Jump to content

GW Hayduke

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1,667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GW Hayduke

  1. 1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

    No, just reacting to the brain dead partisanship  others continue to post. Yeah, we know what Trump is - I said so when he announced he was running. IDGAF if he gets impeached & convicted, he's a deserving candidate for a prison cell - along with most of his crowd.

    What amazes me are those who think his political opponents are the answer to our country's ills. They are not, just as DJT never has been. They are as bad as he is but the blinders they hand out are working as planned for the cattle who support them (Both parties).

    I gave up on the republicans at the turn of the millennium. Why haven't you people done the same with your own corrupt slimeballs?

    FYI, the “both-sides-are-the-same” rationale is a meme. It’s a meme because people mock it. People mock it because it is intellectually lazy.

  2. 2 minutes ago, JohnRedHorn said:

    If that was satirical then bravo. If not then wtf? 

    Duh, the US is the only civilized western society that has easy access to guns and a majority of gun owners who are irresponsible and don't keep their guns locked in a gun safe whenever not in use. 

    You dont have to take away guns, you just start charging whoever the legal owner of any gun that is used in a crime with that crime. If dumb ass daddy of this kid was up for capital murder and the death penalty alongside his kid then we'd either see a lot of people deciding to not own guns or we'd get rid of irresponsible gun owners by making felons out of them. 

    It’s not a satirical question although the answer is obvious to a lot of folks though not all - see the blaming of doors, abortion, etc.  It’s not satirical because it is meant to refocus on the real, more important question, and away from the question that only looks at mass shootings.

    I agree however that increased enforcement and possibly expanding liabilities may be an effective strategy

  3. 4 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

    The easy answer is the US has by far more guns than any other country, total volume and per capita. Literally more guns than people. Only country on earth that can come close to that claim. 

    If we had more hang grenades than people and they were extremely easy to buy, we would lead the world in hand grenade deaths. 

    Totally agree that that is the easy and obvious answer. I would add that in addition to that, the lack of any effective controls surrounding firearms contributes to this. There are several countries that allow ownership of firearms that do not have near our levels of gun violence.

  4. 28 minutes ago, yoladu said:

    Can anyone care to explain to me why it is so drastically higher in the United States?

    I think that is an important question. Why does the US have such a high refequency of mass shootings?

    I would add that another important, and actually IMO more important, question is why does the US have such a drastically higher rate of overall firearm-related violence when compared to other first world countries?

    The reason I think this question is more important is because it reflects a much larger amount of harm/death, e.g., mass shootings are not that common when compared to other instances of gun violence.

  5. 9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    I think we will see something on the level of the AWB, with a lot more provisions.  And I think there are plenty on the left who are ready to roll something out the moment they get power and we have another major shooting.  It's too easy to organize kids who are 18 or about to be 18, and people in general these days, and more and more parents are getting concerned.     

    The AWB happened in 1994 before school shootings were on the national conscious, before the internet was widespread and well before social media, before 58 people were killed and 850 injured by a single guy, before two dozen little kids were slaughtered in an elementary.  

    Not many 18 year olds used to vote, but this is one of those single issues that could do the trick.  And that's not even getting into the fact that Trump is trying to hand Congress over to the Dems within 1-2 elections, thereby setting the stage for something more comprehensive than the AWB.

    I would agree that the concept of sensible gun control is building political steam and would entail something more comprehensive than the past AWB. IMO sensible gun reform would have the primary goal of decreasing the overall rate of firearm-related deaths in the US and a secondary goal of decreasing the frequency/magnitude of mass shootings

  6. 16 minutes ago, Hate said:

    No it won't.  The only thing it will do is to change the weapon of choice of said mass shooter.  See Va Tech, Killeen, Austin, etc. 

    I get that there are examples where a mass shooter didn’t use an AW; however, to take that fact and use as evidence that removing or heavily restricting AWs from a population would not decrease the body count from mass shootings doesn’t hold up. AW appear to be the weapon of choice for mass shooters.  This rational seems to assume that a strategy isn’t appropriate unless it stops all mass shootings. Society doesn’t operate with these extremes in mind. The goal is to lower the magnitude, body count associated with mass shootings. And that is just one of the goals with effective gun control

  7. 19 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    There is a group waiting for the tipping point so that they can go to town on banning firearms, and politicians like Lt. Governor Dannie Goeb are bitching about abortion rather than trying to stave off that group.

    Actually the comments about abortion, blaming schools for having too many entrances, talk of arming teachers, etc. are pretty good signs that Republicans (and the NRA) care less about defending gun owners than they do about winning votes and fundraising for the next election.

    I don’t think anyone is realistically waiting to “go to town banning firearms.” That is a “they’re comin for your guns” and then “over my cold dead hands” marketing pitch. I think that stance ignores the sensible gun control proposals out there.

    Concerning the repub politicians, it does seem even more apparent now that they represent the interests of the gun lobby/manufactures and the role of the NRA is to shape the repub electorate into believing in the interests of the gun industry/lobby/manufactures. 

