Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw a movie once where only the police and the millitary had guns.
It was Schindler’s List
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
You tell me. Is there an acceptable body count?
Click to expand...
Actually yes. Anything less than something that is “statistically significant” should not be made the basis of laws that affect the rights of everyone. “Assault weapons” are not statistically significant based on the numbers posted above as provided by the FBI.

If one crazy poisons hundreds with lead in toys should we eliminate all toys?

If two crazies kill thousands with planes should we eliminate planes?

If three crazies kill hundreds with a type of rifle should we eliminate that rifle (and a 100 other models)?

If that is your line of argument, all guns should be confiscated and all knives more than 3 inches in length.

Also cars that can exceed 55 miles per hour.

And pools with a depth exceeding 3 feet.

Need I go on?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
I believe you’ve said that already.

But uhm, you didn’t seem to address this:

Long established “trends” clearly indicate that HAND GUNS are the far greater weapon of choice for all murders committed with guns.

Did this recent “assault” weapons “trend” suddenly offset the long established HAND GUN “trend”?

If not - are you willing to advocate the overall ban of HAND GUNS?

If not - why?
Click to expand...
But uhm? Last response. I don’t take to condescending well, and I have been responding from work today. I’m 2/3 through a 24 hour shift. Also understand, I have addressed this issue in several threads and am not obligated to readdress the issue every time someone else comes along and presents the exact same points already addressed, over and over.

I hunt and defend with the same guns. I don’t carry a gun everywhere I go, and frankly I don’t see the need. In my work, we depend on law enforcement to clear a scene before we move in. Does this mean the police can stop all crimes from happening? No, and those crimes don’t stop because some of society thinks they are protecting everyone with their gun. Reality is, armed people can’t protect any better than police.

I have no use for assault weapons, or guns not used for hunting. It seems more than assault weapons have been identified as problems for society. I think there it would be a small sacrifice for law abiding Christian people to give up some that are creating the most havoc on society. While I may not be a voice of the majority on an internet forum, I think I am a part of a majority in this country. I have repeatedly made suggestions to controls and after seeing the repeated ‘we already have laws, nothing will work, etc.’ arguments, I lean to supporting the ban of certain weapons that have no functional use other than taking the life of another human. Cardinal Dolan phrased it best as a part of the Culture of Death. I agree with him.
 
MattinTex said:
Actually yes. Anything less than something that is “statistically significant” should not be made the basis of laws that affect the rights of everyone. “Assault weapons” are not statistically significant based on the numbers posted above as provided by the FBI.

If one crazy poisons hundreds with lead in toys should we eliminate all toys?

If two crazies kill thousands with planes should we eliminate planes?

If three crazies kill hundreds with a type of rifle should we eliminate that rifle (and a 100 other models)?

If that is your line of argument, all guns should be confiscated and all knives more than 3 inches in length.

Also cars that can exceed 55 miles per hour.

And pools with a depth exceeding 3 feet.

Need I go on?
Click to expand...
Planes weren’t eliminated, however, weren’t more controls put into place around air travel after 9/11?

Are lead toys still available, without warnings?

Are traffic laws changed according to necessity?

Need I go on? No, and neither do you. I am firm in my view and will not change. If certain weapons are a problem, because they easily end up in the wrong hand, controls need to be placed to make that harder.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Planes weren’t eliminated, however, weren’t more controls put into place around air travel after 9/11?

Are lead toys still available, without warnings?

Are traffic laws changed according to necessity?

Need I go on? No, and neither do you. I am firm in my view and will not change. If certain weapons are a problem, because they easily end up in the wrong hand, controls need to be placed to make that harder.
Click to expand...
And AR15s have controls. Every item listed kills an order of magnitude MORE people every year than rifles, let alone “assault weapons.”

So we need MORE controls (what you want for certain rifles). Why aren’t you advocating for mandatory pool fencing in every state? How many lives are enough? Why aren’t you advocating for mandatory toy lead testing? Why aren’t you advocating for mandatory governors in all vehicles? Why aren’t you advocating for licenses for the purchase of any of the above?

Emotion.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
… Reality is, armed people can’t protect any better than police…

**Reality is, armed people can defend themselves better than unarmed people. And yes, better than the police because they have the means accessible immediately as opposed to when the police finally get there, if ever.
**

I have no use for assault weapons, or guns not used for hunting. It seems more than assault weapons have been identified as problems for society. I think there it would be a small sacrifice for law abiding Christian people to give up some that are creating the most havoc on society.

I do have use for them, maybe not personally but having them available to those law abiding folks who want to. The founding fathers certainly did. Governments with weapons when the public have none create far greater havoc than criminals could ever hope or intend to.

