Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article? Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
I think there might be one single person who said they support banning all guns. Can't remember who it is. But anyway, almost no one thinks that. Anyway, I did read the aritlcle, and it about prohibition of assault rifles, not all guns.
Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article? Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
Okay...so you were just replying to reply...wow. Seems kinda strange to post the reply that you did, when it does not pertain to the statement I made what so ever. Maybe try looking into what people are actually talking about for starts. Wow...
You asked a question. Your point was prohibition doesn't work. Great, nobody is asking for that
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article? Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
No, I didn't read the article I read your post. And I haven't seen anyone on there boards say they wanted to see all guns banned.
Okay...so you were just replying to reply...wow. Seems kinda strange to post the reply that you did, when it does not pertain to the statement I made what so ever. Maybe try looking into what people are actually talking about for starts. Wow...
You asked a question. Your point was prohibition doesn't work. Great, nobody is asking for that
"Prohibition of assault rifles" is most definitely a type of prohibition. I'm done replying to you, you clearly are trolling and adding nothing to the discussion. If you read the article and respond, then maybe I will not consider your response moot.
Where did I imply they were? Did you read the article? Edit: "Nobody" is not a true statement. There are some on this board that have stated all guns. Maybe the majority are not, but some definitely are.
Thirty...^^^ page 4 of this thread. That was easier to find than I thought. I would suggest pulling up the "Coalition to stop Gun Violence" Facebook page and reading through comments if you want to find more examples of people wanting to ban all guns. They are out there.
It's a vast understatement to say that the U.S. is at a political impasse when it comes to gun violence in this country. And like all good impasses, the reasons for it are multiplying rather than shrinking every day. But it boils down to a very old and stubborn argument. Pro-gun control forces insist on new laws and bans to stop gun violence while their opponents say those new laws and bans will only end up punishing and endangering the law-abiding gun owners or would-be gun owners in this country. Politically, this has been an unbridgeable divide for going on 40 years in this country. And no amount of sit-ins, NRA rallies, mass shootings, accidental shootings, or incidents where armed citizens stopped crimes in their tracks are going to break it.
The crux of the problem revolves around legislation. As long as Democrats insist that new gun laws and bans are the only way to stop or slow gun violence, the Republicans and most of the American people will stand in their way - unless they rush to pass new gun laws and bans within 2-3 weeks of major mass shootings. The reasons are many, but one of the biggest problems with the new legislation approach is the fact that gun violence is mostly committed in urban areas by people in demographic groups and living in geographical locations that a large segment of the American people believe are heavily connected to the Democratic Party. As "Dilbert" creator and blogger Scott Adams wrote last week, that leaves many non-Democrats who own guns looking at newly proposed gun laws by Democrats as essentially saying to them: "put down your guns… so we can shoot you." This approach simply isn't going to work.
But here's the funny thing, in a tragically laughable way of course: we already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we've already done it many times before. That's right, we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law. Now Republicans often get off too easy with their base voters by talking the talk about enforcing existing gun laws and leaving it at that. While it's technically true that there are already enough gun laws on the books to put the hammer down on gun violence, most Republicans know all too well that law enforcement all over the country needs a lot more funding and other tools to enforce those laws better. And that became clear during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when new funding programs to cut down on gun violence were instituted and they worked.
"There's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress." I'll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn't the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress. I was on the White House lawn that day in October, 1994 when President Clinton was joined by an army of police chiefs and mayors to announce the $200 million being released to put 100,000 more cops on the streets. It's not clear just how close the Clinton Administration came to reaching that 100,000 number, but the message the funding sent had almost as much of an effect as however many new cops actually hit the streets.
The message was that police weren't the problem, which just a couple years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent L.A. riots wasn't such an easy thing for any Democrat to say. And President Clinton was never shy about trumpeting the falling crime statistics during his presidency. He and Hillary Clinton are trying to backtrack on that a bit now as the "Black Lives Matter" movement has started a new anti-cop sentiment in the new Democratic Party base, but there's really no denying that the increased Clinton administration funding for policing and incarceration made a difference.
Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, saw similar successes with boosted funding for the FBI to go after gun runners and then his "Project SAFE" program in his second term aimed at prosecuting criminals who used guns. Project SAFE alone got more than $1.5 billion from the Bush administration. Violent crime fell sharply during the Bush years, even when compared with the already falling crime numbers under President Clinton.
But at the end of the Bush years, the focus shifted from gun prosecutions to new regulations. That was probably the result of Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the Bush domestic agenda was gutted.
President Obama has sadly continued this trend. Thankfully, violent crime has mostly remained at historic lows. But prosecutions of gun-using criminals has decidedly gone down. Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with a record 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under President Bush according to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.
There may be ideological reasons for this decline, as many of President Obama's critics insist the White House is more interested in scoring political points by harassing law abiding gun owners. But there's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress. The White House may be blaming the GOP a little too much for the gun prosecution decline, but it does have a solid point. Both the Clinton crime initiatives and the Bush crackdown on illegal guns cost money, big money. And Republicans haven't been so forthcoming with budgetary cash lately.
That leaves us with a unique double "put your money where your mouth is moment" when it comes to guns in America. The Democrats, if they really want to slow gun violence in this country, need to put their money where their mouths are and support renewed efforts to enforce existing gun laws like Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did in the recent past. Republicans, if they really want to prove they believe enforcing the existing gun laws is all we need to do, need to put their money where their mouths are and get proactive about offering money funding for that enforcement up front.
So far, both sides just aren't stepping up to the plate. So we're stuck with stunts like sit-ins and scare tactics. I remain convinced that the presidential candidate who refocuses the gun debate towards a push for more funding would enjoy a significant boost in the polls. The question is: which candidate is smart enough to simply promote what we already know works?
