Jump to content

CDC takes active political role in Gun control


El Luchador

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bigbrog said:

I like Ron but don't know much about Yang...will have to check him out.

I disagree with Yang a lot, but poverty is one of the deeper causes of many problems.  The Universal Basic Income idea was a logical idea to me.  Studies have shown it works.  Now I don't know... implemented wrongly, it will increase inflation.  But seems we have to do better for the poorest families so the kids can break the cycle.  

It goes against my nature to express the above.  I prefer a limited government and for people to be self-accountable for their health, savings, and such. Keeping the streets clean and helping the young'uns have decent nurture in their formative years seems right to me.

Yang is a business man and I want more of those types in the presidential spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, jross said:

I disagree with Yang a lot, but poverty is one of the deeper causes of many problems.  The Universal Basic Income idea was a logical idea to me.  Studies have shown it works.  Now I don't know... implemented wrongly, it will increase inflation.  But seems we have to do better for the poorest families so the kids can break the cycle.  

It goes against my nature to express the above.  I prefer a limited government and for people to be self-accountable for their health, savings, and such. Keeping the streets clean and helping the young'uns have decent nurture in their formative years seems right to me.

Yang is a business man and I want more of those types in the presidential spot.

the amount of money this country sends outside it's borders to manipulate global policy could do wonders for our citizens that need the most help...

but...

that does not line the pockets near as well... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, jross said:

I disagree with Yang a lot, but poverty is one of the deeper causes of many problems.  The Universal Basic Income idea was a logical idea to me.  Studies have shown it works.  Now I don't know... implemented wrongly, it will increase inflation.  But seems we have to do better for the poorest families so the kids can break the cycle.  

It goes against my nature to express the above.  I prefer a limited government and for people to be self-accountable for their health, savings, and such. Keeping the streets clean and helping the young'uns have decent nurture in their formative years seems right to me.

Yang is a business man and I want more of those types in the presidential spot.

Agreed with everything you wrote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2023 at 1:19 PM, mspart said:

How about we go after the bad guys that use guns and let their sentences grow bigger because of it?   Mandatory 5 year extension for use of a gun in a crime.   If liberals were serious about preventing gun violence, this or something similar would be part of their tactics.   But it is not.   Therefore, they are not serious about reducing gun violence.  Here in WA and in King County, use of gun in a crime is a sentenceable offense.   It is usually the first thing plea bargained out or not prosecuted at all.  

Now that is logic well used. 

mspart

So the same person who says if we ban guns the bad guys will still own guns also says that the bad guys are really worried about consequences of using a gun in a crime.

Now that is logic well used.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if anyone was actually interested in helping curb gun violence then the real issues would be looked at...

but...

those are actually difficult, nuanced problems that are not as easily defined by party lines, and, more importantly do not make catchy headlines...

 

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2023 at 12:19 PM, mspart said:

How about we go after the bad guys that use guns and let their sentences grow bigger because of it?   Mandatory 5 year extension for use of a gun in a crime. 

People that shoot guns while committing a crime should be punished harshly through life imprisonment and caning. These 'inhumane' criminals pose a risk to society due to their high likelihood of reoffending after release. While I like a good redemption story, the possibility of such an outcome is not worth taking the risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LJB said:

if anyone was actually interested in helping curb gun violence then the real issues would be looked at...

but...

those are actually difficult, nuanced problems that are not as easily defined by party lines, and, more importantly do not make catchy headlines...

 

I wish we had a "winner" emoji. 

In all the ramblings of the other thread, for the most part only one "solution" has been presented in various forms. "Ban something, govern me harder daddy!" No interest in the root of what causes people to hurt others.

I've begged for answers to how we can prevent gun violence.

How will your idea will help? What does that term actually mean? How does that work out when put into practice? Explain to me why our elected leaders prove they don't know what they're talking about every time they speak? These simple questions are met with a response akin to insulting their mother and fervent arguing about BS that I just can't seem to resist engaging. I'm embarrassed about my part in that.

I had ideas. No one has even cared to ask what they might be because I'm not on their team.  If I'm not on board with banning something, f*ck me I'm the enemy or just not "intellectual" enough to understand. It's gross and doesn't bode well for the future.

 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BobDole said:

So the same person who says if we ban guns the bad guys will still own guns also says that the bad guys are really worried about consequences of using a gun in a crime.

Now that is logic well used.

