Politics 2015

[LouieB]

Yea let's talk about guns more because everyone is going to change their minds the more we talk  Meanwhile people die from being shot by others or themselves everyday including people killing each other on the streets, in their homes, both intentionally and by accident; oh yea and every once in a while a police officer actually kills someone really threatening them.  Meanwhile Chicago has a case to beat all; a cop who pumped 15 more bullets into a suspect once they were on the ground and incapacitated.  I suggest everyone watch the footage of this. Despite it being nauseating, it is just unbelievable.  The police are supposed to have guns to protect themselves and citizens, not summarily execute suspects.

 

LouieB

[John Smith]

And...the video does not support the story the police put out at the time of the shooting. Wonder how often this happens?

[lost highway]

Cold, hard facts.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html

 

This one says opinion but also utilizes facts.

[Tweedling]

I believe it's pretty much everyone's belief that HRC will receive her party's nomination. With all the increased terrorist violence around the world, how do you feel this may affect her candidacy?

[lost highway]

It probably benefits her. She's got more foreign policy experience than every other candidate, and she's no dove.

[Hixter]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html

 

This one says opinion but also utilizes facts.

First of all, the only reason that I responded was to refute the ridiculous assertions that burglars never strike while people are home and that gun owners don't know how to use their weapons and couldn't possibly use them in self-defense situations.

 

As for the opinion piece cited above, it's just that: an opinion piece written by someone with an anti-gun axe to grind. But even his article admits that nearly 70,000 crimes are stopped by by armed citizens every year. That's nearly 200 incidents per day. Gun control advocates would like to ban so-called "assault rifles" yet rifles of all kinds account for fewer than 300 murders in the United States every year. Why is that figure so important, yet tens of thousands of armed self-defense incidents are considered statistically insignificant?

[Vacant Horizon]

Yes, the homeowner shot and killed a burglar. Good for him. The invaders were armed with knives and a gun, so he probably saved his life. It happens many times a day across the country.

So she deserved to die because she was allegedly, potentially, maybe not going to rob/murder someone? The shooter actually did murder someone! This is the kind of reactionary thinking that gets us nowhere. These scenarios don't happen all the time and if they do there is always a ton more details we don't get in the click-bait, disinformation meant news snippets we get. I bet the shooter and the assailants knew each other and had a beef.

Can we continue to talk about guns more?  Cause it has been so successful and productive in the past.  

 

I guess we will have to wait until another GOP candidate makes up some total BS.  Is there any truth to anything these guys say anymore?

We still have the damn second amendment even.

[John Smith]

We still have the damn second amendment even.

Only the second half of the second amendment is important anymore, that part about a well regulated militia is pretty much lost to the dustbins of history. Heck the NRA only has the second half on the wall in the lobby of heir building.

[Vacant Horizon]

First of all, the only reason that I responded was to refute the ridiculous assertions that burglars never strike while people are home and that gun owners don't know how to use their weapons and couldn't possibly use them in self-defense situations.

 

As for the opinion piece cited above, it's just that: an opinion piece written by someone with an anti-gun axe to grind. But even his article admits that nearly 70,000 crimes are stopped by by armed citizens every year. That's nearly 200 incidents per day. Gun control advocates would like to ban so-called "assault rifles" yet rifles of all kinds account for fewer than 300 murders in the United States every year. Why is that figure so important, yet tens of thousands of armed self-defense incidents are considered statistically insignificant?

I never said 'never' with concern to armed robberies or schooled gun owners. The risk seems to out weigh the need for guns. Really check out some peer reviewed articles rather than believe that opinion piece. My other point was that most of us are suffering daily in this world for various reasons. But we choose to focus on these ancillary issues. Much the same that is going on right now with the Paris tragedy. Yes, it's horrible, but the majority of humanity is living in poverty 24/7 (that includes gun owners). That is a statistically significant issue that is happening right this second and we ignore it...even though we are parts of the that majority. But we want to focus on guns and some action star scenario that very rarely ever occurs in its purest sense. And, would ultimately become a non issue if the majority of people weren't miserable. We have to think about this stuff rather than just stop the conversation with some reactive stance. The hope of being alive really does depend on it. And I'm not being hyperbolic.

[LouieB]

Not sure why are guys are still arguing about this.  Americans are going to own and use guns until every last one of us is dead: it's our constitutional right to blow the shit out of each other.  Let it go.  Happy fucking Thanksgiving.

 

LouieB

[Vacant Horizon]

Not sure why are guys are still arguing about this.  Americans are going to own and use guns until every last one of us is dead: it's our constitutional right to blow the shit out of each other.  Let it go.  Happy fucking Thanksgiving.

 

LouieB

I too get cynical about it. Things could change though...theoretically. Maybe we could apply Hegal's dialectic and ask completely different questions. We're obviously not asking the right ones much less even able to be aware of them.

 

Happy Holiday. Hope y'all don't get invaded this weekend. Or, the more likely scenario, we'll celebrate gluttony while most of the world's population drink dirty water.

[Hixter]

So she deserved to die because she was allegedly, potentially, maybe not going to rob/murder someone?

Absolutely. She and her crew broke into an occupied home while armed with guns, knives and burglary tools. They had already stolen several items, so there is no reason to say "allegedly."

 

The shooter actually did murder someone! 

No he didn't. Apparently you don't understand the definition of murder.

 

I bet the shooter and the assailants knew each other and had a beef.

That's irrelevant. The burglars broke into a home and committed burglary. One of them paid the ultimate price for their crime.

 

Only the second half of the second amendment is important anymore, that part about a well regulated militia is pretty much lost to the dustbins of history.

The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that it covers the right of individual Americans to own firearms.

