American Politics

[XXEliteXXAceXX]

A statement to who, really? I mean, even if you convinced everyone you know to abstain from voting, it isn't going to prevent anyone from being elected. Not voting due to extenuating circumstances or pure apathy is a better excuse to not vote IMO.

Nobody in particular... It is true that not voting will not prevent from anybody from being elected which is why I said if nobody were to vote, there would still be a president. Although most people would agree with you that not voting due to not caring is better than the refusal to vote, but I believe that it should serve as a statement that the United States should be more educated about political ideologies instead of cluelessly and aimlessly voting because they hear that the presidential candidate that they voted for would provide them with a few benefits. Individuals should try to provide benefits for themselves. Government should not worry too much about personal affairs and focus more on the nation as a whole. Who will look or care about my post? Probably nobody. I am just voicing my opinion but if I were to vote, I would be lying to myself and contributing to the popularity of a presidential candidate of whom wouldn't really agree with. I guess I am just different...

 

[M3J]

I didn't watch the debate last night but from what I can tell it kinda sounds like trump was a voice of reason.... and he was booed for it? Well, it is not a surprised that he was booed for that. Other candidates have taken fire for such a thing in the past. But him being a voice of reason is actually unusual. I didn't think he would take such a hit for pointing out the extent to which iraq was a mistake and the supposed WMD being a blatant lie.

I was shocked when I read snippets of what Trump was saying. He was telling the truth and actually making sense about George Bush, and how George Bush didn't protect shit and was horrible. Seems like Bush supporters/republicans are too stupid to realize just how horrible Bush was, and how he destroyed lot of lives.

I didn't know Jeb Bush still had supporters though. I'm still shocked republicans support or defend George Jr.


Apparently while WMD was a blatant lie, they did find old WMD.

A statement to who, really? I mean, even if you convinced everyone you know to abstain from voting, it isn't going to prevent anyone from being elected. Not voting due to extenuating circumstances or pure apathy is a better excuse to not vote IMO.


Yeah, always weird that people who seem to espouse constitutional traditionalism want to block the president from doing anything, despite him trying to fulfill his duty as the head of state.


He was booed because the crowd was very pro-Bush. I was actually surprised the crowd was allowed to be as loud as they were, or maybe past debates didn't pick up crowd size as well, idk. They were being obnoxious even when people were speaking.

And I'm pretty sure if a democrat wins, they'll try to block his choice of appointing the new justice or will try to resist in some way, goin back on what they said. Most current republican politicians are honestly cancer to this country, and it makes me sad because Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln were decent republicans even though I disagree with them/Teddy on some points.

Apparently Trump is miffed because they were wealthy people or something.

 

[kkck]

I was shocked when I read snippets of what Trump was saying. He was telling the truth and actually making sense about George Bush, and how George Bush didn't protect shit and was horrible. Seems like Bush supporters/republicans are too stupid to realize just how horrible Bush was, and how he destroyed lot of lives.

I didn't know Jeb Bush still had supporters though. I'm still shocked republicans support or defend George Jr.


Apparently while WMD was a blatant lie, they did find old WMD.

Well, a couple of people here have defended bush so it's not actually that big a stretch. I was aware that there were quite a few bush supporters at the US but I always thought it was "in spite" of the Iraq lies. As in, spite of a war that was specifically a massive failure that did not really accomplish US objectives there. Saddan was removed but there is still an ongoing civil war and the whole thing probably helped the creation of ISIS itself. People actually thinking the war was a good thing or is sort of a surprise to me. I don't think bush was as bad as some people suggest (things are bound to go south if something like 9-11 happens and the wall street thing involved far more people than merely bush or his administration) but the Iraq thing is pretty clearly a failure based on lies.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2016 ---

http://www.vice.com/read/what-the-rest-of-the-world-thinks-about-the-republican-party-622

I had fun reading this. It points to a few things I have said earlier... About how the democrat party would be the right wing party in plenty other places and how everyone views the republican party as a bunch of insane fringe rightwing nut jobs (to varying degrees).

 

[SharkBait]

Why do other countries act so weird over our rights to have recreational tools like guns to go hunting in the woods or shoot at monitored and enclosed shooting grounds.