It's a vast understatement to say that the U.S. is at a political impasse when it comes to gun violence in this country. And like all good impasses, the reasons for it are multiplying rather than shrinking every day. But it boils down to a very old and stubborn argument. Pro-gun control forces insist on new laws and bans to stop gun violence while their opponents say those new laws and bans will only end up punishing and endangering the law-abiding gun owners or would-be gun owners in this country. Politically, this has been an unbridgeable divide for going on 40 years in this country. And no amount of sit-ins, NRA rallies, mass shootings, accidental shootings, or incidents where armed citizens stopped crimes in their tracks are going to break it.
The crux of the problem revolves around legislation. As long as Democrats insist that new gun laws and bans are the only way to stop or slow gun violence, the Republicans and most of the American people will stand in their way - unless they rush to pass new gun laws and bans within 2-3 weeks of major mass shootings. The reasons are many, but one of the biggest problems with the new legislation approach is the fact that gun violence is mostly committed in urban areas by people in demographic groups and living in geographical locations that a large segment of the American people believe are heavily connected to the Democratic Party. As "Dilbert" creator and blogger Scott Adams wrote last week, that leaves many non-Democrats who own guns looking at newly proposed gun laws by Democrats as essentially saying to them: "put down your guns… so we can shoot you." This approach simply isn't going to work.
But here's the funny thing, in a tragically laughable way of course: we already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we've already done it many times before. That's right, we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law. Now Republicans often get off too easy with their base voters by talking the talk about enforcing existing gun laws and leaving it at that. While it's technically true that there are already enough gun laws on the books to put the hammer down on gun violence, most Republicans know all too well that law enforcement all over the country needs a lot more funding and other tools to enforce those laws better. And that became clear during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when new funding programs to cut down on gun violence were instituted and they worked.
"There's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress." I'll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn't the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress. I was on the White House lawn that day in October, 1994 when President Clinton was joined by an army of police chiefs and mayors to announce the $200 million being released to put 100,000 more cops on the streets. It's not clear just how close the Clinton Administration came to reaching that 100,000 number, but the message the funding sent had almost as much of an effect as however many new cops actually hit the streets.
The message was that police weren't the problem, which just a couple years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent L.A. riots wasn't such an easy thing for any Democrat to say. And President Clinton was never shy about trumpeting the falling crime statistics during his presidency. He and Hillary Clinton are trying to backtrack on that a bit now as the "Black Lives Matter" movement has started a new anti-cop sentiment in the new Democratic Party base, but there's really no denying that the increased Clinton administration funding for policing and incarceration made a difference.
Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, saw similar successes with boosted funding for the FBI to go after gun runners and then his "Project SAFE" program in his second term aimed at prosecuting criminals who used guns. Project SAFE alone got more than $1.5 billion from the Bush administration. Violent crime fell sharply during the Bush years, even when compared with the already falling crime numbers under President Clinton.
But at the end of the Bush years, the focus shifted from gun prosecutions to new regulations. That was probably the result of Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the Bush domestic agenda was gutted.
President Obama has sadly continued this trend. Thankfully, violent crime has mostly remained at historic lows. But prosecutions of gun-using criminals has decidedly gone down. Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with a record 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under President Bush according to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.
There may be ideological reasons for this decline, as many of President Obama's critics insist the White House is more interested in scoring political points by harassing law abiding gun owners. But there's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress. The White House may be blaming the GOP a little too much for the gun prosecution decline, but it does have a solid point. Both the Clinton crime initiatives and the Bush crackdown on illegal guns cost money, big money. And Republicans haven't been so forthcoming with budgetary cash lately.
That leaves us with a unique double "put your money where your mouth is moment" when it comes to guns in America. The Democrats, if they really want to slow gun violence in this country, need to put their money where their mouths are and support renewed efforts to enforce existing gun laws like Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did in the recent past. Republicans, if they really want to prove they believe enforcing the existing gun laws is all we need to do, need to put their money where their mouths are and get proactive about offering money funding for that enforcement up front.
So far, both sides just aren't stepping up to the plate. So we're stuck with stunts like sit-ins and scare tactics. I remain convinced that the presidential candidate who refocuses the gun debate towards a push for more funding would enjoy a significant boost in the polls. The question is: which candidate is smart enough to simply promote what we already know works?
I've concluded that the dems are more interested in creating a show for their constituents than actually reducing gun violence. Make good TV and get good votes. I liked and agree with your article and statements. Why is prosecution of gun crimes at an all time low? I bet a little research into the political correctness initiatives being practiced by the current administration would answer that question...but I'm going to leave that alone for now.
Thirty...^^^ page 4 of this thread. That was easier to find than I thought. I would suggest pulling up the "Coalition to stop Gun Violence" Facebook page and reading through comments if you want to find more examples of people wanting to ban all guns. They are out there.
Fair enough. One person. However, you implied there were more.
I've been doing this dance on this forum for a few years now and I can tell you that's the first person I've seen call for such a thing.
Kooky Facebook pages don't count- especially within the context of 'on this board'.
Thirty...^^^ page 4 of this thread. That was easier to find than I thought. I would suggest pulling up the "Coalition to stop Gun Violence" Facebook page and reading through comments if you want to find more examples of people wanting to ban all guns. They are out there.
Fair enough. One person. However, you implied there were more.
I've been doing this dance on this forum for a few years now and I can tell you that's the first person I've seen call for such a thing.
Kooky Facebook pages don't count- especially within the context of 'on this board'.
Oh, I've seen it mentioned a couple of times. You asked for one example and I gave you one. Here is one more for you by "Norm"- "Ban all guns" found about half way down here: http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/74857/gun-laws-in-america/p6 I'm not going to dig through the thousands of posts to find more direct quotes. Whether they would state it in this forum or not, I'm willing to bet plenty here would sign a petition to ban any and every gun from private ownership if given the opportunity. I guess we could start a poll... Anyways, we got derailed. My original argument was that prohibition in general has been proven not to work. Can we agree to back up a bit to that comment before the derailment related to this article: https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
You mean like safe injection sites for heroin users?
What's lost here, sir, is the very basic correlation that is simply indisputable: more guns equals more deaths by guns.
