2
-1

[–] Sippio 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

The comments here are nitpicking details in the article while ignoring the overarching message.

It's about the misguided ideological approaches to guns that liberals have applied, which should instead be focused on the statistics, and how to effectively reduce the absurdly high rate of gun violence in the US, which is way worse than any other 1st world country

The author also acknowledges that reducing gun ownership is not necessarily the best way to curb violence anyways. Pointing out the effectiveness of outreach programs to prevent youth delinquency. This also does much more to help society than just reducing violence.

His point is that liberals need to better educate themselves on guns to deal with them effectively, and that both sides need to drop their ideologies in favour of the facts and statistics.

I also don't understand the outrage here about Obama's executive action on guns for people with mental illness. Every time there's a high-profile mass shooting, the go-to line for gun control critics is that it's not about gun ownership, it's about dealing with mental health. So Obama answered their call, and restricted guns to these same mentally ill people they talked about. Now what he did was wrong?

I know there's a firm belief here that gun laws represent a slippery-slope strategy by the government. Where they will slowly add successively more restrictive laws on guns until it becomes flat-out illegal to own one. And that's when they implement their tyrannical order on the people. I'm not going to argue why I think that's tin-foil hat crazy, but you guys need to pick your battles, and it shouldn't be guns for people with diagnosed mental illness.

And if you think doctors can be coached by the feds to diagnose specific people, then deal with the issue of medial ethics. Sure it's less exciting than guns, but it helps everyone.

0
0

[–] Rellik88 ago 

And that's when they implement their tyrannical order on the people. I'm not going to argue why I think that's tin-foil hat crazy,

Right? Governments have never killed people ever.

2
0

[–] placoid 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

It's about the misguided ideological approaches to guns that liberals have applied, which should instead be focused on the statistics, and how to effectively reduce the absurdly high rate of gun violence in the US, which is way worse than any other 1st world country

That includes the police, what is going to be done to restrict their access to guns? 'Gun safety' is a farce, a show of caring to sell the despotic elimination of the people's right to force. There is nothing liberal about enforcing inequality, or applying a double standard to citizens and agents of the state. Ultimately, guns will be used to enforce the policy against guns, another inconsistency that self-described liberals are too enlightened to consider.

2
0

[–] Totenglocke 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

I also don't understand the outrage here about Obama's executive action on guns for people with mental illness. Every time there's a high-profile mass shooting, the go-to line for gun control critics is that it's not about gun ownership, it's about dealing with mental health. So Obama answered their call, and restricted guns to these same mentally ill people they talked about. Now what he did was wrong?

Clearly you don't own guns and thus know little of the left's non-stop war against the Second Amendment starting with FDR roughly 80 years ago. First off, creating new laws by Imperial Decree is wrong and unconstitutional. We have representatives that are elected by the people (and can be voted out of office if they piss off the people) who make the laws and then, if the President agrees with it, signed into effect. The President only has the power to issue orders on the specifics of enforcing existing laws that are ambiguous - he does NOT have the power to make new laws and declare them the law of the land with no debate and no accountability. That's something that a dictator does. Secondly, saying "anyone getting treatment for mental health issues is banned from owning guns" is an absolutely idiotic idea. We need better / easier access / less stigma for getting help for mental issues in this country. Such an asinine law only makes the mental health problem worse because people are then afraid of getting help because doing so will mean permanently losing their rights. Imagine if you were struggling with anorexia and you knew that by seeking help, you'd lose the ability to ever use the internet, read a book / magazine / newspaper, watch TV, or consume media of any kind because a politician believes that media is evil and causes anorexia - you'd be much less likely to seek help knowing the massive loss of rights that you'd suffer as a result of seeking professional help and you'd try to deal with it on your own. We already have vets who are scared shitless of getting help for things like PTSD or depression because some of them have had their guns seized by the government as a result of seeking help - there's even been at least one case of a US vet who had his guns confiscated simply for going to the VA doctor about insomnia. When every part of the government is corrupt beyond measure and has a singular goal of increasing power over citizens (which means ensuring that they can't fight back), you cannot trust them to make the "right" call on such things.

As for your mention of a "slippery slope"? Again, you clearly don't know the non-stop ever increasing violations of the Second Amendment. Here is a fantastic comic explaining how the left has never stopped wanting to take away more and more of the Second Amendment until we've reached the point of today where gun owners are truly saying "FUCK THIS! I want my rights back - all of them!".

Where they will slowly add successively more restrictive laws on guns until it becomes flat-out illegal to own one.

Clearly you've never seen the gun laws of states like California and New Jersey. It's not a "claim" or "argument", it's established fact that every year or so, they make it even harder to own a gun (California is now adding taxes and restrictions on buying ammo, so even once you DO get a gun, it'll be much harder to get ammo to USE the gun).

I'm curious, have you even touched a real gun? Because you seem to be very uninformed about the realities of gun control in the US.