Additionally how do they really see Trump as one being the average republican, iCant.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2016 ---

Yass. Hopefully she gets more support so we can get rid of Bernie Sanders momentum. My candidate would be able to easily win over her if she got the eventual nomination, so I need her to get it.

 

[kkck]

Why do other countries act so weird over our rights to have recreational tools like guns to go hunting in the woods or shoot at monitored and enclosed shooting grounds.

Additionally how do they really see Trump as one being the average republican, iCant.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2016 ---

Yass. Hopefully she gets more support so we can get rid of Bernie Sanders momentum. My candidate would be able to easily win over her if she got the eventual nomination, so I need her to get it.

Are you pretending to be some sort of Stephen Colbert type character and I have been missing the joke? If you have, touche.

 

[SharkBait]

Are you pretending to be some sort of Stephen Colbert type character and I have been missing the joke? If you have, touche.

What do you mean? In polls comparing Hilary Clinton and Marco Rubio, Rubio would come out over Clinton.

 

[M3J]

Why are people pretending

Well, a couple of people here have defended bush so it's not actually that big a stretch. I was aware that there were quite a few bush supporters at the US but I always thought it was "in spite" of the Iraq lies. As in, spite of a war that was specifically a massive failure that did not really accomplish US objectives there. Saddan was removed but there is still an ongoing civil war and the whole thing probably helped the creation of ISIS itself. People actually thinking the war was a good thing or is sort of a surprise to me. I don't think bush was as bad as some people suggest (things are bound to go south if something like 9-11 happens and the wall street thing involved far more people than merely bush or his administration) but the Iraq thing is pretty clearly a failure based on lies.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2016 ---

http://www.vice.com/read/what-the-rest-of-the-world-thinks-about-the-republican-party-622

I had fun reading this. It points to a few things I have said earlier... About how the democrat party would be the right wing party in plenty other places and how everyone views the republican party as a bunch of insane fringe rightwing nut jobs (to varying degrees).

Pretending what?

Honestly, I think Bush is way worse than we think, and part of that is based on him knowing 9/11 would happen but not doing a thing about it. His decisions caused the US economy to enter a recession, and we're still paying for his bad decisions. But it's not surprising they think the war was good, especially when you consider a lot of republican voters are ignorant or racist. They probably think it's about getting revenge for 9/11 and making sure Iraq or Middle East doesn't have any WMD.

Why do other countries act so weird over our rights to have recreational tools like guns to go hunting in the woods or shoot at monitored and enclosed shooting grounds.

??? do you even know anyone from another country?

Obviously it's because they can't believe we allow people to be murdered by guns and do nothing to prevent that. It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

 

[xi0]

The gun issue isn't as simple because a lot of other countries don't have a 2nd Amendment so they can't really see the issue through the same lens as people who live here.

 

[SharkBait]

??? do you even know anyone from another country?

Obviously it's because they can't believe we allow people to be murdered by guns and do nothing to prevent that. It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

I know IRL people from some Asian countries and they never seemed to have issues or be as turned off about guns as others, in fact one ordered a gun.

 

[kkck]

Pretending what?

Honestly, I think Bush is way worse than we think, and part of that is based on him knowing 9/11 would happen but not doing a thing about it. His decisions caused the US economy to enter a recession, and we're still paying for his bad decisions. But it's not surprising they think the war was good, especially when you consider a lot of republican voters are ignorant or racist. They probably think it's about getting revenge for 9/11 and making sure Iraq or Middle East doesn't have any WMD.


??? do you even know anyone from another country?

Obviously it's because they can't believe we allow people to be murdered by guns and do nothing to prevent that. It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

As for the pretending, I think that was from a post I was writing and then only mostly deleted....

Is there any reason to think bush knew about 911? I have heard there might have been some intel that suggested an attack was being planned but never confirmed it. I think this is conspiracy theory territory. I do hope they are not thinking they were getting revenge on anyone at Iraq.. It literally takes two seconds to google the fact that iraq had nothing to do with 911. Is that still a thing at the US nowadays? I heard about it in the past but I would have thought by now the idea would be debunked.

As for the recession, I have my doubts that it can be fully blamed on bush. There is certainly republican blame here but there is also democrat blame... And I have no idea of whose blame it is that the people who committed fraud were not prosecuted or... In the end the bailouts where started with the bush administration which prevented the US economy going further into mad max territory. Derregulation of wall street (as far as I can understand) along with giving loans to literally everyone did not work well.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2016 ---

The gun issue isn't as simple because a lot of other countries don't have a 2nd Amendment so they can't really see the issue through the same lens as people who live here.

