More sacrifices to the 2nd Amendment

[brenthutch 383]

22 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

But to me the root cause is the recognition of and anger over the power and financial differential between (in the US at least) most visibly minority groups (read color & facial features) and the diminishing in proportion white “majority.” 
 

So when a person of color robs, rapes and murders another person of color, it is because he is upset about the white patriarchy?

[wmw999 2,116]

Not necessarily, but the lack of options available can contribute (not cause) a lack of imagination in solving what are seen as problems. Kind of how like children who grow up in houses with abuse (pick a color, any color) are more likely either to abuse or accept abuse in their adult lives. 
Wendy P. 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

So when a person of color robs, rapes and murders another person of color, it is because he is upset about the white patriarchy?

Just like all those patriots who were offended that American democracy had not given them the result they demanded and decided to try an insurrection. Are they patriots or are they terrorists?

[brenthutch 383]

59 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Just like all those patriots who were offended that American democracy had not given them the result they demanded and decided to try an insurrection. Are they patriots or are they terrorists?

I would say they are no different than the protesters from the Sunrise Movement that surrounded the White House because American democracy did not give them the results they demanded.

Let’s see if Pelosi creates a commission to investigate THAT attack on one of our most cherished democratic institutions 

Edited June 29, 2021 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,121]

45 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I would say they are no different than the protesters from the Sunrise Movement that surrounded the White House because American democracy did not give them the results they demanded.

Let’s see if Pelosi creates a commission to investigate THAT attack on one of our most cherished democratic institutions 

Did they break in and vandalize and steal from the White House? Did they beat police with a flag pole? Did they release chemical agents?

 

If you think this is even close to equivalent, you are more of a partisan hack than even I already thought. You are getting into "trump will be reinstated in August" territory.

[brenthutch 383]

52 minutes ago, SkyDekker said: you are more of a partisan hack than even I already thought. You are getting into "trump will be reinstated in August" territory.

Your name calling belies the weakness of your argument 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Your name calling belies the weakness of your argument 

The fact that you think there is an argument to be had that these two events are equivalent.....

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The fact that you think there is an argument to be had that these two events are equivalent.....

Good point, no protesters at the White House were killed.

Edited June 29, 2021 by brenthutch

[billvon 2,380]

8 hours ago, billeisele said:

So predictable. Laws on murder, rape, drunk driving and gun use already exist yet it continues.

And you claim that ending all those laws would do nothing, because laws don't work.

But they actually do.  Just look at the facts.  Tougher laws reduced drunk driving deaths.  Tougher prosecution, better testing and better legal definitions of rape has reduced the incidence of rape.  Laws against assault weapons and semiautomatic weapons came close to ending mass shootings in Australia.

Laws work.  You can claim "they're not worth it; I care more about having a lot of guns than reducing gun violence" and that's fine; that is you deciding where your priorities lie.  But claiming "laws don't work" is a silly way to try to make that point.

[billvon 2,380]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

I would say they are no different than the protesters . . .

So to you, having your eye gouged out, losing your finger, being beaten with a flagpole and being crushed in a door is the same as not being able to enter a building for a few hours.

To you, defecating on the floor, smashing windows, stealing furniture and shooting into a crowd is the same as standing in front of a door.

Makes as much sense as anything else you've posted.

[brenthutch 383]

They are both illegally protesting because they didn’t get their way.  The difference is the magnitude (admittedly a large one)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

59 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Good point, no protesters at the White House were killed.

They would have if they smashed the windows and entered the white house. And you would have been cheering and high fiving and complimenting law enforcement.

[brenthutch 383]

53 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

They would have if they smashed the windows and entered the white house. And you would have been cheering and high fiving and complimenting law enforcement.

You have no idea what I would be doing.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

You have no idea what I would be doing.

I do based on what you have posted to date. If what you have posted is made up and doesn't reflect what you would really do, well then you have been trolling.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

I do based on what you have posted to date. If what you have posted is made up and doesn't reflect what you would really do, well then you have been trolling.