Defend your hobby any way you want, but don't try to dissuade intelligent people to dismiss common sense (gun courses for all and no problems!). You'd get more respect from me saying, "F**k all you wussies. I love my guns and you ain't ever getting them" versus trying to frame an argument that flies in the face of logic.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
You mean like safe injection sites for heroin users?
What's lost here, sir, is the very basic correlation that is simply indisputable: more guns equals more deaths by guns.
Defend your hobby any way you want, but don't try to dissuade intelligent people to dismiss common sense (gun courses for all and no problems!). You'd get more respect from me saying, "F**k all you wussies. I love my guns and you ain't ever getting them" versus trying to frame an argument that flies in the face of logic.
Typical elitist response... If someone disagrees with your strategy, they are disrespectful and illogical. I just believe in education over regulation, plus it's something that can be done now, instead of waiting on politicians. You would gain my respect if you weren't so condescending. That's okay, I can ignore you from now on too...what a jerk... Go ahead an continue beating your head against a wall trying to make guns disappear and I'll continue pushing my realistic ideas of logical, common sense, change, "change you can believe in" lol.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
This is just fantasy. The idea that proper education about firearms will stop people from using them is naive at best. Children who have been taught gun safety by parents who are gun obsessed still get the guns out to show off to their friends or play pretend, and they still blow each other away. Gun education doesn't stop cops from blowing people away at the theaters, or gun advocate women from blowing their daughters away in the heat of an argument. The number of people who have guns and lack the education you propose is minimal and violence is not deterred by knowing safety techniques, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
This is just fantasy. The idea that proper education about firearms will stop people from using them is naive at best. Children who have been taught gun safety by parents who are gun obsessed still get the guns out to show off to their friends or play pretend, and they still blow each other away. Gun education doesn't stop cops from blowing people away at the theaters, or gun advocate women from blowing their daughters away in the heat of an argument. The number of people who have guns and lack the education you propose is minimal and violence is not deterred by knowing safety techniques, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
I'm curious as to how you back up these claims. So parenting classes are bad because some people still abuse their children? I feel that training and education in a number of different areas could be beneficial. Fantasy is believing that evil people or firearms are not always going to be around. Fantasy is believing that there will be bipartisan support for any kind of firearm bans. Reality is that people save lives that have been trained in basic first aid, CPR, active shooter response, situational awareness, gun safety. If people had financial incentives to attend such trainings, there would be many more attendees. With the billions of dollars wasted on failed legislation attempts, you could probably have provided every gun owner with a handgun safe or $50 cash for attending trainings. How the hell can you say that accidents would not be reduced if more people learned proper safety techniques. I'm starting to think that you guys just want to punish people that do not agree with you instead of thinking of other sensible strategies. Hell, I don't even care if you keep pushing this ridiculous "make assault weapons disappear" rhetoric, but do something to help yourself or the community in the mean time. Are you trained in CPR, active shooter awareness, basic first aid or anything like that? It's hard to take people seriously that do not attempt to even help themselves. Keep on waiting for the government to make things better for you, that always seems to work in such an efficient timely manner. Being an activist is about more than holding signs at a protest or playing on online forums. Get out and learn active shooter awareness and teach others what you have learned. The more people that know how to properly barricade a door or apply a tourniquet or respond with force...the more lives get saved when bad people decide to do bad things. Seems like a reasonable way to spend your time in between wishing that guns and bad people would disappear. Here's a good place to start!!! https://www.dhs.gov/active-shooter-preparedness
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Eddie Vedder
Does having armed security make celebrities safer or less safe? Too bad we cannot all afford our own armed security everywhere we go...
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
This is just fantasy. The idea that proper education about firearms will stop people from using them is naive at best. Children who have been taught gun safety by parents who are gun obsessed still get the guns out to show off to their friends or play pretend, and they still blow each other away. Gun education doesn't stop cops from blowing people away at the theaters, or gun advocate women from blowing their daughters away in the heat of an argument. The number of people who have guns and lack the education you propose is minimal and violence is not deterred by knowing safety techniques, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
I'm curious as to how you back up these claims. So parenting classes are bad because some people still abuse their children? I feel that training and education in a number of different areas could be beneficial. Fantasy is believing that evil people or firearms are not always going to be around. Fantasy is believing that there will be bipartisan support for any kind of firearm bans. Reality is that people save lives that have been trained in basic first aid, CPR, active shooter response, situational awareness, gun safety. If people had financial incentives to attend such trainings, there would be many more attendees. With the billions of dollars wasted on failed legislation attempts, you could probably have provided every gun owner with a handgun safe or $50 cash for attending trainings. How the hell can you say that accidents would not be reduced if more people learned proper safety techniques. I'm starting to think that you guys just want to punish people that do not agree with you instead of thinking of other sensible strategies. Hell, I don't even care if you keep pushing this ridiculous "make assault weapons disappear" rhetoric, but do something to help yourself or the community in the mean time. Are you trained in CPR, active shooter awareness, basic first aid or anything like that? It's hard to take people seriously that do not attempt to even help themselves. Keep on waiting for the government to make things better for you, that always seems to work in such an efficient timely manner. Being an activist is about more than holding signs at a protest or playing on online forums. Get out and learn active shooter awareness and teach others what you have learned. The more people that know how to properly barricade a door or apply a tourniquet or respond with force...the more lives get saved when bad people decide to do bad things. Seems like a reasonable way to spend your time in between wishing that guns and bad people would disappear. Here's a good place to start!!! https://www.dhs.gov/active-shooter-preparedness
. I'm curious as to how you back up these claims. So parenting classes are bad because some people still abuse their children? I feel that training and education in a number of different areas could be beneficial. Fantasy is believing that evil people or firearms are not always going to be around. Fantasy is believing that there will be bipartisan support for any kind of firearm bans. Reality is that people save lives that have been trained in basic first aid, CPR, active shooter response, situational awareness, gun safety. If people had financial incentives to attend such trainings, there would be many more attendees. With the billions of dollars wasted on failed legislation attempts, you could probably have provided every gun owner with a handgun safe or $50 cash for attending trainings. How the hell can you say that accidents would not be reduced if more people learned proper safety techniques. I'm starting to think that you guys just want to punish people that do not agree with you instead of thinking of other sensible strategies. Hell, I don't even care if you keep pushing this ridiculous "make assault weapons disappear" rhetoric, but do something to help yourself or the community in the mean time. Are you trained in CPR, active shooter awareness, basic first aid or anything like that? It's hard to take people seriously that do not attempt to even help themselves. Keep on waiting for the government to make things better for you, that always seems to work in such an efficient timely manner. Being an activist is about more than holding signs at a protest or playing on online forums. Get out and learn active shooter awareness and teach others what you have learned. The more people that know how to properly barricade a door or apply a tourniquet or respond with force...the more lives get saved when bad people decide to do bad things. Seems like a reasonable way to spend your time in between wishing that guns and bad people would disappear. Here's a good place to start!!! https://www.dhs.gov/active-shooter-preparedness
Well, I didn't say proper training and education is a bad thing, only that it will not stop violent people from using guns that shouldn't have been so widely available to murder people in cold blood or heat of the moment. Sure, some accidents will be avoided, but I doubt very many. The idea that learning first aid is helping the community or being an activist is like thinking that putting a bandaid on a severed limb is a viable medical solution to the problem of bleeding out. I am an Eagle scout, so first aid, situational awareness, etc is all just common sense to me and mine. I have used CPR, though I didn't save any lives, it's rare that it is effective in doing so.
