News & Current Events
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-06T09:49:27-04:00 — #33
This is the best point on this Thread.
@Bill_Coley I am interested in this response. But its not only to you, but to anyone
Do you value human life more as it gets older?
If not then how do you justify your support of "Murder through Abortion" yet want to prevent "Murder by Gun-Violence"
In my opinion at least the victims had a choice to attend the concert. The babies were never given a choice at all.
bill_coley — 2017-10-06T09:54:55-04:00 — #34
In your post, you assert your view that it would be "great" were we to "stop violence," but you then dismiss "gun control" as action akin to "throwing dust into a hurricane." You devote the rest of your post to the issue of abortion, concluding with your view that making it illegal would be "one of the first and best ways to stop violence."
While abortion is an issue critically important to tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans, it's not the issue of this thread. It is in keeping with the issue(s) of this thread that I ask what actions do you believe the U.S. should take to reduce gun violence? And what, in your view, explains the fact that the U.S. murder rate is five times that of Britain, and more than 400 times that of Japan? that the percentage of murders in the U.S. in which guns are used is 14 times higher than in Britain? What contribution, if any, do you believe Britain's tighter gun control laws make to those results?
gao_lu — 2017-10-06T10:21:41-04:00 — #35
Bill, I respectfully and enthusiastically disagree. Your last post does not camouflage the elephant in the living room at all. Gun control may be the topic, but probably not because we all think controlling guns is a great thrill. The point of gun control is to stop violence. Yet, gun control is a speck of dust in reducing violence compared to ending abortion. I reassert my point loud and clear without apology and with devotion--if we want to stop violence, the answer is not gun control, the answer is to stop abortion.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-06T10:34:38-04:00 — #36
More babies are murdered by "doctors" and "women's rights" each year than there are people killed by guns.
bill_coley — 2017-10-06T11:20:11-04:00 — #37
However loudly, clearly, devotedly, and without apology you reassert your point, Gao Lu, your point is not responsive to the topic of this thread or to the murder/gun statistics for the U.S. Britain, and Japan that I asked you about.
The number of "babies... murdered by 'doctors' and 'women's rights' each year" is also not responsive to the topic of this thread or to the murder/gun statistics for the U.S. Britain, and Japan that I asked you about, David.
I respect the passion with which both of you hold your views on abortion. Should you wish to engage the issue more completely in these forums, I suggest that you initiate a new thread, or resurrect one of the many previous CD threads of which abortion was the focus.
For THIS thread, however, I choose to remain on topic, and hence ask you both again for your reactions to the data I presented earlier, about the stark difference in per capita overall murder- and murder-by-gun rates in the U.S. and Britain/Japan. What, in your view, explains the fact that the U.S. murder rate is five times that of Britain, and more than 400 times that of Japan? that the percentage of murders in the U.S. in which guns are used is 14 times higher than in Britain? What contribution, if any, do you believe Britain's tighter gun control laws make to those results?
bill_coley — 2017-10-06T11:30:38-04:00 — #38
While I respect the authentic spirit with which you ask these questions, Tyrone, I will not address them in this thread because, in my view, to do so would create a momentum that would take the conversation far afield from the topic of this thread.
You're of course free to engage with those who choose to respond to you here, but I encourage you to initiate a new thread with the questions you ask here as its focus.
gao_lu — 2017-10-06T18:03:28-04:00 — #39
You can frantically try to kink the hose or shut off the spigot of the inconvenient, obvious truth; but overshading the topic of this thread, in fact, the whole point is "The answer" to deadly violence. Gun control matters but is incidental. If you choose not to talk about the matter that is fine, but all the other posters here are doing so because we find it precisely on topic.
Gun control might help a little, but the answer to the problem is not gun control. In today's world, there is something we can all do, something immense and within grasp to stop the vast killing, killing far worse than Hitler, PolPot, Mao and Stalin combined, a killing-violence focused against minorities, women and babies--stop abortion.
bkmitchell — 2017-10-06T19:29:57-04:00 — #40
Greetings Bill Coley,
This is an interesting point:
Less than one percent of Japanese nationals are Christian and as you in hinted at in post#20 it is highly doubtful that the gospel had anything to do with their laws and attitudes toward gun use and ownership.
bill_coley — 2017-10-06T23:54:00-04:00 — #41
Thanks for adding your insight, Brian.
