In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Haven't been to Disneyland lately.
"...an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough jobs or enough profits" JFK
Yes, I love Mr. Toad's Wild Ride!
Join the fight for YOUR liberty!
ALsOOO KnOwN As La-La LaNd!!!
MeMBeR SiNcE 9/11/2011
MaY GOD BLesS ThE U.S.C. TROJAN'S, AnD AMeRiCA,---FoR ALLL ETeRNiTY!!!
AgReEEDdD,------I ALsOOO SMeLL A MaRxIsT CoNSPiRaCY, In ThiS OnE!!!
Tomorrowland does seem very much like you are in a liberal mind. Conservative minds seem more like a circus.
AGAAAIIN,------OnLY To yoUU lefTist MenTaL DoPeS!!!
I was thinking more along the lines Mickey Mouse and Goofy.
But even in the Tomorrowland of Disneyland EVERYONE gets the SAME blue or red car...with the speed controlled by a governor (government), with bumpers and a controlled route.
No one gets shot. Everyone is employed. Everyone working there gets health insurance. The place is clean. No one is forced to go on any ride or even go there. It is totally a matter of choice. People tend to be very happy there. It is obviously Hell to a conservative.
I don't see that. If the ban was that successful in reducing gun homicides per capita, we would see a similar pop the other way when the ban expired. At least we would expect to be at pre-ban levels of per capita gun homicides by 2013. Not to mention, how is a ban that excluded all the assault rifles already in circulation going to achieve that much of a reduction in one year? Makes no sense. The fact that per capita numbers are in decline despite the prevalence of "assault weapons" makes a new ban even more silly than I previously thought.
The stats seem to indicate the opposite, but I would be curious to read more on the sharp drop in 1994.
There is a substantial difference between the national security risk posed by international terrorists and the risk posed by the people perpetrating "mass shootings." However, there is the argument that the gov overreacted to 9/11 by engaging in Iraq and torturing suspected terrorists. In other words, our government used/leveraged/sensationalized - whatever you want to call it - 9/11 to enact policy that was probably misguided. Certainly you buy that argument, or did you support Bush's 9/11 policies? Same principle applies here.
Regarding purposes, whatever purpose you find for a car, a firearm carries an equally valid purpose. Do you deny killing in self defense or in the defense of liberty (in certain circumstances) is not a valid purpose? What difference does it make if a car has a purpose other than killing if the purpose of killing is justified? Are the purposes of alcohol, tobacco and swimming pools so important that we are willing to accept all the deaths associated with those products? What purpose do they have that is so noble it justifies their use in the face of all the deaths they create, which go beyond the deaths involving guns? Are alcohol, tobacco or swimming pools mentioned anywhere in our Constitution?
Stats are stats. You're talking about infriging constitutional rights by banning weapons because of 150 deaths a year, a statistically insignificant number. The reaction on the left is totally blown out of proportion to gain votes. Pretty obvious to me, but I'm sure you'll disagree...
Opposing guns does not gain votes. It is bad politically. 150 deaths is statistically insignificant unless you are a family affected.
The difference between a gun and car is that deaths by a car are collateral damage. Death by gun is the intent. It is like comparing targeting a valid military target and some civilians accidentally getting killed versus targeting civilians.
However, let us even assume that there is no difference between the two as you believe, cars are regulated more carefully than guns. We regulate who may drive and administer tests. We require registration of cars. Why can't we have all guns registered as we do cars? Why can't we require background checks of all gun owners and eliminate those people with serious mental illness or criminal backgrounds (felonies or violent misdemeanors)?
As far as sensational events, with guns there are those that believe we need better regulation all the time but some do not have the drive to do something. However, some events smack those people without drive in the face.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports