Forum Replies Created
-
You have a reasonable take on tbe subject, Maddy.
Also, I have heard it repeated that if a killer is going to kill, he doesn’t need a gun, and regulations and restrictions will be of no use. I don’t think tighter regulations will end all gun violence. But what if it reduces gun violence by some percentage? I think it is reasonable to expect that it woludlow
It is reasonable to expect that it would work. Why? Because tighter restrictions have worked in every country that has implemented them. Also, this idea that someone who wants to commit a mass killing can do so without a gun is ridiculous. The gun makes the mass killing easy. It would be nearly impossible to commit a mass killing like what happened in Orlando without a gun. Yeah, a bomb could be used, but the complexity of finding the materials, building it, placing it and then detonating it is prohibitive. If it was easy bombings would occur more frequently. Much easier to pull a trigger.
I think Dryer means they are even more separated than they used to be. That’s a byproduct of the skinnier horn. They’ve also changed the curve of the horn to accommodate the new style helmets and facemasks. If the following pictures work, you can see a big difference between the current and classic horns. Note the classic horn has a wider curve around the ear hole. That looks much better than the current style IMO.
I don’t know which one is the worst, but religion as a whole is certainly an anchor holding back progress. I don’t know if a any sort of global ‘utopia’ is actually possible but I know it isn’t possible as long as religion exists. So on that point we certainly agree.
Crime has actually fallen for decades — though mass shootings have increased. People should be LESS fearful than ever of most kinds of crime — but more fearful of those mass shootings.
That has to be stressed. WHAT people CLAIM to be afraid of is actually decreasing.
From an article posted earlier…
A recent study published by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center shows that the frequency of mass shooting is increasing over time. The researchers measured the increase by calculating the time between the occurrence of mass shootings. According to the research, the days separating mass shooting occurrence went from on average 200 days during the period of 1983 to 2011 to 64 days since 2011.
What is most alarming with mass shootings is the fact that this increasing trend is moving in the opposite direction of overall intentional homicide rates in the US, which decreased by almost 50% since 1993 and in Europe where intentional homicides decreased by 40% between 2003 and 2013.
I dont really care one way or another about gun control btw. I’m ok with it, but I dont really think it will do much good. Or harm. Too many guns already out there. Too easy to get them. And i do think poor people ought to be able to protect themselves from the wolves.
w
vWell, it depends on what is meant by gun control. If by gun control, you mean tougher gun laws, registration, licensing, restrictions on magazine size and the types of gun one can own, then I’m in favor of gun control.
If by gun control you mean making the possession of ANY gun illegal, then I’m not in favor of that either. I don’t think most people who are in favor of gun control are actually talking about that though. Most people just want some reasonable measures enacted to reduce gun violence ala Australia, Canada, etc.
I’m not sure anything quite typifies what the Republicans have become,
more than the law they created barring scientific research.I mean….just pause…and think about that.
Does anything say “Republican” more than that?
And i own a gun.
w
vWhy fund research with a known political agenda? We already have enough of that nonsense occurring with global warming “research”.
Preventing research because the republicans and NRA might not like the results is their political agenda.
The NRA is afraid of research into gun violence because they know what it will reveal. And they know what the solution is. It’s the solution that Australia, Canada and other countries have already figured out.
Ban the things? Good luck with that. We would just create a large and very violent black market for weapons.
I’m not sure what the answer is either. I constantly hear people say that banning guns or a certain type of gun would lead to a black market scenario as you describe. The ‘ban guns only the criminals will have guns’ hypothesis. Seems like a valid assumption on the surface, however it isn’t born out by available data…
http://www.businessinsider.com/australia-gun-control-shootings-2015-10
http://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1
But the Establishment, which claims to at least acknowledge Climate Change doesn’t realize Hillary has embraced fracking infrastructure at home and around the world and doing so requires a 30-50 year commitment to build the additional natural gas power plants and the thousands of miles of pipelines.
She supports fracking. She supports offshore drilling and she once supported the Keystone Pipeline. Her foundation accepts millions of dollars from the oil industry. She claims to care about climate change but wants to increase domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
She has little credibility on environmental issues. Any concern for the environment she has seems to be purely politically motivated.
