Deepening feud between NRA and doctors

[ataraxia]

I still have more firepower. A bazooka is a single shot, crew served weapon.

If they miss with the first rounds, they're ****ed.

A nuke would be even better. I bet you know one would be messing with you then, seeing that nuclear ordnance with the flashing red light and the wire hooked up to your front door and all...

 

[apdst]

I am not sure why that is any reason to leave schizophrenics and felons to buy any crazy weapon they want and haul it around any crazy place they want.

If the government refuses to lock these people up, we law abiding people need the ability to protect ourselves.

 

[apdst]

A nuke would be even better. I bet you know one would be messing with you then, seeing that nuclear ordnance with the flashing red light and the wire hooked up to your front door and all...

No it wouldn't. That would kill thousands+. The notion is idiotic.

Is this the direction your argument is really going to go in?

 

[Chillfolks]

There is no end to how far we can go with an arms race with the criminals. A line needs to be drawn somewhere.

Thankfully even Antonin Scalia knew that 2nd amendment rights, like any right, are not unlimited.

Any weapon that is available for civilian law enforcement to use should be the line. Scalia hinted to that as the line with his common use implications IMO

 

[ataraxia]

If the government refuses to lock these people up, we law abiding people need the ability to protect ourselves.

Maybe. But you can protect yourself just fine with a small handgun. If you think you need a little more than that, we can talk about it.

But full autos for schizophrenics? Bazookas for convicted felons? We would REALLY need to talk about that.

If you are a regular person, you should be able to have what you need to defend yourself if you feel like you really need to. Research, of course, shows that homes with guns in them are MORE likely, not less likely, to be broken into. And when they are, the homeowner brandishing firearms is MORE likely, not less likely, to be killed or injured. Those are the kind of findings that were coming out that caused the NRA to force congress to cut any further funding for research. But whatever. If you don't want to know the facts and you still want a firearm because you think you need it, that's fine. No one is out to stop you. But that's no reason to fight closing the loopholes, placing some rational limits on the kinds of weapons available to the public, etc... It doesn't have to be all or none.

It's like saying if you allow government to put up a traffic light at a busy intersection, it's a slippery slope to them coming and taking your car away. It's crazy. There have to be some limits.

 

[SCrider]

Locking up murderers doesn't do any good?

Not for the victim. We would rather punish people then try to fix the problem.

 

[ataraxia]

Any weapon that is available for civilian law enforcement to use should be the line. Scalia hinted to that as the line with his common use implications IMO

There is no reason why the kinds of weapons which were banned by the assault weapons ban should be in common use for civilians. If you don't draw the line, there will be a never ending arms race between civilians and criminals. A line has to be drawn somewhere, like every other civilized country on the planet. This is not a society based on vigilante justice.

 

[apdst]

Maybe. But you can protect yourself just fine with a small handgun. If you think you need a little more than that, we can talk about it.

But full autos for schizophrenics? Bazookas for convicted felons. We would REALLY need to talk about that.

If you are a regular person, you should be able to have what you need to defend yourself if you feel like you really need to. Research, of course, shows that homes with guns in them are MORE likely, not less likely, to be broken into. And when they are, the homeowner brandishing firearms is MORE likely, not less likely, to be killed or injured. Those are the kind of findings that were coming out that caused the NRA to force congress to cut any further funding for research. But whatever. If you don't want to know the facts and you still want a firearm because you think you need it, that's fine. No one is out to stop you. But that's no reason to fight closing the loopholes, placing some rational limits on the kinds of weapons available to the public, etc... It doesn't have to be all or none.

It's like saying if you allow government to put up a traffic light at a busy intersection, it's a slippery slope to them coming and taking your car away. It's crazy. There have to be some limits.

Who the hell said anything about bazookas?

 

[ataraxia]

No it wouldn't. That would kill thousands+. The notion is idiotic.

Is this the direction your argument is really going to go in?

Oh but a bazooka or full auto is SOOOO much better!:lamo

 

[ataraxia]

Who the hell said anything about bazookas?

Full autos are no better. And these semiautoamtics with bump stocks are no different. These are not anything any civilian has any business owning.

 

[apdst]

Full autos are no better. And these semiautoamtics with bump stocks are no different. These are not anything any civilian has any business owning.

You have no business telling someone they can't.

 

[ataraxia]

No it wouldn't. That would kill thousands+. The notion is idiotic.

Oh but the weapons the Vegas shooter had, which killed or injured almost 600 people in a few minutes, is very rational and smart. Because those are the kinds of things you need to feel safe in your home. Got it. Thanks. :roll:

 

[ataraxia]

You have no business telling someone they can't.

Why not? If we can regulate full autos, what's the difference between them and semiautomatics with bump stocks?

 

[apdst]

Why not? If we can regulate full autos, what's the difference between them and semiautomatics with bump stocks?

You don't want to regulate them. You want to ban them.

 

[Chillfolks]

There is no reason why the kinds of weapons which were banned by the assault weapons ban should be in common use for civilians. If you don't draw the line, there will be a never ending arms race between civilians and criminals. A line has to be drawn somewhere, like every other civilized country on the planet. This is not a society based on vigilante justice.

I am drawing a line. Any weapon that is available for civilian law enforcement to use should be available for civilian use. It's a simple approach.that draws a line between civilian use and military use.

 

[ataraxia]

I am drawing a line. Any weapon that is available for civilian law enforcement to use should be available for civilian use. It's a simple approach.that draws a line between civilian use and military use.