2
-2

[–] DownvoatCrusader 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

First of all Obama issued an executive action, which has no legal power. For it to become an actual law it has to go through Congress. So your constituents will be able to vote on it. Second, it's not a choice between no background checks at all, or background checks that are done so strict that people will fear going to the doctor. I mean would it really hurt to check if someone is a full-on psychopath, cartel member or murderer before selling a gun? You are 100% against any sort of background check and there isn't a middle way you're willing to meet?

1
11

[–] Moonbat 1 point 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

These figures refer to all gunfire-related deaths, not just homicides. In fact, homicides represent a minority of gun deaths, with suicides comprising the biggest share. In 2013, according to CDC data, 63 percent of gun-related deaths were from suicides, 33 percent were from homicides, and roughly 1 percent each were from accidents, legal interventions and undetermined causes.

Suicide related deaths shouldn't count, in comparing gun deaths vs. war deaths. If somebody's wants to kill themselves, a gun merely makes it more convenient. It by no means "enables" them.

1
5

[–] Totenglocke 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

But how can they frighten the uninformed masses if they tell the truth?!

1
15

[–] retsopertidder 1 point 15 points (+16|-1) ago 

I don't understand the term "liberal" anymore. Doesn't "liberal" literally mean "in favor of freedoms"? Like in the freedom to carry guns, or the freedom of speech? Does the term "liberal" really mean the exact opposite of what it once meant?

I call myself a liberal, because I believe in liberty.

0
0

[–] aakaakaak ago 

Reading through the article, the guy was pretty focused on your kind of liberal.

1
0

[–] FloatsYourVoat 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Similar to how feminism has evolved, the word meant one thing until it morphed into something the original was never about.

1
4

[–] Moonbat 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

That's what it's supposed to mean. It's one of those words the left has rather dishonestly appropriated as their own in order to seem like something they're not. In it's original sense people now say instead, "classical liberal". I do think though, that compared to social conservatives (anti choice, anti gay, etc.) the word "liberal" still matches the democratic party a little better.

2
0

[–] Sippio 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Similarly, the activists behind the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011 should be considered true conservatives, because they were calling to restore the order of law and regulation within the financial sector.

2
0

[–] Totenglocke 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

Funny how I never met a single OWS supporter who wanted that, they all just wanted free shit because they chose useless majors in college.

2 replies

[–] [deleted] 5 points 14 points (+19|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

2
0

[–] Eualos 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago  (edited ago)

They are basically appealing to other liberals to change their rhetoric while keeping the exact same stances so as not to piss off the logical people who believe in the freedom to own and use guns. This is done so we don't fight them while they steadily erode our rights.

4
22

[–] darthskids 4 points 22 points (+26|-4) ago 

This guy is a fucking idiot.

 

Some evidence supports steps that seem common sense. More than 10 percent of murders in the United States, for example, are by intimate partners. The riskiest moment is often after a violent breakup when a woman has won a restraining order against her ex.

 

Getting married? No guns.
Getting divorced? No guns.
For fuck's sake, you don't "win" a restraining order. It is issued solely based on one parties word alone. Do you think a guy who is going to kill his wife or girlfriend gives a fuck whether it's illegal or not? Fucking air headed liberals.

1
4

[–] Eualos 1 point 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Plus, what if they already had a gun? Do they have to give it up to get married? Just what I want, to leave my wife and kids safety in the hands of the police, I obviously shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. I might hurt the people that I love. That burglar definitely means them no harm.

1
32

[–] CherryVanillaMoira 1 point 32 points (+33|-1) ago 

That means universal background checks before somebody acquires a gun. New Harvard research confirms a long-ago finding that 40 percent of firearms in the United States are acquired without a background check. That’s crazy. Why empower criminals to arm themselves?

Gee, too bad the already criminal types and gangs aren't popping into the corner gunstore to buy their weapons so they can have that background check.

Burglars steal guns and smugglers bring them in wholesale. You can't stop a criminal from obtaining a gun because they by definition, don't obey the laws. So, good luck with getting the submachine guns away from the gangs...

1
9

[–] Totenglocke 1 point 9 points (+10|-1) ago 

Funny how their "source" for that "New Harvard research" only links to another article that still fails to site an actual source for the new research. Very convenient to have "new research" confirming every liberal talking point and yet no one actually can see a copy of said research. Kind of like liberal's idea of a "social contract" that says "You have to do whatever I say" and yet no one has ever seen or agreed to said contract.

1
1

[–] CherryVanillaMoira 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

It was typical NYT double talk. They use words and phrases with slightly negative connotations and introduce little factoids into their narrative as though if they are actually well known and established fact.

I don't remember what that method of argument is called. But it was prominent in Soviet disinformation campaigns designed to discredit something while all the time seeming to support it.

I wish I'd finished that school year :-(

2
3

[–] Eualos 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

Why is this so hard for them to understand? Criminal don't give a fuck about laws and regulations, law abiding citizens do! All they are doing is making it harder for the people who actually want to protect others.

1
0

[–] CherryVanillaMoira 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Ignore the law. If you need to kill an attacker, just do so and keep walking while looking around as if to see what those backfire noises were. Chances are good that everyone else will also start looking around. If it doesn't seem to be working, shout there they are and point somewhere in the distance or to the upper floors of a building, duck for cover and then scoot away.