You keep saying that billions are wasted on gun control, I have never seen any reliable data on such a claim. It is the job of legislative representatives to draft legislation, not pass out gun safes, so if you look at every bill that doesn't pass as wasted money, you are holding a standard that is ridiculously impossible to uphold.
I'm curious as to how you back up these claims. So parenting classes are bad because some people still abuse their children? I feel that training and education in a number of different areas could be beneficial. Fantasy is believing that evil people or firearms are not always going to be around. Fantasy is believing that there will be bipartisan support for any kind of firearm bans. Reality is that people save lives that have been trained in basic first aid, CPR, active shooter response, situational awareness, gun safety. If people had financial incentives to attend such trainings, there would be many more attendees. With the billions of dollars wasted on failed legislation attempts, you could probably have provided every gun owner with a handgun safe or $50 cash for attending trainings. How the hell can you say that accidents would not be reduced if more people learned proper safety techniques. I'm starting to think that you guys just want to punish people that do not agree with you instead of thinking of other sensible strategies. Hell, I don't even care if you keep pushing this ridiculous "make assault weapons disappear" rhetoric, but do something to help yourself or the community in the mean time. Are you trained in CPR, active shooter awareness, basic first aid or anything like that? It's hard to take people seriously that do not attempt to even help themselves. Keep on waiting for the government to make things better for you, that always seems to work in such an efficient timely manner. Being an activist is about more than holding signs at a protest or playing on online forums. Get out and learn active shooter awareness and teach others what you have learned. The more people that know how to properly barricade a door or apply a tourniquet or respond with force...the more lives get saved when bad people decide to do bad things. Seems like a reasonable way to spend your time in between wishing that guns and bad people would disappear. Here's a good place to start!!! https://www.dhs.gov/active-shooter-preparedness
Well, I didn't say proper training and education is a bad thing, only that it will not stop violent people from using guns that shouldn't have been so widely available to murder people in cold blood or heat of the moment. Sure, some accidents will be avoided, but I doubt very many. The idea that learning first aid is helping the community or being an activist is like thinking that putting a bandaid on a severed limb is a viable medical solution to the problem of bleeding out. I am an Eagle scout, so first aid, situational awareness, etc is all just common sense to me and mine. I have used CPR, though I didn't save any lives, it's rare that it is effective in doing so.
You keep saying that billions are wasted on gun control, I have never seen any reliable data on such a claim. It is the job of legislative representatives to draft legislation, not pass out gun safes, so if you look at every bill that doesn't pass as wasted money, you are holding a standard that is ridiculously impossible to uphold.
The billions I was talking about was more of a shot at Bloomberg and the likings. He could have passed out gun safes and been way more effective at lowering gun deaths than the billions he spent on this "Everytown" thing that only appeals to his constituents. Props for you for being an Eagle Scout, maybe if we backed those programs and made them more available, you have obviously learned skills that could save your life and the lives of others. And learning first aid is more like knowing not to put a bandaid on a severed limb that is bleeding out and knowing to use a tourniquet instead... You're right, learning basic skills such as those learned in scouts is common sense. In my opinion, "legislation" that has been proposed is much more of a political display than a realistic way of reducing violence and would probably do little in the way of gun ownership, I'll refer once again to this article that sums up my opinions on the matter pretty well. Funny how no one has refuted the statements made here: https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
there will never be a America without guns, the people will never allow it.
Godfather.
this is the narrative of the gun supporters i don't understand. no sane person has ever advocated getting rid of all guns or overturning the 2nd amendment. unfortunately the NRA and other gun groups have convinced many of the gun owners (and some people here) that even one regulation will eventually lead to a full on ban of all guns. it's just non sense rhetoric and some people eat it up. it's sad really considering there is no product in modern times we have done that to. i mean fuck we still let people buy cigarettes in this country.
there will never be a America without guns, the people will never allow it.
Godfather.
this is the narrative of the gun supporters i don't understand. no sane person has ever advocated getting rid of all guns or overturning the 2nd amendment. unfortunately the NRA and other gun groups have convinced many of the gun owners (and some people here) that even one regulation will eventually lead to a full on ban of all guns. it's just non sense rhetoric and some people eat it up. it's sad really considering there is no product in modern times we have done that to. i mean fuck we still let people buy cigarettes in this country.