Well, that is true.... In most other places you don't have the whole thing as a right. Even if it is it is heavily regulated at least if you want to own one legally. I think the actual trend is to remove it altogether as a right and slowly remove them from the populace... The US is rather unique in its active encourangement of gun ownership. Frankly, it looks like republicans think of guns as stuff they can procreate with sometimes... And want to have half gun babies which will finally kill government or something.

 

[M3J]

The gun issue isn't as simple because a lot of other countries don't have a 2nd Amendment so they can't really see the issue through the same lens as people who live here.

Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that people from other countries are looking down on us for allowing guns to be free and not doing anything about it. a lot of them even joke or counter with "at least I can go to school without worrying," but I rarely hear that myself, so dunno.

And they don't have gun-crazy people who think stricter gun control violates the 2nd Amendment, unless I'm wrong and it does.

I know IRL people from some Asian countries and they never seemed to have issues or be as turned off about guns as others, in fact one ordered a gun.

I'll give you that. The people who have issues with guns come from Europe or Australia. Some Australians even say how banning guns solved a lot of problems/decreased violence or something.

Still doesn't make it any better that you don't know why people from other countries have an issue with guns in America.

As for the pretending, I think that was from a post I was writing and then only mostly deleted....

Is there any reason to think bush knew about 911? I have heard there might have been some intel that suggested an attack was being planned but never confirmed it. I think this is conspiracy theory territory. I do hope they are not thinking they were getting revenge on anyone at Iraq.. It literally takes two seconds to google the fact that iraq had nothing to do with 911. Is that still a thing at the US nowadays? I heard about it in the past but I would have thought by now the idea would be debunked.

As for the recession, I have my doubts that it can be fully blamed on bush. There is certainly republican blame here but there is also democrat blame... And I have no idea of whose blame it is that the people who committed fraud were not prosecuted or... In the end the bailouts where started with the bush administration which prevented the US economy going further into mad max territory. Derregulation of wall street (as far as I can understand) along with giving loans to literally everyone did not work well.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 15, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 15, 2016 ---

Well, that is true.... In most other places you don't have the whole thing as a right. Even if it is it is heavily regulated at least if you want to own one legally. I think the actual trend is to remove it altogether as a right and slowly remove them from the populace... The US is rather unique in its active encourangement of gun ownership. Frankly, it looks like republicans think of guns as stuff they can procreate with sometimes... And want to have half gun babies which will finally kill government or something.

I've read that he had intel and was told that 9/11 might/would happen, but did nothing about it. Could be, but a lady stepped up and shared that years ago. And again, do you think republicans fact check? If they did, Cruz wouldn't get any vote at all because of his lies, and people would know Jeb's brother never protected the country. Hell, republicans thrive on lying to their voters, like they did with Planned Parenthood. It's not necessarily revenge at Iraq as it is at Muslims, and people think the terrorists came from Iraq, I think? I admit I forgot, though. Bush defenders now claim that Bush was right all along since old WMDs were found. I don't know if they think Iraq is guilty.

Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with owning guns as long as you're responsible, and the sellers actually do proper background checks. Unfortunately, many Americans are not responsible, sellers barely do proper background checks, and people get guns illegally (I think mainly gangs?). Problem with banning guns is that you only stop legal purchase, which can tip the balance in lawbreakers' favor because they don't give a shit about getting guns illegally, and the sellers make more money because they can charge higher price. Less good citizens have guns and more bad citizens have guns.

I never believed that whole "less/no gun control = safer" bullshit though. only example seems to be Chicago, and I'm sure a populated city with its fair share of impoverished people is bound to see violence. According to research, gun violence is actually higher in states with little to no gun control.

 

[SharkBait]

Still doesn't make it any better that you don't know why people from other countries have an issue with guns in America.

Why? People who would have issues with guns are either
1. People who have some irrational fear of guns in which they have some weird perception that if one has a gun then the gunowner is going to go bananas and shoot them up at any moment
2. People who have such great distrust of other humans that they believe excessive regulation is the only way to prevent gun issues
3. People who hate fun and the economy

I can assure you, most people who are gun owners are not going to go bananas and most humans are trustworthy and under control that they won't ever experience any questionable gun owner activity.

