sensible citizens using guns for self defence and the defence of others stopped him. Instead he was ... clubbed around the head with a fold-up chair. (source - wikipedia)

Hmm, I think a rather good organisation should be one that protests for chair wielding rights for law abiding citizens. "You can have my chair when you can pull it from under my cold, dead arse."

Instead, the pro-gun lobby such as yourself are trying to say this is a reason to not put any sort of controls on guns.

How many deaths are acceptable?

Put a number on it.

Rapscallion

[ditchdj]

Banning guns in the UK certainly has NOT led to a "Gun-free paradise".

------Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[36] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06

------However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths.

------Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture.

------Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80

-------The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. (it didnt plunge after 1997 legislation????)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

[Rapscallion]

Banning guns in the UK certainly has NOT led to a "Gun-free paradise".

While I'd love to go through your claims and point out inaccuracies (four hundred thousand a year springs to mind from previous entanglements), I'm away to bed.

However, I'd like to ask where I claimed we have a 'gun free paradise'.

Somehow, it feels as if words are being put into my mouth.

Also, you didn't answer the points I raised.

Rapscallion

[Rebel]

Banning guns in the UK certainly has NOT led to a "Gun-free paradise".

------Since 1998, the number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales increased by 110%,[36] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 5,001 in 2005/06

------However, in late 2009 The Telegraph reported that gun crime had doubled in the last 10 years, with an increase in both firearms offences and deaths.

------Chris Grayling, the Shadow Home Secretary (an opposition party spokesperson), attributed the rise to ineffective policing and an out-of-control gang culture.

------Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80

-------The number of homicides per year committed with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 97 in the 8 years to 2006. (it didn't plunge after 1997 legislation????)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_pol...United_Kingdom

Hey buddy. You forgot to add this quote from the statistics site you just mentioned.

DEFINITION: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence.

I'm sure it was just an oversight.

But if you really feel the need to quote this site so much in your arguments against gun restriction then its only fair to point out;
Murder with Firearms:
USA = 9369 (0.028 per 1000 people)
UK = 14 (0.001 per 1000 people)
Total Crime (what exactly does this encapsulate?):
USA = 11,877,218 (80.06 per 1000 people)
UK = 6,523,706 (85.55 per 1000 people)

But then again, anything this website says is pure bullshit. Particularly because going by the total crimes per 1000 people statistics then you really don't want to live in New Zealand, but living in Colombia is perfectly safe. Also, Australia apparently has so little crimes that it doesn't even get a mention for the most part. And have you even read the comments at the bottom of each page? This site is about as reliable as Wikipedia for unbiased and true statistics.

Also, no-one has ever called the UK a 'Gun-Free Paradise" except for you. The UK has guns. Most everywhere has guns. It's just that certain people are not allowed to own guns in these other countries. People like convicted criminals and those with mental health issues. And that you can't use a weak excuse as 'self defense' as your only reason to own a gun.
The main thing that I think should be addressed in this situation is the access people with known serious mental health issues have to guns, as well as the broken health system that allowed them to be left untreated.

No-one is saying that a reasonable person can't have access to guns if they have an actual need for them, just that some people should never be allowed near guns, and that it should be possible to lose your right to guns (ie. if you have been convicted of a serious offence or have shown to be dangerous to the general public). But I'm pretty sure all you're gonna do is quote the 2nd Amendment at me and not actually address the issue at all.

[ditchdj]

And that you can't use a weak excuse as 'self defense' as your only reason to own a gun.

It's only a "weak excuse" if you haven't been in that situation, pal.

But I'm pretty sure all you're gonna do is quote the 2nd Amendment at me and not actually address the issue at all.

Well, yeah. That's because most people like you think that ALL guns should be banned that when we're in a situation where we're being robbed or attacked we should simply call 911 and cower somewhere and hope that the police will show up on time to save us.

I could come up with more sources. But since they aren't from the mainstream media, you'll simply dismiss it as BS.

Because you know that if the BBC or CBS or Fox News didn't report it then it didn't happen.

