The Chickens Have Come Home to Roost

I guess I would respond with a distinction between structural access to guns in one case or in a much deeper sense the socio-economic reasons.

From my readings, education levels, average income, and type of employment tend to point very closely to patterns of gun violence (in an inverse sense). the lower a community scores on those factors, the higher the incidence of gun violence.

So assuming that is correct (open to debate of course), the other debate is whether strict gun control measures are effective in controlling gun violence in these geographic areas consisting of large numbers of poorly educated, low-income folks. Most stats say it doesn't hence my position that advocating against concealed carry laws or highly constrictive legal statues related to gun ownership is a futile exercise.

The folks that jump through the hoops to acquire guns legally and then go through the even tighter and multiple hoops to get a carry license are not the ones committing violent gun crimes.
 
That's reasonable. I don't think we'll ever solve the gun violence problem in America as long as we view the gun as the answer to crime rather than the cause of it.
 
Oh please. Were it not for the efficient manner in which guns maim and kill, the poorly educated, socially and economically disadvantaged types would use bows and arrows. Guns facilitate bad behavior.
 
The cause of crime is not the gun - it's the person holding the gun.

So we're back to the old "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line.
 
There was a time when giving the finger to the driver who may have cut you off was the standard response. Now, with the prevalence of guns, it's not impossible to expect that you could be shot for such an offense.
Again, guns facilitate bad behavior.
 
In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It comes down to how much you value human life.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I can't read this [censored] anymore and not response. You make that comment directed toward the homeowner. Maybe you should ask the thief how much they value their own life when they break into someones house.
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Certainly people who break into houses are risking their lives. If you think that makes it OK to shoot them in the back while they are running away then blame it all on the dead guys because they took a risk you are welcome to believe it I-35. I don't think I'm straining logic to see that means you and I place a different value on human life as compared to value of stuff stolen and intimidation factor that will hopefully deter future lawbreakers. I think it sad when people die, even if they are ignoring risk by overeating, smoking, textingwhile driving or going into a tough neighborhood and somehow disrespectin' the gangs that believe it their turf.
 
One of the fascinating things to me about the robust conservative support of the NRA is how it seems to trump what would seem to be even greater conservative values.
A classic example is the law in Florida which essentially prohibits (or at least attempts to restrict) a physician from inquiring about whether a patient (or in the case of children, the parents) have guns in the home. The theory offered by legislators was that certain liberal physicians were using this to harass patients in pursuit of an anti-gun agenda. Let’s forget whether that argument has merit for a moment and focus on the proposed solution: a government regulation dictating the terms of a verbal exchange during a commercial transaction.

One would assume that the conservative response to this alleged problem would be to LET THE MARKET WORK; patients can go to other physicians. But since the NRA was behind it, the core principle of conservatism -- free market exchanges – gets cast aside in favor of a pro-gun regulation.

Another example is the “stand your ground” laws, which from what I can tell are not particularly popular with law enforcement. While I would place “law enforcement” lower on the conservative hierarchy than respect for the free market, it has been a staple for Republican politicians. Yet, it becomes subordinate to NRA-favored laws.

Personally, I have no problem with individual gun ownership but I am both amused and a little disturbed that the NRA has decided to go beyond that meritorious issue into ones that are, in some cases, directly at odds with Republican/conservative values.
 
The NRA bullies the right and the left and is not shy about letting you know about it. Mention a ban on hollow points and they go crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top