That's going to happen regardless, alas... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Printable View
That's going to happen regardless, alas... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by robertlouis
Yes, that's the way to do it - show the public health issues. Then in 5 years time, guns will not be allowed in public buildings or transport, guns will carry pictures of nasty gun-related injuries, and have health warnings on them as well - "shooting can seriously harm your schoolchildren". That should do itQuote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
I think your sarcasm is misplaced, Martin. Cars kill people but we don't ban cars. But there are driving awareness ads on tv every now and then, and the public health aspect has been enhanced through safety improvements to cars, better roads and so on -but you can't stop someone banned from driving with no insurance, getting drunk or high and stealing a card to go on a 2am joy ride that might kill him/her and anyone else -but you have made it harder. If guns can't reasonably be banned, then the externalities can be dealt with; it will be bureaucratic, but what are the alternatives?
Great take!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The arguments that have been mounted in recent years are either that since any regulation or "control" of firearms would not total eliminate gun violence that the efforts would be futile and therefore we must accept the status quo since only a reduction in violence could be achieved.
Why wouldn't we take steps to reduce violence, death and maiming of our citizens simply because we cab't complete eliminate it?
The other argument has been to take the 2nd Amendment and transform it for the purposes of unfettered manufacture and sales. The amendment was a 18th Century expression of a mechanism for states to have militia capabilities due to basic mistrust in Federalism. It did not deal with issues such as registration nor did it deal with types. The NRA interpretation taken to its full intellectual conclusion would be that every citizen has the right to process nuclear warheads and fighter jets from which to deliver them.
Let me expound on what I said once before....
I don't mind Republicans clinging to guns and religion, what I really hate is how the Republican Party is in the Pocket of Fat Cats.
Most of the people here who speak eloquently about gun control have been raised in good families, financially secure, well educated. Most of the problems in Society don't spring from the top half, they are born in the bottom half. And unless you can enact a law that makes people earning less than 10K a year behave themselves, crime and gunplay is going to be a fact of life, even if you don't see it in your neighborhood. If you want jails and mental health and education you've got to PAY for it. It's only when some rich kid flips out that people get upset.
Speaking of crime, I've been here almost a whole year and Trish has not PM'd me ONE underwear pic.........I've looked through the rules regs but I couldn't find it mentioned.
you mean like free education and a minimum wage thats high enough for people to actually live off of it?Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
OK, it was sarcasm (must remember to be very careful using it on US topics!). Long slow education is probably the best way forward (other than another civil war, of course. But that wouldn't be fair 'cos one side would have 100 rounds per second assalt rifles while the other side had "reasoned arguments") Oh shit, being sarcastic again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Yeah if there a civil war they'd reintroduce slavery if they (the red states) won. Alongside african americans would be white liberals in chains. Though of course they would then introduce controls on guns - stop the losers rearming and shooting back. Paradoxical problem for the NRA.
Fuck the underwear.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I...uh...*ahem*....what were we...guns right?...can't seem to ...uh..think straight right now.
(I'm gonna vote that "best post in this section..ever")