So you are saying it is insane to advocate getting rid of all guns or overturning the 2nd Amendment? I fully agree with this statement and hope that those mentioning it throughout this thread get the mental health treatment that they need. BTW, didn't we ban marijuana products and the growing of hemp? That still seems to be causing modern dilemmas.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
You mean like safe injection sites for heroin users?
What's lost here, sir, is the very basic correlation that is simply indisputable: more guns equals more deaths by guns.
Defend your hobby any way you want, but don't try to dissuade intelligent people to dismiss common sense (gun courses for all and no problems!). You'd get more respect from me saying, "F**k all you wussies. I love my guns and you ain't ever getting them" versus trying to frame an argument that flies in the face of logic.
Typical elitist response... If someone disagrees with your strategy, they are disrespectful and illogical. I just believe in education over regulation, plus it's something that can be done now, instead of waiting on politicians. You would gain my respect if you weren't so condescending. That's okay, I can ignore you from now on too...what a jerk... Go ahead an continue beating your head against a wall trying to make guns disappear and I'll continue pushing my realistic ideas of logical, common sense, change, "change you can believe in" lol.
More guns equals more deaths by guns.
This and other points such as how the odds of you dying by gunfire increase dramatically upon the introduction of a gun to your household are items you and others consistently fail to address.
You're focused on the delivery of the message which I can admit to being poor (guy gets a little irritated some times- forgive me), but you should probably think of things such as the aforementioned items when responding. The 'common sense' things you speak of aren't really common sense- they're band aid solutions that won't achieve what people want. And no... people don't want to take all your guns... they want to make your country safer like all the other developed countries that don't sell assault rifles and hand guns to any cash or visa purchaser such as the terrorist threat in Orlando.
What's the over/under for your next mass shooting? One month? Two? Just hopefully nobody you know is impacted eh?
* Off the top of my head... grandfather existing guns. Offer buy back program. Develop registry. Limit ammunition sales to licensed purchasers. Restrict assault rifle sales. Limit handgun sales. Make future gun owners take the courses you speak of before purchasing. Develop heavy penalties for selling guns/ammunition 'under the table'.
Then... in 20 years... see how you're doing. There's no short term fix. For the time being... you're f**ked. But that's the fault of the last generation.
there will never be a America without guns, the people will never allow it.
Godfather.
this is the narrative of the gun supporters i don't understand. no sane person has ever advocated getting rid of all guns or overturning the 2nd amendment. unfortunately the NRA and other gun groups have convinced many of the gun owners (and some people here) that even one regulation will eventually lead to a full on ban of all guns. it's just non sense rhetoric and some people eat it up. it's sad really considering there is no product in modern times we have done that to. i mean fuck we still let people buy cigarettes in this country.
So you are saying it is insane to advocate getting rid of all guns or overturning the 2nd Amendment? I fully agree with this statement and hope that those mentioning it throughout this thread get the mental health treatment that they need. BTW, didn't we ban marijuana products and the growing of hemp? That still seems to be causing modern dilemmas.
who has said we should get rid of all guns and overturn the 2nd amendment? i haven't seen talk of that at all. But yes i think anyone who advocates getting rid of all guns in America is not based in reality.
marijuana has been illegal for over 100 years. i wouldn't call that modern times. nice try though.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
You mean like safe injection sites for heroin users?
What's lost here, sir, is the very basic correlation that is simply indisputable: more guns equals more deaths by guns.
Defend your hobby any way you want, but don't try to dissuade intelligent people to dismiss common sense (gun courses for all and no problems!). You'd get more respect from me saying, "F**k all you wussies. I love my guns and you ain't ever getting them" versus trying to frame an argument that flies in the face of logic.
Typical elitist response... If someone disagrees with your strategy, they are disrespectful and illogical. I just believe in education over regulation, plus it's something that can be done now, instead of waiting on politicians. You would gain my respect if you weren't so condescending. That's okay, I can ignore you from now on too...what a jerk... Go ahead an continue beating your head against a wall trying to make guns disappear and I'll continue pushing my realistic ideas of logical, common sense, change, "change you can believe in" lol.
More guns equals more deaths by guns.
This and other points such as how the odds of you dying by gunfire increase dramatically upon the introduction of a gun to your household are items you and others consistently fail to address.
You're focused on the delivery of the message which I can admit to being poor (guy gets a little irritated some times- forgive me), but you should probably think of things such as the aforementioned items when responding. The 'common sense' things you speak of aren't really common sense- they're band aid solutions that won't achieve what people want. And no... people don't want to take all your guns... they want to make your country safer like all the other developed countries that don't sell assault rifles and hand guns to any cash or visa purchaser such as the terrorist threat in Orlando.
What's the over/under for your next mass shooting? One month? Two? Just hopefully nobody you know is impacted eh?
* Off the top of my head... grandfather existing guns. Offer buy back program. Develop registry. Limit ammunition sales to licensed purchasers. Restrict assault rifle sales. Limit handgun sales. Make future gun owners take the courses you speak of before purchasing. Develop heavy penalties for selling guns/ammunition 'under the table'.
Then... in 20 years... see how you're doing. There's no short term fix. For the time being... you're f**ked. But that's the fault of the last generation.
It's evident that we are not going to find a middle ground here. We are having problems enforcing the laws already on the books, so I do not see more as being helpful simply because there is such a division in the country on the issue. I believe in change from the bottom up and you believe in change from the top down and that is not going to lead to us agreeing with each other. Keep debating all you want and good luck, there are plenty here who agree with you. I'll keep doing the same...just not with you. Maybe we'll find common ground on another issue.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
You mean like safe injection sites for heroin users?
What's lost here, sir, is the very basic correlation that is simply indisputable: more guns equals more deaths by guns.
Defend your hobby any way you want, but don't try to dissuade intelligent people to dismiss common sense (gun courses for all and no problems!). You'd get more respect from me saying, "F**k all you wussies. I love my guns and you ain't ever getting them" versus trying to frame an argument that flies in the face of logic.