A gun race means there is no end in sight to the arms race with criminals. The line will draw itself when our neighborhoods finally turn into actual war zones- no different than any other crazy lawless third world country where there are no laws and everyone is free to carry around any crazy weapon they want. A line has to be drawn.

Here is a country, Somalia, where people have complete gun rights. They are free to carry whatever they feel they need to to feel safe. Is this your idea of a safe place to live?

 

[ataraxia]

You don't want to regulate them. You want to ban them.

Nope. Don't make stuff up. Save that for Fox News.

 

[ataraxia]

The research shows gun control saves lives. That's the facts. It's not an attempt to ban guns. Just some common sense and rational limits. Is it any wonder the NRA is in a feud with doctors and researchers? Rightwingers scowl and hid from facts, science, and research like vampires and witches from the rising sun.

 

[marke]

After doctors' associations put out a statement warning of the public health dangers of a gun culture based on growing research, and pushing for the need for funding for more research, and the resultant devastation they are seeing daily in their emergency rooms and operating rooms, the NRA tweeted "Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane," as if public health is not in their purview. Their findings, after all, were interfering with propaganda and marketing efforts that "guns keep you safe".

Doctors have now pushed back in turn in turn.



The right, of course, was never that interested in findings or research. Facts have no bearing in forming their worldview. They have dismissed a unanimous consensus and formal statements from every single scientific organization on the planet about the dangers of global warming, choosing instead to support a real estate guy from Manhattan who has dismissed it all as a "Chinese hoax". They still pass tax plans on the premise of trickle down economics. Many of them even still insist the Earth is only 6000 years old. So even if there is further research and more facts and observations become available, don't expect it to impress any of them if it doesn't support their already-existing notions.

But still, we need to learn more facts. The research bans and gag orders pushed by the NRA in congress must be repealed. We need to start caring about facts again.

Changing the Constitution to satisfy gun opponents who foolishly think gun violence can be eliminated by taking guns away from honest Americans is not a right course to take in protecting American rights and freedoms.

 

[apdst]

Nope. Don't make stuff up. Save that for Fox News.

You don't want to nan "assault rifles"?

 

[Chillfolks]

A gun race means there is no end in sight to the arms race with criminals. The line will draw itself when our neighborhoods finally turn into actual war zones- no different than any other crazy lawless third world country where there are no laws and everyone is free to carry around any crazy weapon they want. A line has to be drawn.

Here is a country, Somalia, where people have complete gun rights. They are free to carry whatever they feel they need to to feel safe. Is this your idea of a safe place to live?

View attachment 67244644

I am not advocating for a guns race that's just the talking point you have latched onto. I've never advocated for the idea of people being able to carry whatever they want. I fully agree we need to have a line of what is acceptable for civilian use. I will explain it agian, the civilian law enforcement and civilian population should have access to the same types of arms. Any type of arms that is not available for civilian use is what we consider to be military grade.

 

[ataraxia]

I am not advocating for a guns race that's just the talking point you have latched onto. I've never advocated for the idea of people being able to carry whatever they want. I fully agree we need to have a line of what is acceptable for civilian use. I will explain it agian, the civilian law enforcement and civilian population should have access to the same types of arms. Any type of arms that is not available for civilian use is what we consider to be military grade.

Not sure why. Civilian law-enforcement undergoes screening, training, and are highly regulated and accountable. civilians are not. I would be OK with regular civilians having the same weapons if they undergo the same level of screening, regulation, training, and oversight. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

These weapons are like any heavy or dangerous equipment. They require training and regulations to be able to use safely. Do you want to be able to give drivers licenses to any blind or Alzheimer’s patient?

 

[Chillfolks]

Not sure why. Civilian law-enforcement undergoes screening, training, and are highly regulated and accountable. civilians are not. I would be OK with regular civilians having the same weapons if they undergo the same level of screening, regulation, training, and oversight. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

These weapons are like any heavy or dangerous equipment. They require training and regulations to be able to use safely. Do you want to be able to give drivers licenses to any blind or Alzheimer’s patient?

You're comparing giving people with physical disabilities and limitations the privilege of driving to denying law abiding citizens their right because what they own frightens you. You can not be serious.

Either a weapon is a weapon of war and should be restricted to military use or it's not a weapon of war and should be available for any citizen to use.

 

[CLAX1911]

After doctors' associations put out a statement warning of the public health dangers of a gun culture based on growing research, and pushing for the need for funding for more research, and the resultant devastation they are seeing daily in their emergency rooms and operating rooms, the NRA tweeted "Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane," as if public health is not in their purview. Their findings, after all, were interfering with propaganda and marketing efforts that "guns keep you safe".

Doctors have now pushed back in turn in turn.



The right, of course, was never that interested in findings or research. Facts have no bearing in forming their worldview. They have dismissed a unanimous consensus and formal statements from every single scientific organization on the planet about the dangers of global warming, choosing instead to support a real estate guy from Manhattan who has dismissed it all as a "Chinese hoax". They still pass tax plans on the premise of trickle down economics. Many of them even still insist the Earth is only 6000 years old. So even if there is further research and more facts and observations become available, don't expect it to impress any of them if it doesn't support their already-existing notions.

But still, we need to learn more facts. The research bans and gag orders pushed by the NRA in congress must be repealed. We need to start caring about facts again.

There is no "gun cultre" the very utterance is profoundly stupid.

 

[CLAX1911]

I hope that the house will be able to force republicans to come up with a counter plan. Democrats waste too much time defending their own positions while republicans get away with not having any plan to solve these problems. If republicans want the NRA to dictate gun policy then force them to say it.

It's sad that people want politicians to solve their problems for them.