When seconds count: Stopping active killers

charver said:
Mrs Thatcher took away my milk...the evil witch that she was :(

Whilst a child i thought it preferable to being shot.

As an adult i'd not be averse to blowing the kneecaps off a troublesome or persistently tardy youth. However, i'm not a barbarian and would only advocate pistol whipping for children under the age of seven.
Click to expand...

You bleeding heart liberal. If you just had the cajones to pop a cap in their ass when they have potty control problems you'd solve so many problems down the road.
 
Mottleydude said:
You bleeding heart liberal. If you just had the cajones to pop a cap in their ass when they have potty control problems you'd solve so many problems down the road.
Click to expand...

Well i suppose there is some truth in the old proverb - "spare the gun and spoil the child".

They don't know they're born these days the, so-called, children of today.

I know that i wouldn't be where i am today if, as an absent minded ten year-old, my father had not shot me in both legs with his old service revolver, shattering the bones completely, after i foolishly laid the table incorrectly.

I'd probably be walking about, or perhaps running, jumping or anything at all really, rather than sitting here...alone...in the wheelchair, watching the last of one's leg muscles wither away to nothing before one's very eyes. Still, i'm always prepared for a fish course, damn it.
 
Mottleydude said:
There you go again. More Ostrich policy. Ignore the problem, don't take any responsibility for it, it will go away. That's the National Republican Association in action. Pretty much parallels conservative attitudes on sex education.
Click to expand...
What "ostrich policy" you brain dead puke. I suggested a definite and quite workable solution to the problem of gun violence. That is keep the sons of bitches in fucking jail where they won't have the opportunity to repeat their criminal activity 5-10 years after their first murder. Someone kills someone else deliberately, automatic life w/o parole. Kill someone in the commission of a crime - automatic LWO.

Support for a keep-them-in-jail policy resides in the fact that violent crime started to drop very soon after longer and mandatory sentencing policies were instilled. Additional evidence is areas like Chicago that do not have automatic long term sentencing for violent crimes has continued rising crime rates in spite of additional draconian gun control measures.

But that is the problem with you totalitarian types. You can't be satisfied with an answer that actually WORKS. No, you want an excuse to control ALL of society, not just the parts that NEED to be controlled because they refuse to control themselves. You obviously have no additional points to make in this debate since all you can do is make false claims and ignore what has been already said.
 
Good Luck said:
What "ostrich policy" you brain dead puke. I suggested a definite and quite workable solution to the problem of gun violence. That is keep the sons of bitches in fucking jail where they won't have the opportunity to repeat their criminal activity 5-10 years after their first murder. Someone kills someone else deliberately, automatic life w/o parole. Kill someone in the commission of a crime - automatic LWO.

Support for a keep-them-in-jail policy resides in the fact that violent crime started to drop very soon after longer and mandatory sentencing policies were instilled. Additional evidence is areas like Chicago that do not have automatic long term sentencing for violent crimes has continued rising crime rates in spite of additional draconian gun control measures.

But that is the problem with you totalitarian types. You can't be satisfied with an answer that actually WORKS. No, you want an excuse to control ALL of society, not just the parts that NEED to be controlled because they refuse to control themselves. You obviously have no additional points to make in this debate since all you can do is make false claims and ignore what has been already said.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. You explained something that all ready exist, has had mixed results at best, does not address the underlying causes of gun crime and violence, is a grosslly over simplified attempt at a partial solution and pretty much ignores that reality. You're failing to be objective on the issue and, to be honest, are down right obtuse on the issue.
 
Mottleydude said:
No you didn't. You explained something that all ready exist, has had mixed results at best, does not address the underlying causes of gun crime and violence, is a grosslly over simplified attempt at a partial solution and pretty much ignores that reality. You're failing to be objective on the issue and, to be honest, are down right obtuse on the issue.
Click to expand...

You have talked about the responsibility of gun owners. You have talked about the underlying causes of gun crime and violence.



What do you suggest as a solution to gun crime and violence?
 
Mottleydude said:
No you didn't. You explained something that all ready exist, has had mixed results at best, does not address the underlying causes of gun crime and violence, is a grosslly over simplified attempt at a partial solution and pretty much ignores that reality. You're failing to be objective on the issue and, to be honest, are down right obtuse on the issue.
Click to expand...
What have I explained that "already exists"? Keeping violent criminals in jail? WHERE does that exist in the United States? SHow me ONE fucking state that actually keeps even a bare majority, let alone most violent criminals off the streets. Go look at criminal justice statistics. Look up for yourself the average sentence for deliberate homicide. (or do you have the brains to be self sufficient in this manner - let alone the honesty?) Look at the statistics for homicides committed in the commission of another crime, and see the percentage that are plea bargained down to involuntary manslaughter, with a sentence of under 10 years. Then come back and tell me the average deliberate homicide sentence (to include early parole for "good" behavior, etc.) is somehow keeping violent criminals in jail where they fucking belong.