My post from which you quoted was informed enough by my very limited knowledge of Japan's spiritual demography to recognize that Christianity could not have had a dominant role in the nation's attitudes toward firearms.
bill_coley — 2017-10-07T00:22:09-04:00 — #42
As you know from reading the Washington Post article used to start this thread, at the beginning of her second paragraph, the author makes clear the focus of her column and the research it summarizes....
"Then my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way."
The focus of her column - the only "deadly violence" to which she refers - is gun violence. I respect the fact that you consider abortion a form of "deadly violence," but abortion is not at issue in this thread, and in fact, wasn't at issue for you in your first three posts in this thread: THIS ONE, THIS ONE, and THIS ONE. Interestingly, only after I presented murder and gun use data to which neither you nor David has directly responded did you attempt to divert attention away from this thread's topic via a turn to the abortion issue.
I can't think of a single abortion policy or policy change that would affect, let alone reduce, the number people who die annually due to gun violence. That's probably because gun policies and abortion policies are very different matters, with little or no overlap.
gao_lu — 2017-10-07T03:14:44-04:00 — #43
You have made clear that your greater interest is not to counter violence, but to control guns. You are entitled to that view with respect.
We are in full agreement--a pleasant thing.
In terms of stopping violence, gun control would do relatively little--and we have already done most of that. Perhaps we could do more. Stopping abortion would do much. Seems that you are using an old tactic--bully-mode--to force the focus away from the mountain of related evidence that overshadows a vastly smaller cause.
You outspokenly support violence against minorities, women and children by abortion while demanding gun control. I hate to use the term "first-class hypocrisy," but that is the softest term as I can come up with thus far. Abortion and Gun control are different answers to the same problem--violence. Gun control is utterly overlapped and overshadowed by the greater answer to violence--stopping abortion.
bill_coley — 2017-10-07T17:01:00-04:00 — #44
In this thread - whose topic is gun violence - my "greater interest" has been and continues to be reducing gun violence.
Thanks for sharing your views.
Should you wish to share your views on the topic of this thread, we will welcome them, as well.
gao_lu — 2017-10-07T18:14:08-04:00 — #45
We fully agree. That is what I said several times. You want to talk all politically about less-significant gun control and are quite upset if anyone mentions hugely-significant abortion--a form of violence of which you approve. I respect you for finally admitting this.
I am sharing my views on this topic--in every post. Glad to help. Any time.
wolfgang_schneider — 2017-10-07T18:22:20-04:00 — #46
If the solution for reducing gun violence would be to ban guns, how would you suggest to reduce knife violence? perhaps by a ban of knives? how about fist violence? perhaps chopping off fists? any suggestions for reducing rape violence? perhaps cutting off the parts used in rape?
It seems more that the causes for any violence is not the instrument with which violence is committed, and therefore the remedy will not be in banning or getting rid off the instruments used ...
By the way, it doesn't matter for the bad guy how severe gun laws and gun bans are ... those fellows always figure out a way to get their guns. However, disarming the public by restricting the use of guns severely, makes it rather easy for an armed person to commit crimes since they are assured of not meeting any armed resistance.
bill_coley — 2017-10-07T18:46:50-04:00 — #47
What's "all (political)" about my talk about universal background checks, reduced ammunition magazine capacities, and regulating private gun sales as if they were public sales? NOT asking whether you think any of those measures would make any difference! I'm asking only what you believe is "all (political)" about my advocacy of them.
Not sure where in the section of my post you quoted you find support for your assertion that I am "finally admitting" anything. Please specify the words I used in this thread to express my great "upset" when "anyone mentions hugely-significant abortion," as well as the words I used in this thread to express my own views on abortion.
As I read (and wrote) my posts in this thread, I intended only to constrain my comments and questions to gun violence, the thread's topic. It's certainly true that when on multiple occasions you chose not to respond to the gun violence questions I asked, but instead chose to raise the issue of abortion, I responded with reminders that abortion is not the topic of this thread; but none of those reminders, to my reading, expressed great "upset." In fact, in one of my reminders to you about this thread's topic, I expressed respect for your and David Taylor's passion about the issue of abortion....