  8. 23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

    After the Dems get control of Congress, they are gonna run a train on us the first chance they get with something at least equal to the Assault Weapons Ban, which happened in the lifetimes of most of us here (for those who keep thinking we will never see serious gun control). 

    Meanwhile, Republican politicians like Dannie Goeb will keep whining about abortion. 

    Thats where we are at. 

    Banning assault weapons is cosmetic IMO, although a no-brainer. It would help at decreasing the magnitude of mass shootings. 

    I think of Assault weapons as a weighing of costs and benefits.  What are the benefits of them?

  9. 6 hours ago, maninblack said:


    Belief in authority

    It isn't a fallacy to point out that the gun industry's marketing slogan isn't true.  I invite you to consider Kellermann's 1993 study that touched on this topic.  

    "The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

     

    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

  10. 8 hours ago, blackmarketbaby said:

    You must be part of the authoritarian bloc of trolls

    It is not authoritarian to have an opinion the us would be better off without single issue voters. Nor is it trollish to share that opinion as it is rather common.

  11. 5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    Don’t forget all the lives lost due to the tax cuts.  

    Oh shit. You wear your hypocrisy like a badge of honor. Good to know. If you ever feel like hypocrisy isn't your thing but you still want to hold onto your pro-life beliefs, I recommend you check out the Catholic Church. 

  12. 3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    Yes. A huge percentage of us think using surgical instruments to dismember unborn babies with a heartbeat is sick, evil, immoral and should be illegal.  And I absolutely won’t vote for any pro abortion candidate in any election no matter what  

    And a huge percentage disagree and support abortions. There isn’t room for compromise on it. 

    I wonder how we stack up morally on those beliefs?

    I believe all life is sacred and worthy of protection.  Especially the most vulnerable. And I’ll meet my maker someday and be proud of that belief. 

    What about the life that is lost due to republican positions on universal healthcare, the death penalty, and gun control?

    • Like 1
  13. 1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:


    But you also need to understand that’s how a huge percentage of the population thinks and votes.

    Sure. They are a motivated single-issue voting block and the US would be in a better place without them but I don't they are insurmountable.  

    However, when it comes to firearm violence I think there are a lot of pro-lifers that have reasonable stances and welcome strategies to minimize harm.  I don't think they are against "gun control" if they can get past their political identity; however, they are voting republican either way.  

    It isn't normal to disregard firearm violence because of abortions - thats why I mentioned it was stupid.

  14. 52 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    And as long as the abortion debate leads to this kind of statement, we will never, ever, EVER get anything accomplished.

    Because anyone who doesn't absolutely oppose abortion is a mass-murderer.  Period.  Conversation over, and it can never advance.

    This is a great example to understand why we're where we are.  We could be discussing the need for better food safety regulations, and the rebuttal would be "what do you libs care? You've murdered millions of babies!"  And....the conversation is over.  This is where we are.  Abortion has 100% broken ALL politics in this country, about EVERY SINGLE ISSUE.  We're here talking about mass shootings and, well, libs have no say, because abortion.  Stop wondering why nothing ever gets fucking done, or why problems don't get solved.  This is why.

    I honestly take it as an example of a stupid person saying something stupid. Ignore, ridicule, downvote are all options.

    There are places where adult conversations can be had.  r/neutralpolitics on reddit have mods that enforce some strict rules and will delete/ban anything that doesn't have a source or that addresses the the commenter rather than position. 

  15. 8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    Gina Haspel is going to go medieval on Trump.

    He will regret ever appointing such a well qualified and experienced CIA director that HATES Russia’s fucking guts.

    Mistakes were made.

     

    Posted from a Hooters outside Louisville 

    The fact that Mark Warner voted to confirm her gives me hope that you are right. However, I can’t shake the feeling that the Russians may actually be the ones that got Trump to nominate her. She is a clear sign to the world that the US tortured, and this supports russia’s equivalency narrative. It’s almost like, what other possible CIA Director could have made the US look worse. Just my own theory that I know probably isn’t true but I can’t shake

  16. 32 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I don’t worry about gun violence that much. The odds are pretty low in a country of 330 million of getting shot and killed if you aren’t in the drug game or in a gang.  I’m for mitigating risk of gun violence.  And there are things we can do.  But you can’t compare the US to Europe  

    We have the Second Amendment.  We have a ton of guns.   We have a very different set of demographics.  We have a war on drugs that not only creates drug gun violence, but it takes police and prison resources away from violent crimes and perps that need to be in prison  

     

     

    Countries are different. That is something that can be agreed upon. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t compare countries.

    You mention some of the reasons why the US has the highest rate of firearm-violence in the first world. Just because there are a range of reasons for this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a “problem” that requires strategies to minimize/mitigate.

  17. 22 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    The rate of gun violence is down.  The  data is clear on that.  The proliferation of gun ownership over the same period merely provides context.  There is no correlation between a decrease in gun violence with a decrease in gun ownership over the same period.  In fact, the opposite is true.  GW was making a huge issue about gun control to solve a "problem" that has been correcting for years.  It's frustrating to have a constructive conversation about real world problems, root causes and workable solutions when advocates are merely championing their solution regardless of reality.

