BoltProspects Community Forums

BoltProspects Community Forums (http://boltprospects.com/forum/index.php)
-   The Room (http://boltprospects.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   News of the Day II (http://boltprospects.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10386)

Flycoon 10-06-2017 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 218762)

Of course, worth again pointing out that Congress refuses to even allow a study on the issue, so most of my questions will remain unanswered.

That is why the stats he posted are so out of date.

pete 10-06-2017 02:53 PM

Well... today's jobs report showed the economy losing 33,000 jobs. It's the first jobs report in something like 7 years that showed negative job growth. Some are attributing it as a temporary anomaly due to the hurricanes. Others see it as the inevitable end of the inertia of the Obama recovery, which was already at the outer limits of what has historically happened when it came to the length of job expansion. My instinct is that the Obama recovery was losing inertia and that the hurricanes simply may be the thing that finally puts the economy into the recession many knew was inevitably coming from the natural business cycle.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/35...er-jobs-report

This comes on the heels of news that the Republican Party is seeing a freefall in its popularity.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...is-in-freefall

The GOP is now down to a 62% unfavorable rating, which is down 7% from where it was 3 months ago. 57% of Americans want a Congress that will "stand up to Trump."

Those numbers were before any economic downturn set in.

I've been saying it for several months now: it might be 50/50 for the GOP to lose the House TODAY... and that's with a decent economy. In a bad economy, next November could be an electoral massacre that not even gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and Russian interference can protect the Republican Party from.

Want to know why Trump's beating the war drum? Because it's literally the only political wild card he's got left to try and save him, I think.

gphockey 10-06-2017 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BurnTHalO (Post 218762)
So where do you draw that line? If people kill people and weapons are not to blame, do you then have a line?

First, killing another human is not acceptable. In the case of self defense or war, well....you have to do what you have to do.

Guns used for target shooting, hunting or for defense should allowed except full auto. One could make an arguement against a 50 cal. or the like.

IMO handguns are a real problem.

ZeykShade 10-06-2017 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gphockey (Post 218783)
First, killing another human is not acceptable. In the case of self defense or war, well....you have to do what you have to do.

Guns used for target shooting, hunting or for defense should allowed except full auto. One could make an arguement against a 50 cal. or the like.

IMO handguns are a real problem.

Full auto weapons are regulated under the NFA of 1934. They're not allowed without a class III federal firearms license being obtained. This is very expensive and requires many hoops be jumped through. To buy one is also extremely expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Guns aren't inherently evil. They're a tool like a hammer is. However, unlike a hammer, they have one use. They kill things.

Defensive Gun Use prevalence is a myth. There are plenty of studies that demonstrate this. Anecdotes exist to the contrary, but they're not indicative of the facts regarding defensive gun use.

The bullshit "nuclear weapons, tanks, grenade launchers" argument some like to trot out is just that. It's bullshit. Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. The reason rocket launchers and tanks are NOT considered viable self-defense arms is because of collateral damage. I own a semi-auto rifle. I feel that this type of rifle doesn't meet the collateral damage requirement and should not be used by civilians. This doesn't mean that they haven't been used defensively by civilians because they have. There's video footage of it actually. What this means is that the public health/safety negatives outweigh the self-defense positives and it really isn't close. Civilians are stuck in an arms race currently and being sold marketing that they need these arms.

Full Auto and Semi-Auto rifles are almost NEVER used in the commission of a crime. They're almost NEVER used in the defense of oneself or loved ones. They are a very good option for those looking to commit mass murder but remember Virginia Tech was committed with handguns. Ft. Hood Massacre was committed with an FN 5.7 handgun.

Another bullshit argument trotted out is the "If you outlaw firearms, only outlaws will have firearms." This argument is beyond silly. It's a tautology. You're not saying anything by saying this. If criminals refuse to obey the laws, then why have speed limits? Also, facts matter. States with stricter gun laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.

Another thing to consider, gun-related violence is just a symptom of larger societal issues. Ease of obtaining a gun is one problem, but to focus only on this ignores the underlying issues that make violence and crime the only option for many. If you spend decades making it a goal to give every 16-20yo black male a criminal record for any and everything, it dampens their job prospects(even if there were anyone hiring). If you shit on public education to the point where the skills required to be an employee in today's economy are never learned, you're gonna make it awfully hard for the majority of people to become contributing members of society. If you give a profit incentive to private corporations to fill their jails, you're gonna have some full jails.

WaiverWire 10-07-2017 01:20 AM

Or one can say that you have a right to protect yourself.

Donnie D 10-07-2017 09:11 AM

You don't seem to need to have a gun for protection in countries where guns are regulated.

Flycoon 10-07-2017 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 218829)
You don't seem to need to have a gun for protection in countries where guns are regulated.

True. LEO typically don’t carry in those countries. And aren’t militarized.

They are more “peace officers”, a long dead concept here.

WaiverWire 10-07-2017 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donnie D (Post 218829)
You don't seem to need to have a gun for protection in countries where guns are regulated.

I would be more than willing to give up my gun if you can assure me that every single gun will be picked up. Problem is that you can not as the honest people will turn them in and the criminals will keep theirs. Their are just far too many guns in this country to assure us of that.

RSchmitz 10-07-2017 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WaiverWire (Post 218843)
I would be more than willing to give up my gun if you can assure me that every single gun will be picked up. Problem is that you can not as the honest people will turn them in and the criminals will keep theirs. Their are just far too many guns in this country to assure us of that.

True, there are way too many guns. Something like 5 guns per person in the United States. This nation is obsessed with them. We have to find ways to make them more difficult to obtain and some ways to slowly remove them from society. Republicans like to twist that into some huge overnight roundup, I think the more common sense approach is to limit gun proliferation to 1 per person in about 10-20 years.

Donnie D 10-08-2017 12:57 PM

A number of right wingers are claiming that they are not coming to any games until JT is gone. I've been asking for their tickets, but it seems none of those folks from Utah have any tickets to give me.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.