• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

U brought this up that u can make make a referendum and stuff but u even said that wouldn't fly with the popular vote on making that happen. The gov will do some shady shit to make it happen and these ppl would be for it making them tyrants

They would want the outcome despite what it costs
 
BACKFIRE in progress! Left's war on the NRA has reaped BIG rewards (for the NRA)
https://truepundit.com/backfire-in-progress-lefts-war-on-the-nra-has-reaped-big-rewards-for-the-nra/

The liberal strategy of accusing the NRA of being complicit in shootings even though neither the organization or its members have had anything to do with the crimes committed is starting to reap results - Just not the results the Left were hoping for.

The NRA just broke a 15-year fundraising record:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/article209619234.html
Click to expand...
 
spacejunk said:
So, according to that logic, the second amendment is tyranny?




:|
Click to expand...

^this

The ability to pass amendments allows the U.S. government to have survived for as long as it has.

I get the sense the extremists about the 2nd amendment mostly want a show-down between conservatives and liberals, leading to the dissolvement of the federal government, and a second civil war. :|
 
Venezuela Banned Guns. Now Their Murder Rate Is Skyrocketing.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29794/venezuela-banned-guns-now-their-murder-rate-hank-berrien

Want an example of how dangerous gun prohibition for citizens can be? Try Venezuela, where since April 2017 at least 163 pro-democracy protesters have been murdered by the Maduro dictatorship.

In 2012, the Venezuelan National Assembly, which was dominated by communists, passed the ?Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law." The bill was clear that it aimed to ?disarm all citizens.? All gun sales were banned except to government entities. If a citizen was caught selling a gun or carrying one, they could get 20 years in prison.

The year preceding Maduro?s disarmament initiative, Caracas recorded a homicide rate of 122 per 100,000 inhabitants, roughly 20 times the global average of 6.2.

So what happened next? The national homicide rate rose from 73 per 100,000 in 2012 to 90 per 100,000 in 2015.
Click to expand...
 
JGrimez said:
Venezuela Banned Guns. Now Their Murder Rate Is Skyrocketing.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/29794/venezuela-banned-guns-now-their-murder-rate-hank-berrien
Click to expand...

I read on snopes that Venezuela isn’t real socialism :)

Ya private gun ownership is extremely limited in most of central and South America, but the violent crime with guns is exponentially higher in these places. Reminds me of Chicago and other large US cities. Gun ownership is crazy high where I live but home invasions and gun crime doesn’t occur often outside of Nashville and Memphis, but those figures are largely skewed by inner city populations.
 
that clip has been debunked. she wasn't talking about taking away all guns. she was referring to all 'assault weapons'.

NRA's Chris Cox falsely says Dianne Feinstein wanted to take 'all of your guns'

Cox said that Feinstein had once said "if she had 51 votes in the Senate for 'Mr. and Ms. America , turn in all of your guns,' they would do it."

This is an inaccurate characterization of what Feinstein said in a 1995 interview on assault-type weapons. It is clear in context about loopholes in the 1994 assault weapon ban that Feinstein would have liked the ban to apply to all assault weapons but did not have the votes.

That is a far cry from banning all firearms, and Feinstein has said she supports the right of people to own a weapon for hunting or self-defense.

We rate this claim False.
Click to expand...

further, nobody here - as far as i can tell - is arguing for disarming all u.s. citizens.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
alasdairm said:
she was referring to all 'assault weapons'.
Click to expand...

This is where the encroachment/slippery slope comes into play.
What exactly is an assault weapon? A gun that looks scary? AR-15 is weak compared to some rifles. Is it semi-automatic weapons? Those include handguns.
There is no definition for assault weapon. All guns fire bullets they are all assault weapons.

alasdairm said:
nobody here - as far as i can tell - is arguing for disarming all u.s. citizens
Click to expand...
I didn't say anyone was but are you sure? I would guess that some people would be in favor of a complete ban.
I just posted the article because it is relevant to the debate.
 
JGrimez said:
This is where the encroachment/slippery slope comes into play.
What exactly is an assault weapon? A gun that looks scary? AR-15 is weak compared to some rifles. Is it semi-automatic weapons? Those include handguns.
There is no definition for assault weapon. All guns fire bullets they are all assault weapons.
Click to expand...
you gave her as an example of a democrat who wants to take all guns. she doesn't want to take all guns.

so is your point that, if we can better define specific weapons, you're then ok with greater restriction?

JGrimez said:
I didn't say anyone was but are you sure? I would guess that some people would be in favor of a complete ban.
Click to expand...
i'd rather not assume.

alasdair
 
Personally, I think people target the NRA because they see it as the face of their problem with guns. I don't think it stands up to much logical thinking.

Even if you feel the NRA-ILA lobbying keeps gun control from happening, none of that changes the problems with passing gun control, both constitutional and in terms of effectiveness. And if it weren't the NRA it would be some other group. The NRA is just a manifestation of the will of a large number of Americans.

They didn't create this situation, they are a product of it. If they collapsed tomorrow something else would just take their place. And I've met quite a few people who don't like the NRA because they feel they're not nearly extreme enough.
 
alasdairm said:
you gave her as an example of a democrat who wants to take all guns. she doesn't want to take all guns.
Click to expand...
if she was only referring to assault weapons then yes she was referring to all guns

alasdairm said:
so is your point that, if we can better define specific weapons, you're then ok with greater restriction?
Click to expand...
No. I've argued and provided evidence for the claim that gun control is not the focal issue when it comes to homicide rates.
My point there was that any gun control activists who use the term 'assault weapon' are either ignorant or dodgy.

alasdairm said:
i'd rather not assume.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with assuming a broad diversity of opinions.
 
I don't much like it either. But I think the NRA represents some of the most benign types of lobbying. At least there are actually a large number of Americans who want them doing it and give them the money for it. At least they do represent something, as in a real group in society. One that is made up of a reasonable number of people of fairly average wealth.

Not perfect but better than lobbying for something that only benefits rich multinationals and little else.

EDIT: I realize now if I don't mention this someone's probably gonna point to the money gun companies give the NRA. I've looked into this question and as best I can find, while those companies certainly do give a lot, it still makes up less than half of the NRAs revenue. Most of it comes from membership fees followed by merchandise. I think those gun companies largely have their own lobbyists rather than funding the NRA-ILA.
 
Last edited:
JGrimez said:
if she was only referring to assault weapons then yes she was referring to all guns


No. I've argued and provided evidence for the claim that gun control is not the focal issue when it comes to homicide rates.
My point there was that any gun control activists who use the term 'assault weapon' are either ignorant or dodgy.


I'm ok with assuming a broad diversity of opinions.
Click to expand...

Yep the “assault weapon” or as we know it, the semi automatic firearm makes up the bulk of the firearms in private ownership. The alt left acts like they are reasonable with this stuff, but that simply isn’t the case. Gun crime and criminal violent crime are correlated obviously, and there is no proof that lower private gun ownership leads to lower over all violent crime rates. Lower gun crime rates are the concern of the ruling class and the non thinkers they can bamboozle with their propaganda imho
 
Guys, seriously. Stop. "Assault weapons" means, to most people, assault rifles. This is what they have in mind when they're using this term. This is what Feinstein and the staunch D's want.

I'm not for that. Feinstein is a bit out of touch with reality and modern-day politics, i.e. her stance on marijuana is poor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top