Give me just one example of how I have ever celebrated violence.  If you can’t then you are engaged in unsubstantiated personal attacks.  The only high fiving over a death around here was when Ashli Babbitt was killed.  As usual when lefties accused others of malfeasance, is because  they are engaged in it themselves.

Edited June 29, 2021 by brenthutch

[olofscience 420]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You have no idea what I would be doing.

Oh please. Predicting what you say is one of the easiest things to do around here, you have a very limited set of things to say which is why discussions with you keep going in circles.

[brenthutch 383]

43 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Oh please. Predicting what you say is one of the easiest things to do around here, you have a very limited set of things to say which is why discussions with you keep going in circles.

You have a good point, I would say my contribution can be distilled into just one thing, the truth.  The circular nature results from the inability of others to deal with that simple fact.

[kallend 1,621]

3 hours ago, olofscience said:

Oh please. Predicting what you say is one of the easiest things to do around here, you have a very limited set of things to say which is why discussions with you keep going in circles.

Yet by responding you just encourage the trolling to continue.

[olofscience 420]

9 hours ago, brenthutch said:

You have a good point, I would say my contribution can be distilled into just one thing, the truth.  The circular nature results from the inability of others to deal with that simple fact.

Saying things again and again doesn't make it the truth. See how that worked for Trump saying he won the election.

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

Saying things again and again doesn't make it the truth. See how that worked for Trump saying he won the election.

No but saying; large caliber semi-automatic rifles with high capacity detachable magazines have been available to the general public long before they were adopted by our military, IS a simple truth.  One that others on this forum refuse or are unable to address.  Instead they resort to name calling (Kallend and SkyDekker) or obfuscate and  set up straw men (you and BilV). The same thing applies to the existential threat of AGW, the fantasy of net-zero/GND, and the whistling past the graveyard when it comes to China and the developing world with regard to CO2 emissions.  Another example is when Kallend claimed we were in a recession late last year, I claimed otherwise citing two consecutive quarters of GDP growth. Although the NBER has not declared an official end date, yet.  Most economists expect the end of the recession to be dated late summer 2020.  Once again a simple truth.

[wmw999 2,116]

Truthful statements are exactly that. However, the scope, breadth, context, and placement of them can nevertheless paint a false picture.

After all, rabies is survivable (I met a survivor). And someone wins every lottery. But I neither seek out rabid dogs, nor do I buy tickets.

Wendy P.

[billeisele 122]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

And you claim that ending all those laws would do nothing, because laws don't work.

But they actually do.  Just look at the facts.  Tougher laws reduced drunk driving deaths.  Tougher prosecution, better testing and better legal definitions of rape has reduced the incidence of rape.  Laws against assault weapons and semiautomatic weapons came close to ending mass shootings in Australia.

Laws work.  You can claim "they're not worth it; I care more about having a lot of guns than reducing gun violence" and that's fine; that is you deciding where your priorities lie.  But claiming "laws don't work" is a silly way to try to make that point.

I have never claimed that laws don't work. My point has been simple and clear yet others want to twist my words and propose that ridiculous interpretation.

Making more laws when the current laws aren't enforced or are ignored by criminals makes no sense. Making it more difficult for a legal owner to have self protection enables the criminals. Folks want to impose restrictions on guns when the gun isn't the problem. Yes, those dangerous AR14's (crazy Joe - 2020), pure ignorance.

Reasonable restrictions already exist. And in the past I've clearly stated that there is room for more restrictions but they must be reasonable. Background checks at gun shows is needed. Control of items that increase the lethality of certain types of guns is needed. Things like bump stocks and binary triggers are a problem. No need to ban them just make them Class 3 items. 

The standard semi auto hunting rifle that has been round for over 100 years is equally lethal to a scary looking black gun. Hundreds of thousands are around and yet one is almost never used for gun violence. Federal crime stats are clear - most gun violence is with pistols. The problem is the people misusing firearms not the firearm. 

On your examples of drunk driving and rape. Drunk driving laws weren't enacted on the alcohol, they were enacted on those that knowingly kept serving the drinker and on the drinker. Rape laws weren't enacted on the offending body part, they were enacted on the person.