Please quote the posts in which I expressed great "upset" in response to your and/or others' references to abortion.
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-07T19:20:42-04:00 — #48
When someone gets to the store to purchase a gun, thy run a background check.
What does the term universal background check do which this does not do. Does it search for history of violence on other planets in the universe?
Reducing magazine amunition would do what exactly,take for example in the Vegas shooting. How large was his magazine? How much smaller should it have been?
How do you propose to review gulate the private gun sell in Texas? I own an Ak47 right now that I bought for trading a great bully to a hog hunter. How would the govt had stopped that? Or regulated it?
gao_lu — 2017-10-07T19:36:06-04:00 — #49
Just seems to me that your cause has little substance in reducing violence, but is rather a partisan cause. I could be wrong. Maybe you really do believe controlling guns would reduce violence and your kind heart is set on reducing violence. Maybe you really do want to take up the cause of defending the poor and women and minorities and children from killing-violence. If so, good. Consider what stopping abortion (which you strongly defend) might do if stopping killing is really your cause.
Your last post is a testimony to something different, but I will drop it in the interest of actually staying on topic.
We could quote lots of posts in private if you really want to do so. Maybe just stay on topic here.
bill_coley — 2017-10-08T02:04:55-04:00 — #50
Partisan views, according to my understanding of the term, are nothing more than strong views in favor of particular positions. Hence, my view about the need for universal background checks may not be any more "partisan" than your view that they wouldn't do much good.
If by your contention that I "talk all politically about less significant gun control" you meant that I take positions about gun control, positions that happen to differ from your positions on gun control, then I understand, even agree with, you.
Please provide those "lots of posts" in private because to my memory, EVERY time in the past when I've asked you to quote my posts to support what I believed were your baseless characterizations of them, you refused. You made them!! You felt no compunction about claiming my posts said this, that, and the other! But when I asked you to back up your claims, without exception you refused. So since you've agreed to provide evidence this time, I accept your offer and look forward to the "lots of" quotations.
As a reminder, the claim that the posts you send me will demonstrate is that I become...
Thanks in advance!
bill_coley — 2017-10-08T02:26:12-04:00 — #51
The "universal" in universal background checks refers to the proposed requirement that basically all firearms sold in the United States be subject to background checks. According to Wikipedia... (emphasis added)
Currently, federal law requires background checks (through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System) only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for 60% of all gun sales in the United States. Current federal law allows people not "engaged in the business" of selling firearms to sell firearms without a license or records. In effect, that would mean that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) states that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System has prevented over two million convicted felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing firearms. According to the CSGV, the law also has a prohibitive effect, that deters illegal purchases.
I haven't seen specifics on the ammunition the Las Vegas shooter used. But in principle, smaller magazines hold fewer bullets, which means shooters using them run out more quickly than if they use larger magazines. Emptying a magazine means changing it out - unless the shooter has an arsenal along side him- or herself as did the Vegas shooter. The more time a shooter spends changing out magazines, the less time he or she spends shooting, and the more time people have to take cover, and authorities have to find and neutralize the shooter.
And does anyone really NEED the ability to shoot 100, or even just 30, bullets without reloading? Yes, mass shooters benefit greatly from that ability, but hunters and people protecting their homes don't need it.
I am not conversant with how private firearms sales would/could be regulated. I just know that no firearm should be sold in this country, in ANY market, without a background check. If we don't think convicted felons should have guns, and therefore by law ban them from purchasing them at gun stores (which is what we currently do), why should we allow them to circumvent those laws by purchasing their guns through private transactions?
gao_lu — 2017-10-08T02:47:36-04:00 — #52
Thanks for reminding me about the futility of past arguments of this kind. I made my point above and stand behind it. Accept it or reject it as you will. As in the past, I won't waste time on arguments that go nowhere. Life is sweet and too short for that.
Advertisers spend thousands of dollars a minute on advertisement during movies, knowing that just a few seconds is all that is needed to influence people’s choices and behavior. If that is true, what is the influence of hours of games and movies that glorify armed violence?
The problem is not the gun, the problem is the choices and behavior of the person who uses it. Changing the influences that influence behavior, might mean churches going back to practicing Bible Truths. It might mean stopping saturating ourselves in armed violence as entertainment. It might mean stopping mass killing of our children.
next page →