re: Obama's CDC study on Firearms.

quote:

---

In part because we haven't seen a current rash of mass shootings using mini-14's.

---

If we could somehow get the guns out of the hands of democrats this country wouldn't have a gun "problem".

quote:

---

We aren't talking confiscation, we're talking restricting access

---

confiscation is a restriction of access. and i don't care about the semantics. i'm talking about the limitation of freedom. call it whatever is most convenient for your position because you are still a loser

quote:

---

A rare event that almost never happens

---

the frequency is irrelevant but of course you would need to qualify that because it hurts your silly argument

quote:

---

Except for the extended magazine and other features that make it exceptionally good at its intended purpose - killing humans.

---

still not relevant to the point. no one has ever proven, nor can it be proven, that for this reason simplicatur, that gun should be outlawed/confiscated/restricted/banned/whateveryouwanttocallit

quote:

---

One of the things I've tried to stress, yet many of you conveniently ignore, is that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution, a panacea that will cure us of all ills around gun violence.

---

you've gone on and on ad infinitum about how awful the ar15 is despite an avalanche of people blowing your pathetic arguments to smithereens. then you say this to make yourself appear sensible. it's hard to give you any credibility on this issue

quote:

---

the real aim should be to limit the daily murders by firearms that we see all over the country

---

YES. addressing the gun is addressing the EFFECT, not the CAUSE

quote:

---

in such higher rates than other similar countries

---

not analogous and it's totally stupid for you to make this statement. your dumb chart listed countries that have almost nothing culturally in common with america in regards to this specific issue

quote:

---

Who the frick needs a 30-round magazine?

---

not your concern

quote:

---

If it's for home defense, you might want to reconsider what you're aiming at

---

have you ever tried to shoot a moving target who also happens to be shooting back at you in the dark while dealing with the stress of trying to protect your family? BOOM. your argument just got blowed the hell up.

the number of rounds is irrelevant. the style of gun is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Yet we see those used again and again to kill innocents

---

sigh. knives. cars. pressure cookers. why are you repeating something you've already been corrected on?

quote:

---

We know that that gets more people killed.

---

prove it

quote:

---

Again, none of this changes the fact that the language as written includes the term "Gun Control". Gun research can be done without promoting "Gun Control".

---

It can't when any study that says in the slightest way "stricter gun control laws would save lives" is perceived as advocating for gun control. I agree with you that a lot of this is Republicans either intentionally or due to ignorance misunderstanding the role of the CDC in this research funding, but that's where we are. Until the amendment is repealed, the CDC isn't going to risk its larger funding to study gun violence.

And I know you think it's convenient that one or two ex-CDC employees say this isn't true, but the guy who wrote the amendment says that's why they wrote it and asked that it be repealed so that it no longer hung over their heads. Anyone else saying otherwise is a more distant source than the guy who wrote the amendment stating its purpose.

quote:

---

So then we don't need registration if it's easy to track and locate gun owners.

---

It's not easy, but it's not impossible. A central database would make it much more efficient. It also provides a way to track straw purchasers, which we don't currently have. Or those who are violating a new universal background check law.

quote:

---

So what are we going to do after all of this liberal wet dream is passed and another mass shooting happens?

---

We're going to understand that we can't stop every mass shooting, but we can take steps to limit the possibility one occurs.

Or we can do jack shite and loudly proclaim we don't care about dead children if it means any stricter gun laws, like Republicans have done for the last 20 years.

quote:

---

So you are perfectly fine removing the rights of someone who indulges in pot, a largely harmless drug, in order to make some broader point? This is not a road you want to go down.

---

Marijuana should be legal. But if you knowingly break the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences, whatever those might be. I don't see any of you guys wringing your hands over all of the nonviolent drug offenders (usually minorities) in prison and without their voting rights for the past 40 years, suddenly you care about this because it involves guns.

quote:

---

Fine, what are you going to do to stop this person from buying a stolen gun off a gangbanger?

---

I'm going to understand that it's much more difficult to buy a black market gun, and fewer people have the means. That includes people who might otherwise commit violent acts.

quote:

---

And I'm saying that this arbitrary age limit isn't going to reduce crime.

---

Do you think the legal drinking age being 21 rather than 18 has reduced or increased the crime of DUI driving among 18 to 21 year olds?

quote:

---

A home invasion is far-farhigher probability than his weapon being used in a mass shooting

---

Who says we're just trying to stop mass shootings with stricter gun laws?

What a weird boundary for you to put on it.

quote:

---

You're idea that DGU's don't happen is so dishonest that it borders on absurd.

---

They don't, compared to guns being used to harm their owners or their owners families. Do you not understand the comparison, or are you being willfully ignorant to string some of the other ignorant people here along?

quote:

---

confiscation is a restriction of access.

---

But not the only way to restrict access.

quote:

---

i'm talking about the limitation of freedom

---

We all accept limitations of freedom - I just go the tiniest bit further than you, because I see the lives it will save.