Jump to content

Colorado governor signs gun control bills after massacre


onthedarkside

Recommended Posts


16 minutes ago, mikebike said:

You do realize that the laws are intended to help reduce mass killings, not crime, right? 

You do realize the certain people believe the answer is more guns right?

No matter what (new)argument you come up with they will dig up an

old argument somewhere and try if it will stick this time.

It never does.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Mass shootings are "Very rare crimes", are you sure about that...? :unsure:

 

You will never reduce crime, but you can reduce the guns out there, if you have the will, and dismiss something written over 200 years back which was valid at the time.....

I would call less than 1% of all firearms deaths very rare, yes. 

 

Reducing crime is indeed possible.  Just takes more effort than a throwaway virtue signal.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Mass killings aren't crimes?

You said, "stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem". That does not bore down on the point of the legislation. "Stop gun toting criminals intent on mayhem" implies you thought it would be a magic panacia for all crime. Words have meaning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Mass killings aren't crimes? News to me...   I always thought they WERE crimes. Thankfully, very rare crimes, but crimes nonetheless.  From what I have read, they only account for less than 1% of gun deaths every year.  

 

Perhaps focusing on reducing crime would be a better use of limited government resources and time.

Once again you stray into the territory of obfuscation.

 

Calls for gun controls are not arising from *crime related mass shootings.

 

* Mass shootings related to criminal activity around gang culture, the illegal drug trade and organized crime.

 

Calls for gun controls are arising out of **non-crime relayed mass shootings.
 

** not related to gang culture the illegal drug trade and organized crime.

 

Quit with your strawman arguments already.

 

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again you stray into the territory of obfuscation.

 

Calls for gun controls are not arising from *crime related mass shootings.

 

* Mass shootings related to criminal activity around gang culture, the illegal drug trade and organized crime.

 

Calls for gun controls are arising out of **non-crime relayed mass shootings.
 

** not related to gang culture the illegal drug trade and organized crime.

 

Quit with your strawman arguments already.

 

 

No straw man, just being practical.  If you want to actually save lives, then work on crime in general and gun crime in particular. Not on what happens to be trending in the media. 

 

How about these proposals...

 

a/ 10 year mandatory sentence for illegal firearm possession.

b/ 10 extra years if it is used in a crime

c/ death sentence for murderers and drug dealers

d/ mandatory treatment for addicts and mentally incompetent people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

No straw man, just being practical.  If you want to actually save lives, then work on crime in general and gun crime in particular. Not on what happens to be trending in the media. 

 

How about these proposals...

 

a/ 10 year mandatory sentence for illegal firearm possession.

b/ 10 extra years if it is used in a crime

c/ death sentence for murderers and drug dealers

d/ mandatory treatment for addicts and mentally incompetent people

I agree with all but your ‘c’, they are however some of the things that can be done, not all the things that can be done.


Once again, I refer you to the issue that is driving calls for gun controls ‘*non crime related mass shoutings’.

 

* refer above for definition already given.

 

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I agree with all but your ‘c’, they are however some of the things that can be done, not all the things that can be done.


Once again, I refer you to the issue that is driving calls for gun controls ‘*non crime related mass shoutings’.

 

* refer above for definition already given.

 

 

I agree the issue driving the calls is that of, for want of a better term, spontaneous mass shootings.  But they are rare in the big picture. Even if they were to be eliminated completely (an impossible task), there would be no appreciable difference in the overall crime or murder rate.   That is why I say that proposals like the ones in Colorado are a waste of time. All they may accomplish is perhaps help the governor get re-elected, or kicked upstairs to Washington.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I agree the issue driving the calls is that of, for want of a better term, spontaneous mass shootings.  But they are rare in the big picture. Even if they were to be eliminated completely (an impossible task), there would be no appreciable difference in the overall crime or murder rate.   That is why I say that proposals like the ones in Colorado are a waste of time. All they may accomplish is perhaps help the governor get re-elected, or kicked upstairs to Washington.

If they save one innocent life in Colorado they are more than worth it. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

If they save one innocent life in Colorado they are more than worth it. 

The "if it saves one life..." argument is a fallacy.  You could save tens of thousands of lives by outlawing tobacco.  You could save thousands of lives by reducing the maximum speed limit on all roads to 30 miles per hour.  Or mandating that all occupants of all vehicles (cars, busses, vans) wear helmets as well as seat belts. 

 

But we don't. Because all of life involves trade offs between competing factors.  This "one live" argument is simply a form of emotional blackmail.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The "if it saves one life..." argument is a fallacy.  You could save tens of thousands of lives by outlawing tobacco.  You could save thousands of lives by reducing the maximum speed limit on all roads to 30 miles per hour.  Or mandating that all occupants of all vehicles (cars, busses, vans) wear helmets as well as seat belts. 

 

But we don't. Because all of life involves trade offs between competing factors.  This "one live" argument is simply a form of emotional blackmail.

Yet they are doing that for the chance to save a few lives. Respect.

 

I doubt they talked about the tobacco industry or driving laws, they were there for the firearm bill.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I agree the issue driving the calls is that of, for want of a better term, spontaneous mass shootings.  But they are rare in the big picture. Even if they were to be eliminated completely (an impossible task), there would be no appreciable difference in the overall crime or murder rate.   That is why I say that proposals like the ones in Colorado are a waste of time. All they may accomplish is perhaps help the governor get re-elected, or kicked upstairs to Washington.

Politics works on the basis of what captures the public’s attention.

 

I really do not understand why you ignore this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...