Michael Moore

[arch stanton]

I see.  So we can't argue one issue at a time, it has to be a collective argument.  I'll let the folks at MADD and SADD know that you disapprove.

 

Also, laws can be passed regarding driving, DUI, and texting while driving with relative ease.

 

Can you say the same re: guns?

I haven't read their whole criminal code but I'm almost 100% certain that the execution style murder of school children is already illegal in Connecticut. I believe carry a weapon onto a school campus is probably also illegal.

[Futch Winkleman]

So, we should get rid of laws altogether, since criminals will break them anyhow?

 

Gun nut logic FTW!

[Lifetime]

LOL Strawman Alert! 

[arch stanton]

Your brain is so filled with fear of guns that you cannot draw a logical conclusion.

[mtangelsfan]

Constitution haters suffer from lack of reading comprehension and are apt to come to illogical conclusions.

[Futch Winkleman]

Your brain is so filled with fear of guns that you cannot draw a logical conclusion.

 

Enlighten me then.  What conclusion should I have drawn?

[Lifetime]

Enlighten me then.  What conclusion should I have drawn?

 

So, we should get rid of laws altogether, since criminals will break them anyhow?

 

Gun nut logic FTW!

perhaps this one?

[arch stanton]

Enlighten me then.  What conclusion should I have drawn?

That there are already laws against killing. And by the way, what constitutes a "gun nut" in your world?

[Futch Winkleman]

There are already laws against drunk driving too.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't install breathalyzers in cars or enact laws against irresponsible establishments for overserving.

 

A "gun nut" is someone with absolutely no wiggle room on sensible gun control measures.  Those of the "cold, dead hands" persuasion, if you will.

[arch stanton]

There are already laws against drunk driving too.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't install breathalyzers in cars or enact laws against irresponsible establishments for overserving.

 

A "gun nut" is someone with absolutely no wiggle room on sensible gun control measures.  Those of the "cold, dead hands" persuasion, if you will.

Sensible leaves a whole lot of room for interpretation. 

[Futch Winkleman]

Fair enough.

 

Substitute "sensible gun control measures" for "a single gun control measure" then.

[arch stanton]

Check page 3 of the thread on the defeat of background checks. I posted half a page of gun control laws that are in place.

[RallyMo]

Guns aren't important to anyone other than business owners and law enforcement.  They are only perceived important by tinfoil hat wearing rednecks.

 

Cars are essential to our countries infrastructure.

 

I'm most assuredly for stricter gun control and tighter background checks but I can't agree with you on this one given my experience living in Texas. That's just not true.

[Jason]

Guns aren't important to anyone other than business owners and law enforcement.  They are only perceived important by tinfoil hat wearing rednecks.

 

Cars are essential to our countries infrastructure.

My hat is a wool and cotton blend I believe.

[mtangelsfan]

Gun Control basically doesn't work.  Not in this country at least.

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html

 

It might make people feel better.  It might make folks think that "something has been done", but it won't make any measurable difference.  What it will do is put another meaningless law on the books and give the government one more piece of power to track it's citizens.

[RallyMo]

Gun Control basically doesn't work. Not in this country at least.

http://news.yahoo.com/firearms-statistics-gun-control-advocates-don-t-want-194040384.html

It might make people feel better. It might make folks think that "something has been done", but it won't make any measurable difference. What it will do is put another meaningless law on the books and give the government one more piece of power to track it's citizens.

That article is garbage in terms of statistical analysis. I'm not saying that gun control is necessarily effective, but that article does absolutely nothing to verify that it results in increased crime. There are far more inputs than mere population and laws. You can't treat statistics as if they exist in a vacuum.

[mtangelsfan]

You can use the information to gain more knowledge of the effectiveness therein.

 

It won't give you all the answers but I have yet to see any, and I mean any, reliable data that gun control works in this country. 

 

The only thing that would actually work is to get rid of the 2nd ammendment and then completely getting rid of all guns.  Of course some people would die if that happened.

[Spirit]

Rally counters by posting an article with its own garbage-like statistical analysis in 3 ... 2 ... 1...

[RallyMo]

You can use the information to gain more knowledge of the effectiveness therein.

It won't give you all the answers but I have yet to see any, and I mean any, reliable data that gun control works in this country.

The only thing that would actually work is to get rid of the 2nd ammendment and then completely getting rid of all guns. Of course some people would die if that happened.

My point is that this isn't reliable data either, not to argue for the efficacy of gun control, which is obviously important as well.

[mtangelsfan]

Of course it's reliable.  It's as reliable as any other stand on it's own statistic.

 

It plays a part in the overall picture.  Like RBI's or ERA.  That won't tell you everything about a player, but it tells you some stuff.

[RallyMo]

Rally counters by posting an article with its own garbage-like statistical analysis in 3 ... 2 ... 1...

That's funny and all, but no.

[RallyMo]

Of course it's reliable. It's as reliable as any other stand on it's own statistic.

It plays a part in the overall picture. Like RBI's or ERA. That won't tell you everything about a player, but it tells you some stuff.

I agree with everything you say here. I really do.

[Spirit]

That's funny and all, but no.

 

 

I agree with the first part of your sentence. 

[Futch Winkleman]

Just read the family of the 4 year-old is affiliated with law enforcement, so I'm guessing nobody will be held responsible.

 

Nothing to see here folks.

 

Glad I was wrong here.  Hopefully this "father" does some time.

 

Irresponsible douche.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57584342-504083/anthony-senatore-n.j-father-of-4-year-old-who-police-say-shot-and-killed-playmate-6-reportedly-charged/

[mtangelsfan]

He's responsible, he should pay the price.