I also believe it is naive to think our politicians are any better breed of human being than anywhere else. That we are immune to the temptations that others succumb to just by virtue of being americans, to me it smacks of hubris and arrogance. It can happen here. Perhaps not today, maybe not tomorrow. But I don’t believe I have the right to take away the means of defense from future generations who may face a threat I don’t have to.
Click to expand...
 
Pretty certain most shootings are done with easily concealable handguns than with bulky modern rifles. I’ve never understood the “Assault weapon” ban when almost nobody is murdered by them compared to the much more easily available types of handgun. It doesn’t make any sense to try and get rid of the weapon that isn’t causing harm.

… OH I GET IT! It looks scary! Please, bigger doesn’t always mean more dangerous when it comes to guns :rolleyes:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
But uhm? Last response. I don’t take to condescending well, and I have been responding from work today. I’m 2/3 through a 24 hour shift. Also understand, I have addressed this issue in several threads and am not obligated to readdress the issue every time someone else comes along and presents the exact same points already addressed, over and over.

I hunt and defend with the same guns. I don’t carry a gun everywhere I go, and frankly I don’t see the need. In my work, we depend on law enforcement to clear a scene before we move in. Does this mean the police can stop all crimes from happening? No, and those crimes don’t stop because some of society thinks they are protecting everyone with their gun. Reality is, armed people can’t protect any better than police.

I have no use for assault weapons, or guns not used for hunting. It seems more than assault weapons have been identified as problems for society. I think there it would be a small sacrifice for law abiding Christian people to give up some that are creating the most havoc on society. While I may not be a voice of the majority on an internet forum, I think I am a part of a majority in this country. I have repeatedly made suggestions to controls and after seeing the repeated ‘we already have laws, nothing will work, etc.’ arguments, I lean to supporting the ban of certain weapons that have no functional use other than taking the life of another human. Cardinal Dolan phrased it best as a part of the Culture of Death. I agree with him.
Click to expand...
And uhm, I don’t take to evasive non-responses well.

Here are the statistics you seem to be avoiding in an effort to protect your seemingly partisan and myopic view:

According to FBI data, in 2010:

6,009 murders were committed with HAND GUNS

358 were committed with rifles (of various types not limited to “assault” rifles)

washingtonexaminer.com/if-you…6#.UNOSLrb4-pF

So again I ask you, why the emphasis on the politically defined and maligned “assault weapons”?
 
Cor_Cordis said:
And uhm, I don’t take to evasive non-responses well.

Here are the statistics you seem to be avoiding in an effort to protect your seemingly partisan and myopic view:

According to FBI data, in 2010:

6,009 murders were committed with HAND GUNS

358 were committed with rifles (of various types not limited to “assault” rifles)

washingtonexaminer.com/if-you…6#.UNOSLrb4-pF

So again I ask you, why the emphasis on the politically defined and maligned “assault weapons”?
Click to expand...
Based on past experience with this poster, you’ve about hit your limit of sensible questions that continue to go answered. You will soon get the “I’m done” speech.😛
 
iamrefreshed said:
Based on past experience with this poster, you’ve about hit your limit of sensible questions that continue to go answered. You will soon get the “I’m done” speech.😛
Click to expand...
Well now, if he wants to lie down and and give me free unchallenged commentary on his blatant lack of substantive rationale - then I’ll gladly oblige him.

But uhm … something tells me that his fragile ego and ulterior motives will make that very difficult for him. :rolleyes:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Reality is, armed people can’t protect any better than police.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s not reality at all. In fact, the opposite is true:

redstate.com/pzahorecz/2013/01/09/violence-by-the-numbers-guns-really-do-prevent-violence/

rense.com/general76/univ.htm

Oh and, even the Feds admit that gun laws won’t slow crime:

wnd.com/2013/02/feds-admit-gun-laws-wont-slow-crime/

But tell me, how is it, that these so called “assault weapons” are one of the most popular guns among private gun owners and yet, these supposedly horrible weapons account for the LEAST amount of murders?

Riddle me that.
 
MattinTex said:
And AR15s have controls. Every item listed kills an order of magnitude MORE people every year than rifles, let alone “assault weapons.”

So we need MORE controls (what you want for certain rifles). Why aren’t you advocating for mandatory pool fencing in every state? How many lives are enough? Why aren’t you advocating for mandatory toy lead testing? Why aren’t you advocating for mandatory governors in all vehicles? Why aren’t you advocating for licenses for the purchase of any of the above?

Emotion.
Click to expand...
Air travel had controls, prior to 9/11. When controls in place prove to be ineffective, changes are made.