Typical elitist response... If someone disagrees with your strategy, they are disrespectful and illogical. I just believe in education over regulation, plus it's something that can be done now, instead of waiting on politicians. You would gain my respect if you weren't so condescending. That's okay, I can ignore you from now on too...what a jerk... Go ahead an continue beating your head against a wall trying to make guns disappear and I'll continue pushing my realistic ideas of logical, common sense, change, "change you can believe in" lol.
More guns equals more deaths by guns.
This and other points such as how the odds of you dying by gunfire increase dramatically upon the introduction of a gun to your household are items you and others consistently fail to address.
You're focused on the delivery of the message which I can admit to being poor (guy gets a little irritated some times- forgive me), but you should probably think of things such as the aforementioned items when responding. The 'common sense' things you speak of aren't really common sense- they're band aid solutions that won't achieve what people want. And no... people don't want to take all your guns... they want to make your country safer like all the other developed countries that don't sell assault rifles and hand guns to any cash or visa purchaser such as the terrorist threat in Orlando.
What's the over/under for your next mass shooting? One month? Two? Just hopefully nobody you know is impacted eh?
* Off the top of my head... grandfather existing guns. Offer buy back program. Develop registry. Limit ammunition sales to licensed purchasers. Restrict assault rifle sales. Limit handgun sales. Make future gun owners take the courses you speak of before purchasing. Develop heavy penalties for selling guns/ammunition 'under the table'.
Then... in 20 years... see how you're doing. There's no short term fix. For the time being... you're f**ked. But that's the fault of the last generation.
It's evident that we are not going to find a middle ground here. We are having problems enforcing the laws already on the books, so I do not see more as being helpful simply because there is such a division in the country on the issue. I believe in change from the bottom up and you believe in change from the top down and that is not going to lead to us agreeing with each other. Keep debating all you want and good luck, there are plenty here who agree with you. I'll keep doing the same...just not with you. Maybe we'll find common ground on another issue.
We're more alike than not. I don't think you're a jerk and I think you do a credible job of defending gun ownership.
The world would be pretty vanilla without contrary views. I respect your position as you articulate it as much as I disagree with it.
“The fact that we’re living in a country where 90 percent of the people want further gun laws — to maybe somehow put a dent in some of this insanity that’s happening — and yet there’s no further legislation taking place, it’s very frustrating and upsetting,” Vedder told Richards in a clip from the discussion, which HuffPost Entertainment is debuting above. “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Sounds like a good reason to create laws that give people tax breaks for learning safe handling techniques. Or maybe be a true activist and teach a safe gun handling/storage class of your own for free to the public. Guns are here, but the more people that learn how to safely store firearms=less people's kiddos shooting their dogs, sister, dad, selves, because it would also=less guns lying around. Just because we don't agree with your laws does not mean we are not pushing for solutions and a safer society. That seems to be lost on some.
You mean like safe injection sites for heroin users?
What's lost here, sir, is the very basic correlation that is simply indisputable: more guns equals more deaths by guns.
Defend your hobby any way you want, but don't try to dissuade intelligent people to dismiss common sense (gun courses for all and no problems!). You'd get more respect from me saying, "F**k all you wussies. I love my guns and you ain't ever getting them" versus trying to frame an argument that flies in the face of logic.
Typical elitist response... If someone disagrees with your strategy, they are disrespectful and illogical. I just believe in education over regulation, plus it's something that can be done now, instead of waiting on politicians. You would gain my respect if you weren't so condescending. That's okay, I can ignore you from now on too...what a jerk... Go ahead an continue beating your head against a wall trying to make guns disappear and I'll continue pushing my realistic ideas of logical, common sense, change, "change you can believe in" lol.
More guns equals more deaths by guns.
This and other points such as how the odds of you dying by gunfire increase dramatically upon the introduction of a gun to your household are items you and others consistently fail to address.
You're focused on the delivery of the message which I can admit to being poor (guy gets a little irritated some times- forgive me), but you should probably think of things such as the aforementioned items when responding. The 'common sense' things you speak of aren't really common sense- they're band aid solutions that won't achieve what people want. And no... people don't want to take all your guns... they want to make your country safer like all the other developed countries that don't sell assault rifles and hand guns to any cash or visa purchaser such as the terrorist threat in Orlando.
What's the over/under for your next mass shooting? One month? Two? Just hopefully nobody you know is impacted eh?
* Off the top of my head... grandfather existing guns. Offer buy back program. Develop registry. Limit ammunition sales to licensed purchasers. Restrict assault rifle sales. Limit handgun sales. Make future gun owners take the courses you speak of before purchasing. Develop heavy penalties for selling guns/ammunition 'under the table'.
Then... in 20 years... see how you're doing. There's no short term fix. For the time being... you're f**ked. But that's the fault of the last generation.
It's evident that we are not going to find a middle ground here. We are having problems enforcing the laws already on the books, so I do not see more as being helpful simply because there is such a division in the country on the issue. I believe in change from the bottom up and you believe in change from the top down and that is not going to lead to us agreeing with each other. Keep debating all you want and good luck, there are plenty here who agree with you. I'll keep doing the same...just not with you. Maybe we'll find common ground on another issue.
We're more alike than not. I don't think you're a jerk and I think you do a credible job of defending gun ownership.
The world would be pretty vanilla without contrary views. I respect your position as you articulate it as much as I disagree with it.
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Eddie Vedder
Does having armed security make celebrities safer or less safe? Too bad we cannot all afford our own armed security everywhere we go...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH everybody needs a gun in some way, some how or somewhere....even if they don't want to admit it.
Comments
we will find a way, we will find our place
I would suggest pulling up the "Coalition to stop Gun Violence" Facebook page and reading through comments if you want to find more examples of people wanting to ban all guns. They are out there.