 

[M3J]

Because most of these people see news that a mass shooting has happened in the US almost every day. I'm sure the media over there would cover mass shootings in the country but not as much else, or that their American friends have shared such news.

1. It's not irrational given guns kill, and it can easily take away many lives in less than a minute without even needing to go up close. Plus, you have mass shootings almost every day and a more personal gun violence every day. Nothing irrational about an object designed to end lives. Hicks used a gun to execute three teenagers for no reason but prejudice. Gang warfare has claimed or hurt the lives of innocent kids who were at the wrong place at the wrong time.

2. Stricter gun control/better background check isn't excessive regulation. It's proper and right given the capabilities of guns. Would you feel comfortable if a mentally disturbed racist with a history of violence against minorities lives in your neighborhood and bought a gun? Would you feel comfortable letting your gun be out in the open with your kid around, who could take it and accidentally shoot someone or himself? This scenario has happened.

3. That makes no sense. But I didn't know killing was fun. Maybe you shouldn't own a gun.

lolol most humans are trustworthy? That's funny.

 

[xi0]

Well, that is true.... In most other places you don't have the whole thing as a right. Even if it is it is heavily regulated at least if you want to own one legally. I think the actual trend is to remove it altogether as a right and slowly remove them from the populace... The US is rather unique in its active encourangement of gun ownership. Frankly, it looks like republicans think of guns as stuff they can procreate with sometimes... And want to have half gun babies which will finally kill government or something.

I can't see that happening any time soon. The whole movement has it's root in the notion that we as citizens have the right to create militias in case the government ever became like the crown did. That of course has turned into something that was heavily commercialized as well, and it also has firearms roles in crime working against it as well. You have the tons of responsible gun owners who have them for protection and/or recreation who see no reason why their rights should be violated. I personally don't think it's reasonable that they have access to military-grade weapons, but most of that has been left up to the states to determine, mostly due to the nature of the origin of the 2nd amendment.

 

[kkck]

I can't see that happening any time soon. The whole movement has it's root in the notion that we as citizens have the right to create militias in case the government ever became like the crown did. That of course has turned into something that was heavily commercialized as well, and it also has firearms roles in crime working against it as well. You have the tons of responsible gun owners who have them for protection and/or recreation who see no reason why their rights should be violated. I personally don't think it's reasonable that they have access to military-grade weapons, but most of that has been left up to the states to determine, mostly due to the nature of the origin of the 2nd amendment.

Well, it certainly won't get to be similar to other countries any time soon but the case can be made that the US is slowly moving in that direction. You have the democratic party actively working for more gun control, younger people seem to view that favorably which is incredibly important in the mid-long term, and obama will likely pass an executive order with extra measures. In that regard the US can be reasonably said to have a trend for gun control as pretty much with any other place. Except that the US is starting from a much more extreme point than basically anywhere else as well. Of course, for the US to get to where other countries are on this issue would likely take generations... The whole thing made sense 200 years ago but nowadays the government has tanks, guns are useless against those. I am of course not suggesting that the US government would ever use tanks against its citizens, my point is that the idea is simply outdated to the point where it has no reasonable ground to hold on to. Everything which gave the amendment context and relevance is effectively gone... In a way it's funny, the whole of the current US gun culture is based on a 200 year old amendment which had an entirely different culture and context in mind.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 16, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 16, 2016 ---

Why? People who would have issues with guns are either
1. People who have some irrational fear of guns in which they have some weird perception that if one has a gun then the gunowner is going to go bananas and shoot them up at any moment
2. People who have such great distrust of other humans that they believe excessive regulation is the only way to prevent gun issues
3. People who hate fun and the economy

I can assure you, most people who are gun owners are not going to go bananas and most humans are trustworthy and under control that they won't ever experience any questionable gun owner activity.

There is a lot wrong with this...

1.- Guns should be objects of fear. Guns serve no other purpose other than ending a life. Sure, you can use them recreationally and whatnot but it's absurd to act as if a gun is the same as a football.
2.- Except that gun control has been shown to actually work in several countries to put it mildly. The US has the most gun violence of any developed nation and it is the only one that actively loves guns the way it does.
3.- Well, the case can be made that guns actively hate the economy as well . if you trust the source at least. Of course, there are plenty other sites you can look at in regards to the actual cost of guns for the economy.