 

Yes, it's horrible, but the majority of humanity is living in poverty 24/7 (that includes gun owners).

...

And, would ultimately become a non issue if the majority of people weren't miserable. 

Since this gun ownership/control discussion pertains to America and Americans, I'm going to disagree that the majority of us are miserable and poverty stricken.

 

Not sure why are guys are still arguing about this.  Americans are going to own and use guns until every last one of us is dead: it's our constitutional right to blow the shit out of each other

Yes, we are all going to die eventually, but only a fraction of a percent of us will be killed by guns and the vast majority of those deaths will be suicides.

[John Smith]

Proves my point that the second half is all that matters any more.

[lost highway]

First of all, the only reason that I responded was to refute the ridiculous assertions that burglars never strike while people are home and that gun owners don't know how to use their weapons and couldn't possibly use them in self-defense situations.

 

As for the opinion piece cited above, it's just that: an opinion piece written by someone with an anti-gun axe to grind. But even his article admits that nearly 70,000 crimes are stopped by by armed citizens every year. That's nearly 200 incidents per day. Gun control advocates would like to ban so-called "assault rifles" yet rifles of all kinds account for fewer than 300 murders in the United States every year. Why is that figure so important, yet tens of thousands of armed self-defense incidents are considered statistically insignificant?

What is statistically significant is the ratio of 259 justifiable homicides- that is guns doing what they're designed to do (kill living beings) in a legal situation- to 8,342 criminal homicides by firearm. That means guns are batting .003, or .3% when lethally fired at someone. The other 99.7% was murder.

 

This doesn't account for suicides which is a greater number.

[Hixter]

What is statistically significant is the ratio of 259 justifiable homicides- that is guns doing what they're designed to do (kill living beings) in a legal situation- to 8,342 criminal homicides by firearm. That means guns are batting .003, or .3% when lethally fired at someone.

You're off by a factor of 10.

[Vacant Horizon]

Absolutely. She and her crew broke into an occupied home while armed with guns, knives and burglary tools. They had already stolen several items, so there is no reason to say "allegedly."

 

 

No he didn't. Apparently you don't understand the definition of murder.

 

 

That's irrelevant. The burglars broke into a home and committed burglary. One of them paid the ultimate price for their crime.

 

 

The Supreme Court has ruled time and again that it covers the right of individual Americans to own firearms.

 

 

Since this gun ownership/control discussion pertains to America and Americans, I'm going to disagree that the majority of us are miserable and poverty stricken.

 

 

Yes, we are all going to die eventually, but only a fraction of a percent of us will be killed by guns and the vast majority of those deaths will be suicides.

That's a fairly sick and dangerous position to say this girl deserved to be murdered. What a sad way to see human life. Should all criminals and potential criminals be murdered? Who decides? You obviously can't think past your belief in this being a black/white issue. You are not privy to any extra info about this case and can't even consider the details given by me or the article. For example, I made it quite clear I was talking about the world population, not just the U.S. And , it still stands that the 'innocent' gun owner killed a person, not the alleged criminals. And, of course I'm not defending them.

 

What's the harm in really thinking about these issues rather than maintain some reactionar position.

[Hixter]

That's a fairly sick and dangerous position to say this girl deserved to be murdered. What a sad way to see human life.

She was not murdered, she was killed. There is a big difference between the two.

[Vacant Horizon]

She was not murdered, she was killed. There is a big difference between the two.

At least manslaughter. And making killing some sort of justified act whether it's called murder or not is ridiculous. And, as I've said again and again, we do not know any real details of this case. Having knife or gun in the vicinity an attempted murder does not make. This girl was not running toward him with a knife or gun. There are so many nuances to these cases that can be discerned if one is available. I am, your not. I hope some day real dialogue can take place about these issue with a focus on the real systemic issues behind gun violence. Internet forums are obviously not the place.

[Bob_Roberts]

She was not murdered, she was killed. There is a big difference between the two.

 

I think that it may be first degree murder, but the homeowner may have strong case for self defense.  The old law considered human life to be more valuable than property, and therefore a person was not justified to shoot someone just because he was on their property or even committing a burglary.  The force used needed to be proportional.  Many states have enacted statutes now that allow people to blow away others much easier than it used to be.

[Atticus]

If you come into my house with a weapon and my baby girl is there, I have no moral or ethical issue with you getting dead.

[lost highway]

You're off by a factor of 10.

Oh shit you're right. Ha! So 3% sounding pretty good? Still getting kicked off of my baseball team.

[lost highway]

If you come into my house with a weapon and my baby girl is there, I have no moral or ethical issue with you getting dead.

That's easier to say than to live with. Good news is you won't have to. This terrible story about intruders and your loved children is exactly the same one gun advocates keep imagining over and over.

[Hixter]

Oh shit you're right. Ha! So 3% sounding pretty good? Still getting kicked off of my baseball team.

Percentages are a funny thing. A .030 batting average won't cut it if you're not a pitcher, but if you had a 3% chance of winning the lottery you'd buy tickets every week. And you know what's even more important to me than winning millions of dollars? My life.

If you come into my house with a weapon and my baby girl is there, I have no moral or ethical issue with you getting dead.

Exactly.

[Hixter]

This terrible story about intruders and your loved children is exactly the same one gun advocates keep imagining over and over.

And that's the whole crux of the gun "advocate" argument: if you don't want to own a firearm, then don't. But don't try to take the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms away from those who feel differently.

[calvino]

Back to the whole Republican debacle -  at least Kasich, his super-PAC and supporters are airing commercials against Trump's (and in essence the rest of the front runners') rhetoric. Hopefully the rest of the Party comes to its senses.