Pool fencing is required in this state. Lead testing is applied. Vehicles are made to travel, often times to places where laws are different. All of these are topics of their own right, and off topic on what’s being discussed here. With that stated, when problems arise, they should be addressed, including gun problems.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Reality is, armed people can defend themselves better than unarmed people. And yes, better than the police because they have the means accessible immediately as opposed to when the police finally get there, if ever.

I do have use for them, maybe not personally but having them available to those law abiding folks who want to. The founding fathers certainly did. Governments with weapons when the public have none create far greater havoc than criminals could ever hope or intend to.

I also believe it is naive to think our politicians are any better breed of human being than anywhere else. That we are immune to the temptations that others succumb to just by virtue of being americans, to me it smacks of hubris and arrogance. It can happen here. Perhaps not today, maybe not tomorrow. But I don’t believe I have the right to take away the means of defense from future generations who may face a threat I don’t have to.
Click to expand...
Why are we seeing so many shootings unanswered by these ‘armed’ people? You seem to cast doubt of police, when you say, ‘finally get there, if ever.’ The same doubt applies to these ‘armed’ people when we see mass shootings going unanswered.

The founding fathers found that any kind of weapon be available to the public? No, I don’t believe that, and we see regulations that prevent the public from owning all weaponry.

So, all the people that gave their lives for this country did so in vain, because at any minute the government will take over? To me, that ‘smacks of conspiracy theories.’ Your defense is not being taken away, but defined. That’s a right of the government.
 
Gricken said:
Pretty certain most shootings are done with easily concealable handguns than with bulky modern rifles. I’ve never understood the “Assault weapon” ban when almost nobody is murdered by them compared to the much more easily available types of handgun. It doesn’t make any sense to try and get rid of the weapon that isn’t causing harm.

… OH I GET IT! It looks scary! Please, bigger doesn’t always mean more dangerous when it comes to guns :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don’t see how people don’t understand the efficiency of the assault weapon in a crowded public setting. It’s been shown more than once.
 
iamrefreshed said:
Based on past experience with this poster, you’ve about hit your limit of sensible questions that continue to go answered. You will soon get the “I’m done” speech.😛
Click to expand...
I fail to see the repeated questions as ‘sensible’ in many instances. But, whatever, it’s against forum rules to discuss posters and not topics.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I don’t see how people don’t understand the efficiency of the assault weapon in a crowded public setting. It’s been shown more than once.
Click to expand...
According to FBI data, in 2010:

6,009 murders were committed with HAND GUNS

358 were committed with rifles (of various types not limited to “assault” rifles)

washingtonexaminer.com/if-you-want-to-end-gun-deaths-dont-start-with-rifles/article/2516536#.UNOSLrb4-pF

FBI: Yes, more people murdered with knives, body parts and blunt objects than rifles in 2011

fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr…e-data-table-8

"Myth: Mass shootings are on the rise.

Reality: Over the past three decades, there has been an average of 20 mass shootings a year in the United States, each with at least four victims killed by gunfire. Occasionally, and mostly by sheer coincidence, several episodes have been clustered closely in time. Over all, however, there has not been an upward trajectory. To the contrary, the real growth has been in the style and pervasiveness of news-media coverage, thanks in large part to technological advances in reporting."

chronicle.com/blogs/conversat…***-shootings/
 
Cor_Cordis said:
And uhm, I don’t take to evasive non-responses well.

Here are the statistics you seem to be avoiding in an effort to protect your seemingly partisan and myopic view:

According to FBI data, in 2010:

6,009 murders were committed with HAND GUNS

358 were committed with rifles (of various types not limited to “assault” rifles)

washingtonexaminer.com/if-you…6#.UNOSLrb4-pF

So again I ask you, why the emphasis on the politically defined and maligned “assault weapons”?
Click to expand...
The link fails, so I can’t see what you’re talking about. It doesn’t really matter. One instance of an assault rifle rampage can commit many murders at once.

Poor, poor maligned ‘assault weapons.’ They’re inanimate objects, that people choose to create mass murder. They are designed to kill.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I don’t see how people don’t understand the efficiency of the assault weapon in a crowded public setting. It’s been shown more than once.
Click to expand...
Because handguns are more efficent. They usually carry enough rounds, they are lighter, easier to carry, and eaiser to hide. History has shown that most shooters use handguns for these reasons. Especially the last one. The “recent trend” is dubious at best. And irrelevent compared to the far larger trend of using easier to find, and eaiser to hide, handguns.

Also, as has been pointed out time and again, “assualt weapon” doesn’t mean anything. If you’re reffering to a type of weapon, the closest I can think of is “assualt rifle” is that what you mean?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top