The issue is clearly not every gun owner going bananas with his gun. That is clearly not happening. Heck, even with every mass shooting in the past decade their amount does not even show up in gun violence statistics even if they have increased. The problem is the US having the highest gun murder rate of any developed nation. The problem is the existing gun control measures being ineffective at stopping guns from getting to the hands of criminals. The problem is nothing being done to stop people from getting guns illegally in the first place. The problem is US' rather unique case of gun glorification...

 

[M3J]

I see the whole gun issue as nearly impossible to solve in the US. You ban guns or tighten the security measures, and fewer good people will have guns while the bad guys are more likely to keep their guns. not only that, but bad guys are more likely to buy guns illegally, and they will bet on citizens not buying guns illegally, which would allow them to commit crimes. One way is to have the police crack down and go after people who sell guns illegally and then after people who buy guns illegally, but that's a short-term fix that in the long run, won't change anything.

It's the main reason why I want the president to find a way to make sure the sellers don't sell guns to people who should have own one. Banning it sounds good, but the US is fucked up.

 

[kkck]

I see the whole gun issue as nearly impossible to solve in the US. You ban guns or tighten the security measures, and fewer good people will have guns while the bad guys are more likely to keep their guns. not only that, but bad guys are more likely to buy guns illegally, and they will bet on citizens not buying guns illegally, which would allow them to commit crimes. One way is to have the police crack down and go after people who sell guns illegally and then after people who buy guns illegally, but that's a short-term fix that in the long run, won't change anything.

It's the main reason why I want the president to find a way to make sure the sellers don't sell guns to people who should have own one. Banning it sounds good, but the US is fucked up.

Well, the US does have problems but I don't think there is a reason to be so grim about it. Being fair, the US is at historically low levels of gun violence and violent crime in general and mass shootings aren't even significant enough to show up in violence statistics (unless the statistic is specifically about that). The issue here is that it should be lower, a country as developed as the US shouldn't be doing worst than it's peers. It could potentially improve faster if there was more political willingness to implement measures to actually restrict gun ownership more and more importantly to get rid of loopholes... It's not even a uniquely US problem, guns from the US end up in mexico and are used for crime (as in, drug cartels).

 

[SharkBait]

There is a lot wrong with this...

1.- Guns should be objects of fear. Guns serve no other purpose other than ending a life. Sure, you can use them recreationally and whatnot but it's absurd to act as if a gun is the same as a football.
2.- Except that gun control has been shown to actually work in several countries to put it mildly. The US has the most gun violence of any developed nation and it is the only one that actively loves guns the way it does.
3.- Well, the case can be made that guns actively hate the economy as well . if you trust the source at least. Of course, there are plenty other sites you can look at in regards to the actual cost of guns for the economy.

The issue is clearly not every gun owner going bananas with his gun. That is clearly not happening. Heck, even with every mass shooting in the past decade their amount does not even show up in gun violence statistics even if they have increased. The problem is the US having the highest gun murder rate of any developed nation. The problem is the existing gun control measures being ineffective at stopping guns from getting to the hands of criminals. The problem is nothing being done to stop people from getting guns illegally in the first place. The problem is US' rather unique case of gun glorification...

Why should a gun be an object of fear? Maybe if youre an animal who is out there being hunted as game or for recreation, but what about when people shoot guns while skeet shooting? Its a safe harmfree way of relieving stress and improving hand eye coordination while shooting at clay targets? Do you have a fear of a piece of clay? Its just the same as an activity like golfing except faster pace and a bit more moving. There are many excellent recreational activities that can be done with guns as they are pretty magnificent pieces of equipment. They also confer an additional benefit over footballs, you can use them during self defense in case there is someone intruding on your grounds or a wild coyote or wild bear is attacking you. We live in a dog eat dog world where its kill or be killed, so as usual the best offense is a good defense.

The people committing gun violence are criminals, people who have gone bananas, or people in gangs. Removing or banning guns isnt the magic bullet to kill gun violence. You can only decrease violence by getting at the core, which is 1) why people go bananas, and 2) why people commit acts of violence.