The person who is being obtuse on the issue is the one you see in the mirror.
ignore the problems with violence that gun ownership in our society represent.
Click to expand...
Right there, your words. You place the problems of violence on OWNERSHIP of firearms. Sorry, but that is a supposition that has been proven incorrect time and again. It is NOT "gun ownership" as you put it that is behind, at the core, or responsible for violence in our society. As such, you call for NRA and firearms owners to "take responsibility" for firearms violence is bullshit, pure and simple. It is not "head in the sand" at work, it is knowing the facts and thereby dismissing the idea that we are somehow responsible for criminal violence by advocating the liberty to keep and bear firearms.

A gun is not some possessed evil device that makes people violent. Violent criminals are violent because they are sub human scum. In case you actually do go and look at crime statistics, try being a little honest about the issue and take notice that ALL types of violent crimes are put of control in our society. Look at the historical levels of violent crime and you will see that all types of violent crime increased at about the same time. You can also see (if you are intellectually honest) that crimes involving firearms increased at a lower rate than other types of violent crime. LOOK at the real facts of violent crime in this society, and then come explain exactly why your type only focuses on firearms violence, and your ANSWER to firearms crime is to fuck with law abiding citizens?

The idea that no right is absolute is quite correct. However, any LIMITS placed on rights MUST have a demonstrable and PROVEN purpose, or those limits are unjust. We do not limit the right of free speech in advance, just because some people MIGHT abuse that freedom to incite violence. Instead we penalize anyone who does incite violence AFTER THE FACT. 2nd Amendment advocates have proven time and again that limits on legal ownership of firearms does nothing to curb violent crime. 99.9% of gun control laws are limiting the right IN ADVANCE - just in case someone MIGHT decide to use a firearm for violence. It is antithetical to the concept of liberty in our society.
 
Solitary said:
You have talked about the responsibility of gun owners. You have talked about the underlying causes of gun crime and violence.



What do you suggest as a solution to gun crime and violence?
Click to expand...

That's a good question and I don't have "the" answer. But I am aware that there is a problem with gun violence in urban areas and I am willing to listen to reasonable persons discuss reasonable solution to the problem and not some knee jerk response that any attempts to regulate the manufacture, sales and distribution of arms is an infringement of our 2nd ammendment rights.

I know that many of the solutions to crime and violence are economic and sociological and have relatively little, if anything, to do with the right to bear arms.

My point here is not to support liberal gun control legislation ( I oppose most) or opposing the view that the second amendment is a personal liberty when I do support that view.

The point I'm trying to make is that the NRA (National Republican Association) is an organization that has been co-opted by the extreme right of the Republican party. Because it has been co-opted it has essentially failed in its charter and its membership have been manipulated by the right wing of the Republican party in the finest tradition of George Orwell.

I've worked in conservation and environmental field as a professional, and not some damned political activist, for a long time and there are two organizations I despise as being part of the problem due to their political extremism and that's the NRA and Greenpeace.

You want an example of an organization that walks the talk on gun/hunters rights and conservation and aren't a bunch of political dupes, look to Ducks Unlimited. They are what the NRA should and could have been. I could also make the same comment about Greenpeace. Ducks Unlimited is a vastly superior conservation group than Greenpeace.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's a good question and I don't have "the" answer. But I am aware that there is a problem with gun violence in urban areas and I am willing to listen to reasonable persons discuss reasonable solution to the problem and not some knee jerk response that any attempts to regulate the manufacture, sales and distribution of arms is an infringement of our 2nd ammendment rights.

I know that many of the solutions to crime and violence are economic and sociological and have relatively little, if anything, to do with the right to bear arms.

My point here is not to support liberal gun control legislation ( I oppose most) or opposing the view that the second amendment is a personal liberty when I do support that view.

The point I'm trying to make is that the NRA (National Republican Association) is an organization that has been co-opted by the extreme right of the Republican party. Because it has been co-opted it has essentially failed in its charter and its membership have been manipulated by the right wing of the Republican party in the finest tradition of George Orwell.

I've worked in conservation and environmental field as a professional, and not some damned political activist, for a long time and there are two organizations I despise as being part of the problem due to their political extremism and that's the NRA and Greenpeace.

You want an example of an organization that walks the talk on gun/hunters rights and conservation and aren't a bunch of political dupes, look to Ducks Unlimited. They are what the NRA should and could have been. I could also make the same comment about Greenpeace. Ducks Unlimited is a vastly superior conservation group than Greenpeace.
Click to expand...

I will wholeheartedly agree with you about Ducks Unlimited. I have been a member for 6 years. My money goes to the actual work more than it goes to political bullshit and wild extremisms.

RUDU?
 
Mottleydude said:
My point here is not to support liberal gun control legislation ( I oppose most) or opposing the view that the second amendment is a personal liberty when I do support that view.