Besides, some of the stuff you quoted as showing that gun control in the UK works is questioned itself, claiming that some of the numbers were cooked on the books.

Total Crime (what exactly does this encapsulate?):
USA = 11,877,218 (80.06 per 1000 people)
UK = 6,523,706 (85.55 per 1000 people)

Well...........did gun control reduce crime????

Here's another one........

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/200...n-control.html

And in another case an elderly man living alone had his home broken into repeatedly. And in his area there were no regular police. During one break in he shot the two men robbing him. He went to prison for life and the government gave one of the attackers legal assistance to help him sue the victim.

If YOU can defend THAT, how can you a keep a straight face???? If you think that's fine you have a pretty perverted version of "justice".

[Rebel]

It's only a "weak excuse" if you haven't been in that situation, pal.

Guns should always be a last resort, pal, not the first thing you think of, pal. There are thousands of other ways of keeping yourself safe without needing a gun, pal. Man, I hope I put enough 'pals' in there to help make my response have a much deeper impact for my argument.

Well, yeah. That's because most people like you think that ALL guns should be banned that when we're in a situation where we're being robbed or attacked we should simply call 911 and cower somewhere and hope that the police will show up on time to save us.

Oh, cool. So could you just show me where I said that ALL guns should be banned? You're just making crap up to support your argument now. And, as I said before, there are always other options available to keep yourself safe. I always had large dogs growing up and we were never robbed once despite living in a high crime area. Other people just take precautions to avoid putting themselves in situations like these (staying on main well-lit streets, avoiding dangerous areas, walking in groups, etc).
Prevention is far better that your cure.

I could come up with more sources. But since they aren't from the mainstream media, you'll simply dismiss it as BS.

A well thought out and well executed argument there. Bringing up the idea that there are more sources that support you, but because you know me so well you see no point in providing them. And because of the sarcastic eyeroll you gave me, I shall of course just take you at your word. Well played good sir.

Because you know that if the BBC or CBS or Fox News didn't report it then it didn't happen.

Because apparently I watch those news sources and no others, and never once do I think to do further research myself towards the subject or event to get a well rounded account of the entire situation. No, because I only watch these news stations and take them as the gospel. And a brilliant point that didn't address any of the points that go against you main argument at all. And it's emphasized by the rolling eyes of doom yet again.

Besides, some of the stuff you quoted as showing that gun control in the UK works is questioned itself, claiming that some of the numbers were cooked on the books.

I pointed out that the site that you love to use to show the levels of crime actually tells you that these statistics are only showing the prevalence of people to report a crime, not the prevalence of the crime itself. And in the total crime section, it doesn't say what sort of crime is included, and whether it's the same crimes accounted for in each country.
For example,
New Zealand has a high rate of burglary, vehicle theft, harassment, property damage, and disorderly conduct.
Colombia has a high rate of murder, injuries resulting from domestic abuse, and robberies.
Which country would you rather live in?

Well...........did gun control reduce crime????

What sorts of crime? Crime will always be committed in every country you go to. It's the severity of the offense that is not the same.

Here's another one........

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/200...n-control.html

If YOU can defend THAT, how can you a keep a straight face???? If you think that's fine you have a pretty perverted version of "justice".

It's another pro-gun website that doesn't cite or link to its sources. The only links it had on it led to other pro-gun websites that also did not cite or link their sources. I tried to find the official story about the elderly man sent to prison for life for shooting a burglar on google. Couldn't find it. If you could find it, thus proving the point you're trying to make, that would be great!

Anyway, you never did address the main point I was trying to make. So I'll pose it again.
I personally believe that gun control regarding convicted criminals and people with serious mental illnesses should be addressed. Also, that the adequacy of the mental health system in the USA should be addressed.

And look at that. You didn't address any point I put forward, just like I predicted. Wow. How did I see that coming?

[ditchdj]

You didnt address much of mine either. You pretty much just put words into my mouth to feed your ego, pally pal pal.