Gun control isn't the answer. We already know how to stop the violence
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/gun-control-isnt-the-answer-we-already-know-how-to-stop-the-violence-commentary.html?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=103753749&yptr=yahoo
It's a vast understatement to say that the U.S. is at a political impasse when it comes to gun violence in this country. And like all good impasses, the reasons for it are multiplying rather than shrinking every day. But it boils down to a very old and stubborn argument. Pro-gun control forces insist on new laws and bans to stop gun violence while their opponents say those new laws and bans will only end up punishing and endangering the law-abiding gun owners or would-be gun owners in this country. Politically, this has been an unbridgeable divide for going on 40 years in this country. And no amount of sit-ins, NRA rallies, mass shootings, accidental shootings, or incidents where armed citizens stopped crimes in their tracks are going to break it.
The crux of the problem revolves around legislation. As long as Democrats insist that new gun laws and bans are the only way to stop or slow gun violence, the Republicans and most of the American people will stand in their way - unless they rush to pass new gun laws and bans within 2-3 weeks of major mass shootings. The reasons are many, but one of the biggest problems with the new legislation approach is the fact that gun violence is mostly committed in urban areas by people in demographic groups and living in geographical locations that a large segment of the American people believe are heavily connected to the Democratic Party. As "Dilbert" creator and blogger Scott Adams wrote last week, that leaves many non-Democrats who own guns looking at newly proposed gun laws by Democrats as essentially saying to them: "put down your guns… so we can shoot you." This approach simply isn't going to work.
But here's the funny thing, in a tragically laughable way of course: we already know how to reduce gun violence and gun crimes because we've already done it many times before. That's right, we actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990's and again in the early 2000's by doing something really radical. We enforced the law.
Now Republicans often get off too easy with their base voters by talking the talk about enforcing existing gun laws and leaving it at that. While it's technically true that there are already enough gun laws on the books to put the hammer down on gun violence, most Republicans know all too well that law enforcement all over the country needs a lot more funding and other tools to enforce those laws better. And that became clear during both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations when new funding programs to cut down on gun violence were instituted and they worked.
"There's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress."
I'll start with the Clinton years and remind everyone that it wasn't the Brady Bill or the Assault Weapons ban that made the real difference. It was the increased funding to police departments from his 1994 crime bill that showed real progress. I was on the White House lawn that day in October, 1994 when President Clinton was joined by an army of police chiefs and mayors to announce the $200 million being released to put 100,000 more cops on the streets. It's not clear just how close the Clinton Administration came to reaching that 100,000 number, but the message the funding sent had almost as much of an effect as however many new cops actually hit the streets.
The message was that police weren't the problem, which just a couple years after the Rodney King beating and subsequent L.A. riots wasn't such an easy thing for any Democrat to say. And President Clinton was never shy about trumpeting the falling crime statistics during his presidency. He and Hillary Clinton are trying to backtrack on that a bit now as the "Black Lives Matter" movement has started a new anti-cop sentiment in the new Democratic Party base, but there's really no denying that the increased Clinton administration funding for policing and incarceration made a difference.
Clinton's successor, President George W. Bush, saw similar successes with boosted funding for the FBI to go after gun runners and then his "Project SAFE" program in his second term aimed at prosecuting criminals who used guns. Project SAFE alone got more than $1.5 billion from the Bush administration. Violent crime fell sharply during the Bush years, even when compared with the already falling crime numbers under President Clinton.
But at the end of the Bush years, the focus shifted from gun prosecutions to new regulations. That was probably the result of Republicans losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and the Bush domestic agenda was gutted.
President Obama has sadly continued this trend. Thankfully, violent crime has mostly remained at historic lows. But prosecutions of gun-using criminals has decidedly gone down. Federal prosecutors brought a total of 5,082 gun violation cases in 2013 recommended by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, compared with a record 8,752 prosecutions of ATF cases brought by the Justice Department in 2004 under President Bush according to the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.
There may be ideological reasons for this decline, as many of President Obama's critics insist the White House is more interested in scoring political points by harassing law abiding gun owners. But there's no denying that maintaining the high number of gun arrests and prosecutions is expensive, and the money available for that kind of law enforcement has indeed become scarcer because of budgetary constraints brought on by the Republican Congress. The White House may be blaming the GOP a little too much for the gun prosecution decline, but it does have a solid point. Both the Clinton crime initiatives and the Bush crackdown on illegal guns cost money, big money. And Republicans haven't been so forthcoming with budgetary cash lately.
That leaves us with a unique double "put your money where your mouth is moment" when it comes to guns in America. The Democrats, if they really want to slow gun violence in this country, need to put their money where their mouths are and support renewed efforts to enforce existing gun laws like Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did in the recent past. Republicans, if they really want to prove they believe enforcing the existing gun laws is all we need to do, need to put their money where their mouths are and get proactive about offering money funding for that enforcement up front.
So far, both sides just aren't stepping up to the plate. So we're stuck with stunts like sit-ins and scare tactics. I remain convinced that the presidential candidate who refocuses the gun debate towards a push for more funding would enjoy a significant boost in the polls. The question is: which candidate is smart enough to simply promote what we already know works?
I've been doing this dance on this forum for a few years now and I can tell you that's the first person I've seen call for such a thing.
Kooky Facebook pages don't count- especially within the context of 'on this board'.
I'm not going to dig through the thousands of posts to find more direct quotes. Whether they would state it in this forum or not, I'm willing to bet plenty here would sign a petition to ban any and every gun from private ownership if given the opportunity. I guess we could start a poll...
Anyways, we got derailed. My original argument was that prohibition in general has been proven not to work. Can we agree to back up a bit to that comment before the derailment related to this article:
https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
there will never be a America without guns, the people will never allow it.
Godfather.
“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.’”
Eddie Vedder
Article link
What's lost here, sir, is the very basic correlation that is simply indisputable: more guns equals more deaths by guns.
Defend your hobby any way you want, but don't try to dissuade intelligent people to dismiss common sense (gun courses for all and no problems!). You'd get more respect from me saying, "F**k all you wussies. I love my guns and you ain't ever getting them" versus trying to frame an argument that flies in the face of logic.