[kallend 1,621]

26 minutes ago, billeisele said:

I have never claimed that laws don't work. My point has been simple and clear yet others want to twist my words and propose that ridiculous interpretation.

Making more laws when the current laws aren't enforced or are ignored by criminals makes no sense. Making it more difficult for a legal owner to have self protection enables the criminals. Folks want to impose restrictions on guns when the gun isn't the problem. Yes, those dangerous AR14's (crazy Joe - 2020), pure ignorance.

Reasonable restrictions already exist. . . . .

No, they don't.  The current set of gun laws is piecemeal and ineffective because at every turn the gun lobby and its lackeys in the GOP have worked hard to ensure that the laws are indeed weak and  ineffective, even to the point of banning government funded research on gun crime.

 

Every other developed country manages to reduce gun crime far more effectively than the USA. Every one.  

[billeisele 122]

On 6/29/2021 at 7:24 AM, wmw999 said:

You seem to be implying that the root cause is the lack of post-violence enforcement, which to me translates as a lack of fear. But to me the root cause is the recognition of and anger over the power and financial differential between (in the US at least) most visibly minority groups (read color & facial features) and the diminishing in proportion white “majority.” 
Since demographic and historical evidence seem to support the thought that there is long term and systemic advantages built in for people who are already in power, especially visibly so, I’d have to say that the root cause is there. Removing the underlying reason for someone to riot takes care of most of the riots. Kind of like that tea party in Boston a couple hundred years ago. 
Wendy P. 

Good morning Wendy. That is a head full of stuff.

I do believe that lack of consequences empowers folks. Many would not riot, loot and steal if they knew they would be punished.

In Columbia SC the County and City joined forces to allow peaceful protests and clamp down on rioting. Two goals: make the streets safe for the peaceful protesters and stop illegal activity. They used common crowd control techniques to route the protesters along areas where they could be managed, and used video to catch and prosecute the law breakers. Rioting was controlled and never became a significant issue. Contrast that to Charleston SC where the mayor prevented the police from acting. There was significant rioting, property damage and personal injury....until....a group of citizens stepped in and acted. There is a social media group of mostly outdoor people - hikers, birders, hunters, fisherman, gun owners, construction workers, business owners, blue collar workers, white collar workers, black, white, and every other color, all like minded folks that believe in the law and law enforcement. The word was sent out and these folks headed into the city. They were armed to defend themselves and offered their services to any shop owner. The violence quickly left the main business district and those folks were herded out of the area. Before daylight the word was put out to bring building materials into the city. Those good ole boys brought plywood and whatever else was needed to board up businesses that had been damaged and those owners that were fearful. I have first hand knowledge of some of this and recall a conversation with a SWAT member that described a call into dispatch about a big black pickup at the corner of King and XX with two guys inside with guns. The distraught caller was told that the police were aware of the truck and they were not a problem. 

Federal stats clearly show that the majority of gun violence is white on white, and black on black. Much is related to domestic violence and suicide. Suicide is a large part of the stats. Not to minimize that problem but if a gun wasn't available they may or may not have done it another way. I don't think that self-inflicted injury or death should be in these stats.

Yes, some of the violence is what you've stated but it's not the main problem. What we're seeing in SC is drive by shootings, guns drawn in bars (where they are illegal to possess), road rage, gang violence, and guns fired at and between acquaintances to settle an argument. One County enacted a law that allows the Sheriff to shut down a business once they are deemed a "public nuisance." Fights, gun fire, hookers, and drug dealing are the main problems. That has worked quite well and the neighbors fully support those actions. After a couple businesses were shut down that problem was greatly reduced. Sheriff Lott was recently named national sheriff of the year. 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Truthful statements are exactly that. However, the scope, breadth, context, and placement of them can nevertheless paint a false picture.

After all, rabies is survivable (I met a survivor). And someone wins every lottery. But I neither seek out rabid dogs, nor do I buy tickets.

Wendy P.

And Wendy with the red herring.  Nobody was discussing rabies or the lottery.