Gun control is designed to stop people from killing each other, at least that’s what we are always told. Let’s take a look at the data:

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

And how might one go about to stop people from getting guns illegally. We already see that in places where they are trying to actively get rid of smoking and tobacco sales by using very high taxes and such that people are going south buying up lots of tobacco products from say Virginia etc, and carrying it back with them to New York (which is illegal to do, yet people still do ti). If not even tobacco can be controlled what makes one think that guns would be either?

Creating legislature for something that would be easily bypassed is a waste of time and a waste of increasing the level of governmental involvement in our lives. What one does with their gun is up to them and they should be able to freely buy whatever gun they want.

 

[M3J]

Well, the US does have problems but I don't think there is a reason to be so grim about it. Being fair, the US is at historically low levels of gun violence and violent crime in general and mass shootings aren't even significant enough to show up in violence statistics (unless the statistic is specifically about that). The issue here is that it should be lower, a country as developed as the US shouldn't be doing worst than it's peers. It could potentially improve faster if there was more political willingness to implement measures to actually restrict gun ownership more and more importantly to get rid of loopholes... It's not even a uniquely US problem, guns from the US end up in mexico and are used for crime (as in, drug cartels).

why not? YOu have people who are obsessed with guns, and people whose response to gun violence is "give more guns to more people" and "thoughts and prayers out to victims." Almost nothing is being done to fight gun violence while everything is done to try and make it worse. While the country is at a low level of violence, there's still enough gun violence that is uncomfortable. We're on the same page though, the violence should be lower, much lower. Stopping it completely is impossible, but it should be far much lower.

THe thing is, even if there is political willingness to do something to reduce the violence, there are still citizens who are crazy about keeping their guns, and they will fight the ruling. You also have politicians who will likely get paid off to fight any implementation of stricter gun control. It's also clear that people would rather find different reasons to blame the violence on anything but guns, like mental illnesses.

But are there random citizens committing mass murders with guns? Is there anything being done to combat cartels using guns?


Let's not forget, we have citizens who claim to be pro-life for moral reasons but are against allowing refugee children to come in the country and are shooting up Planned Parenthood clinics and killing people. You really think it'll be easy to curb gun violence or pass measures to reduce gun violence? It'll take at least another generation or two before we can see progress, IMO.

 

[kkck]

Why should a gun be an object of fear? Maybe if youre an animal who is out there being hunted as game or for recreation, but what about when people shoot guns while skeet shooting? Its a safe harmfree way of relieving stress and improving hand eye coordination while shooting at clay targets? Do you have a fear of a piece of clay? Its just the same as an activity like golfing except faster pace and a bit more moving. There are many excellent recreational activities that can be done with guns as they are pretty magnificent pieces of equipment. They also confer an additional benefit over footballs, you can use them during self defense in case there is someone intruding on your grounds or a wild coyote or wild bear is attacking you. We live in a dog eat dog world where its kill or be killed, so as usual the best offense is a good defense.

The people committing gun violence are criminals, people who have gone bananas, or people in gangs. Removing or banning guns isnt the magic bullet to kill gun violence. You can only decrease violence by getting at the core, which is 1) why people go bananas, and 2) why people commit acts of violence.


And how might one go about to stop people from getting guns illegally. We already see that in places where they are trying to actively get rid of smoking and tobacco sales by using very high taxes and such that people are going south buying up lots of tobacco products from say Virginia etc, and carrying it back with them to New York (which is illegal to do, yet people still do ti). If not even tobacco can be controlled what makes one think that guns would be either?

Creating legislature for something that would be easily bypassed is a waste of time and a waste of increasing the level of governmental involvement in our lives. What one does with their gun is up to them and they should be able to freely buy whatever gun they want.

For the simple fact that guns are made specifically to end a life. Sure, you can use them recreationaly and they are definitely magnificent pieces of equipment... But their recreational uses are not their intended purpose. I would fear a piece of clay if said piece of clay was designed with the express purpose of ending a life.

The tobacco case is not really comparable here. It's differences in state laws that make that possible. In this case there shouldn't be such differences. And people getting tobacco from other states does not necessarily mean the program as a whole is not working. In this case I don't know the facts but it is entirely possible that even with people getting tobacco from other states overall consumption has decreased. Also worth noting, harvard thinks gun control does work.

Of course, gun control is but a first step. Reducing overall availability of guns would help but the actual solution is a change in US gun culture which as a whole takes time if it ever happens.