The point I'm trying to make is that the NRA (National Republican Association) is an organization that has been co-opted by the extreme right of the Republican party. Because it has been co-opted it has essentially failed in its charter and its membership have been manipulated by the right wing of the Republican party in the finest tradition of George Orwell.

I've worked in conservation and environmental field as a professional, and not some damned political activist, for a long time and there are two organizations I despise as being part of the problem due to their political extremism and that's the NRA and Greenpeace.

You want an example of an organization that walks the talk on gun/hunters rights and conservation and aren't a bunch of political dupes, look to Ducks Unlimited. They are what the NRA should and could have been. I could also make the same comment about Greenpeace. Ducks Unlimited is a vastly superior conservation group than Greenpeace.
Click to expand...

Thats all fine and well, but guess what? The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It's about you and I and every neighbor up and down our street ready to shoot and kill any enemy to freedom and liberty...foreign or domestic.

Now that the 'shall not be infringed' part isn't part of the equation, you want to do something about gun violence? remove the impediments to obtain firearms while telling people that they need to learn how to use them. People are victimized today because they either don't want to be responsible for their own protection or can't be responsible for their own protection. This means that urban gun control laws must be eliminated. Also, when people commit crimes using guns, put their homicidal sociopathic asses in prison for life or euthanize them. This was the method that those in our first century of the USA used and it worked rather well to keep most crime down.

There is no other solution to gun violence unless you choose to throw away the constitution, quadruple the active police force and military, then turn them loose on patrol in every city/town/village while taking away every weapon of the people.

The last is not an option.
 
The biggest problem is that the police force is focused almost exclusively on identifying and apprehending criminals AFTER the crime has been committed.

That is fine, as long as the violent criminals are then removed from society.



But the police have almost no way to protect the citizens. Since they cannot act until a crime has been committed, the victim is left to their own devices to protect themselves.
 
Mottleydude said:
That's a good question and I don't have "the" answer. But I am aware that there is a problem with gun violence in urban areas and I am willing to listen to reasonable persons discuss reasonable solution to the problem and not some knee jerk response that any attempts to regulate the manufacture, sales and distribution of arms is an infringement of our 2nd ammendment rights.

I know that many of the solutions to crime and violence are economic and sociological and have relatively little, if anything, to do with the right to bear arms.

My point here is not to support liberal gun control legislation ( I oppose most) or opposing the view that the second amendment is a personal liberty when I do support that view.

The point I'm trying to make is that the NRA (National Republican Association) is an organization that has been co-opted by the extreme right of the Republican party. Because it has been co-opted it has essentially failed in its charter and its membership have been manipulated by the right wing of the Republican party in the finest tradition of George Orwell.

I've worked in conservation and environmental field as a professional, and not some damned political activist, for a long time and there are two organizations I despise as being part of the problem due to their political extremism and that's the NRA and Greenpeace.

You want an example of an organization that walks the talk on gun/hunters rights and conservation and aren't a bunch of political dupes, look to Ducks Unlimited. They are what the NRA should and could have been. I could also make the same comment about Greenpeace. Ducks Unlimited is a vastly superior conservation group than Greenpeace.
Click to expand...
As was already pointed out, the 2nd Amendment is not only about hunting. Ducks Unlimited is a good organization, and they are focussed on what interests you. That's fine.

But NRA is not a focus organization about hunting rights or land conservation, and they never have been. The NRA is first about firearms safety, and they do a damned good job at that. They get involved with hunter's safety, because that is an important part of overall firearms safety. They walk the walk. NRA is also about the FULL intent of the 2nd amendment, not your liberal watered down "hunters' rights" version. And they walk the walk on that issue also. But conservation? It's never been claimed nor implied that is an issue NRA is involved in. There are a LOT of organizations that are not about conservation. Does that make them bad?

NRA is not "co-opted" by the republican party. NRA does not look simply at the letter following a politician's name. They give a rating to each and every candidate based on that candidate's voting record and past statements on the issue of firearms rights. There are democrats who have an A rating from NRA, and republicans with Cs and even a couple Ds (I don't THINK there are any Fs for republicans - but that's because republicans do not have the habit of blindly blaming firearms ownership for the problem of violence) When supporting a candiadte, though, it is the final rating, not the party, that NRA looks at. NRA has been known to support a democrat with an A over a republican with a B.

The bottom FACT is (as opposed to your "knee jerk" reactionary view) NRA supports republicans candidates over democratic candidates in most election because most democratic candidates are in favor of more draconian gun control laws than most republican candidates. The majority of democratic politicians support an assault weapons ban among other unconstitutional draconian laws. The majority of republicans oppose them. Is it any wonder NRA supports republicans the majority of the time?

Likewise, Ducks Unlimited supports democratic candidates predominately because democratic candidates, in general, supports the issues DU is interested in. Does that make DU an "arm" of the democratic party? Hardly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top