    The rate of gun violence is down. That doesn’t mean we still don’t have a gun violence issue. 

    There was no proliferation of gun ownership. The rate of gun ownership has been going down.

    i understand from your previous comment that you don’t like to compare data between countries because you feel different methods are involved. The homicide rates by country are provided by a UN report. The firearm death rates are mostly provided by the University of Sydney. What do you not alike about that report or their methods?

    Waving your hand and say “I don’t like it” doesn’t seem honest.  

    You mention frustration that I called them facts. What is not factual in any of my statements?

    You appear to mention I am advocating something regardless of reality. What “reality” am I missing? What about someone’s version of “reality” that ignores huge sets of data that compare countries because of a wave of the hand?

     

  18. 7 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    GW - you country comparisons are red herrings.  You are welcome to fuck that chicken all you like, but it's not a compelling argument for legislative action.

    How is it not compelling that Americans are less safe than other first world countries? Is it a red herring or are you ignoring facts? Is a red herring the name of a fact the pro-gun lobby doesn’t like?

  19. 4 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    I misspoke.  The "rate" has essentially stayed the same, but the population has grown, so point is remains - gun violence has declined while gun ownership (overall, not rate) has increased.

    Not sure where you are seeing that the rate has declined.  I searched and found this:

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/

     

    Statista doesn’t show its sources unfortunately.

    My memory was wrong. The rate of ownership dropped from 50.4% in 1977 to 31.0% in 2014. Below source

    http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS Reports/GSS_Trends in Gun Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf

  20. 10 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    The rate of firearm violence has been declining for years as the rate of gun ownership has been growing.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

    More compelling is a comparison across countries on the rates of firearm related deaths. You are 12 times less likely to die by firearm in Australia or Germany. 6 times less likely in Canada. Almost twice less likely in Mexico. Just as likely in Uruguay. Though we are safer from firearms here then in Columbia.

     

     

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

     

  21. 7 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    The rate of firearm violence has been declining for years as the rate of gun ownership has been growing.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

    You are correct that the “rate” of violence has been in decline. You are incorrect that the “rate” of gun ownership has been increasing. 

    The rate of gun ownership has declined from 51% in the 1970s to 36% in 2016.

    The US’s overall rate of homicides and our rates of firearm-related deaths are on par with third world countries. It is staggering.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

  22. 5 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    You applied your lesson to a worthwhile thread about something other than the default return to the gun debate when a school gets shot up.

    My compliments, bernorange.

    There are good points to be made about guns on both sides, but I am not of the opinion that anything short of collecting 90% of the firearms in America would have much impact on these school shootings. I think I'd prefer such an America, but it isn't going to happen. Let's turn to some of the harder examination of why these killings occur.

    Reducing the frequency and magnitude of mass shootings is only one goal. The other goal is to lower the overall rate of firearm-related violence. Some strategies would help towards both goals. 

    Gun reform and control is a real possible solution for the US. To try and solve our gun violence problem and ignore the strategies surrounding gun control seems fruitless

  23. 9 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    "Let's enact gun control."  

    "We don't need gun control!  We are responsible gun owners, and responsible gun owners don't pose a threat to society!"

    "Okay, let's enact some laws ensuring that gun owners are responsible."

    "Whoa whoa whoa, actually we can't really prevent anyone from getting our guns."

    The “responsible gun owner” narrative is weak to me. I’m sure there were responsible slave owners, responsible drinkers that drove cars, responsible drivers who didn’t want to wear seatbelts.

    No one cares if someone is “responsible” or “law-abiding.” It’s a cop-out to try and hide behind their idenity. All citizens of a society sometimes have to make sacrifices, and sometimes those sacrifices are to wear a seatbelt or to register/obtain a license for your firearm.

    • Like 1
  24. There are two well-defined goals to strive for to address the “problem” with guns in America. 

    1) Reduce the rate of firearm-related violence across the country.

    2) Reduce the frequency and magnitude of mass shootings.

    We have a range of strategies at our disposal to help work towards these goals. Some strategies may have little effect. Some strategies may in-flame someone’s identity.

    I get that this is a message board and that this is a political topic. 

    My recommendation is to look to non-biased professionals to seek an understanding of the best approaches forward.

     

  25. 1 hour ago, HtownHorn said:

    Cars, knives, and pvc pipe can be just as lethal as a gun. I bet you give 2 shits about them.

    You're the guy that was dishonest about the 2013 CDC report.

    I give lots of shits about cars - and so does society.  We have a registration, inspection, licensing, and insurance systems. We have speed limits, drunk driving laws, and enforcement. We have an industry of engineers/planners dedicated to incorporate safety into roadway designs.  This is the type of multi-prong approach that society takes to minimize and mitigate harm.  We need to take a similar multi-prong approach to lowering our rate of firearm-related deaths.  

    Your pcv pipe and knife examples are silly. 

     

×
×
  • Create New...