Godfather.
Gun education doesn't stop cops from blowing people away at the theaters, or gun advocate women from blowing their daughters away in the heat of an argument.
The number of people who have guns and lack the education you propose is minimal and violence is not deterred by knowing safety techniques, no matter how much you wish it to be so.
Here's a good place to start!!!
https://www.dhs.gov/active-shooter-preparedness
Eddie Vedder
I'm curious as to how you back up these claims. So parenting classes are bad because some people still abuse their children? I feel that training and education in a number of different areas could be beneficial. Fantasy is believing that evil people or firearms are not always going to be around. Fantasy is believing that there will be bipartisan support for any kind of firearm bans. Reality is that people save lives that have been trained in basic first aid, CPR, active shooter response, situational awareness, gun safety. If people had financial incentives to attend such trainings, there would be many more attendees. With the billions of dollars wasted on failed legislation attempts, you could probably have provided every gun owner with a handgun safe or $50 cash for attending trainings. How the hell can you say that accidents would not be reduced if more people learned proper safety techniques. I'm starting to think that you guys just want to punish people that do not agree with you instead of thinking of other sensible strategies. Hell, I don't even care if you keep pushing this ridiculous "make assault weapons disappear" rhetoric, but do something to help yourself or the community in the mean time. Are you trained in CPR, active shooter awareness, basic first aid or anything like that? It's hard to take people seriously that do not attempt to even help themselves. Keep on waiting for the government to make things better for you, that always seems to work in such an efficient timely manner. Being an activist is about more than holding signs at a protest or playing on online forums. Get out and learn active shooter awareness and teach others what you have learned. The more people that know how to properly barricade a door or apply a tourniquet or respond with force...the more lives get saved when bad people decide to do bad things. Seems like a reasonable way to spend your time in between wishing that guns and bad people would disappear.
Here's a good place to start!!!
https://www.dhs.gov/active-shooter-preparedness
Well, I didn't say proper training and education is a bad thing, only that it will not stop violent people from using guns that shouldn't have been so widely available to murder people in cold blood or heat of the moment. Sure, some accidents will be avoided, but I doubt very many. The idea that learning first aid is helping the community or being an activist is like thinking that putting a bandaid on a severed limb is a viable medical solution to the problem of bleeding out.
I am an Eagle scout, so first aid, situational awareness, etc is all just common sense to me and mine. I have used CPR, though I didn't save any lives, it's rare that it is effective in doing so.
You keep saying that billions are wasted on gun control, I have never seen any reliable data on such a claim. It is the job of legislative representatives to draft legislation, not pass out gun safes, so if you look at every bill that doesn't pass as wasted money, you are holding a standard that is ridiculously impossible to uphold.
Here's a good place to start!!!
https://www.dhs.gov/active-shooter-preparedness
Well, I didn't say proper training and education is a bad thing, only that it will not stop violent people from using guns that shouldn't have been so widely available to murder people in cold blood or heat of the moment. Sure, some accidents will be avoided, but I doubt very many. The idea that learning first aid is helping the community or being an activist is like thinking that putting a bandaid on a severed limb is a viable medical solution to the problem of bleeding out.
I am an Eagle scout, so first aid, situational awareness, etc is all just common sense to me and mine. I have used CPR, though I didn't save any lives, it's rare that it is effective in doing so.
You keep saying that billions are wasted on gun control, I have never seen any reliable data on such a claim. It is the job of legislative representatives to draft legislation, not pass out gun safes, so if you look at every bill that doesn't pass as wasted money, you are holding a standard that is ridiculously impossible to uphold.
The billions I was talking about was more of a shot at Bloomberg and the likings. He could have passed out gun safes and been way more effective at lowering gun deaths than the billions he spent on this "Everytown" thing that only appeals to his constituents. Props for you for being an Eagle Scout, maybe if we backed those programs and made them more available, you have obviously learned skills that could save your life and the lives of others. And learning first aid is more like knowing not to put a bandaid on a severed limb that is bleeding out and knowing to use a tourniquet instead... You're right, learning basic skills such as those learned in scouts is common sense. In my opinion, "legislation" that has been proposed is much more of a political display than a realistic way of reducing violence and would probably do little in the way of gun ownership, I'll refer once again to this article that sums up my opinions on the matter pretty well. Funny how no one has refuted the statements made here: https://reason.com/archives/2016/06/21/what-will-gun-controllers-do-when-americ
BTW, didn't we ban marijuana products and the growing of hemp? That still seems to be causing modern dilemmas.
This and other points such as how the odds of you dying by gunfire increase dramatically upon the introduction of a gun to your household are items you and others consistently fail to address.
You're focused on the delivery of the message which I can admit to being poor (guy gets a little irritated some times- forgive me), but you should probably think of things such as the aforementioned items when responding. The 'common sense' things you speak of aren't really common sense- they're band aid solutions that won't achieve what people want. And no... people don't want to take all your guns... they want to make your country safer like all the other developed countries that don't sell assault rifles and hand guns to any cash or visa purchaser such as the terrorist threat in Orlando.
What's the over/under for your next mass shooting? One month? Two? Just hopefully nobody you know is impacted eh?
* Off the top of my head... grandfather existing guns. Offer buy back program. Develop registry. Limit ammunition sales to licensed purchasers. Restrict assault rifle sales. Limit handgun sales. Make future gun owners take the courses you speak of before purchasing. Develop heavy penalties for selling guns/ammunition 'under the table'.
Then... in 20 years... see how you're doing. There's no short term fix. For the time being... you're f**ked. But that's the fault of the last generation.
marijuana has been illegal for over 100 years. i wouldn't call that modern times. nice try though.
The world would be pretty vanilla without contrary views. I respect your position as you articulate it as much as I disagree with it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH everybody needs a gun in some way, some how or somewhere....even if they don't want to admit it.
Godfather.