Ah but you are not using your logic well Sen Dole, and I'm really sorry to see that.    If we ban all guns, bad guys will still have them.   So no matter what we do about the availability of guns, bad guys will have them.    So it is not illogical to say, Hmm, if we make the penalty for using a gun in a crime stiff enough, some people will refrain from using them during crimes.   Also not illogical to say, if we have enhanced sentencing for using a gun during a crime, locking them up will effectively reduce gun crime. 

What is illogical to say is,  Hitting people with extra sentences is unjustly proportioned on a minority or two so we just won't.  Also illogical to have laws preventing gun use during a crime and then not prosecuting when that is the case.   And this happens all the time here in WA.   In fact, the Ds in the WA legislature have a bill that will reduce sentences.   Yep that is illogical.  Silly Ds. 

Equally illogical is to say Gun violence is too high.   So we must make laws to outlaw guns so those that exercise their 2nd Amendment right responsibly are the ones that will suffer.   But we will not prosecute those that actually commit gun violence or use guns in the committing of crime. 

You may choose which logic or illogic you ascribe to Bob.   Sounds like if it were up to you, I'd have to defend myself from an armed intruder with a sword or a blow dart.   Now that is liberal logic, which is illogical. 

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mspart said:

Ah but you are not using your logic well Sen Dole, and I'm really sorry to see that.    If we ban all guns, bad guys will still have them.   So no matter what we do about the availability of guns, bad guys will have them.    So it is not illogical to say, Hmm, if we make the penalty for using a gun in a crime stiff enough, some people will refrain from using them during crimes.   Also not illogical to say, if we have enhanced sentencing for using a gun during a crime, locking them up will effectively reduce gun crime. 

What is illogical to say is,  Hitting people with extra sentences is unjustly proportioned on a minority or two so we just won't.  Also illogical to have laws preventing gun use during a crime and then not prosecuting when that is the case.   And this happens all the time here in WA.   In fact, the Ds in the WA legislature have a bill that will reduce sentences.   Yep that is illogical.  Silly Ds. 

Equally illogical is to say Gun violence is too high.   So we must make laws to outlaw guns so those that exercise their 2nd Amendment right responsibly are the ones that will suffer.   But we will not prosecute those that actually commit gun violence or use guns in the committing of crime. 

You may choose which logic or illogic you ascribe to Bob.   Sounds like if it were up to you, I'd have to defend myself from an armed intruder with a sword or a blow dart.   Now that is liberal logic, which is illogical. 

mspart

False, no one with intentions of doing a crime are thinking, "gosh darn it if I shoot this guy I'm gonna go to jail for 5 extra years now, I'll just not do it."

Your head is buried in the sand if you think stronger punishment will have any affect on gun deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BobDole said:

False, no one with intentions of doing a crime are thinking, "gosh darn it if I shoot this guy I'm gonna go to jail for 5 extra years now, I'll just not do it."

Your head is buried in the sand if you think stronger punishment will have any affect on gun deaths.

Well, when they put him away, that is deterrent for him.   That is effective, or didn't you think of that?

The problem is they do not prosecute gun crimes anymore.   So in fact, there is no incentive to not use guns. 

If you are a murderer, you probably don't care I would agree.   Not too many of those around.   If you are a robber, you probably don't care.   But when you take the murderers and the robbers off the street, you have reduced gun violence.   And other lower level criminals will not want to go that direction.  

Your solution is to ban all guns I assume.   Better get an amendment to the Constitution going then.  Because there is no other way to do it. 

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

Well, when they put him away, that is deterrent for him.   That is effective, or didn't you think of that?

The problem is they do not prosecute gun crimes anymore.   So in fact, there is no incentive to not use guns. 

If you are a murderer, you probably don't care I would agree.   Not too many of those around.   If you are a robber, you probably don't care.   But when you take the murderers and the robbers off the street, you have reduced gun violence.   And other lower level criminals will not want to go that direction.  

Your solution is to ban all guns I assume.   Better get an amendment to the Constitution going then.  Because there is no other way to do it. 

mspart

Strike three another swing and a miss. I guess it's better than looking at one down the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYC got tough on crime under Giuliani.  Crime went down.    WA state had 3 strikes your out and prosecuted crime hard from 90s on.   Crime rate when down. 

All of that is not happening anymore and we wonder why crime rate is going up.  There is such a thing as cause and effect.   We have seen it in live action both ways.   Are we now too sophisticated to get tough on crime?   We have better ways to deal with crime?   The answer is demonstrably NO. 

Nice try with the baseball funny, but glibness doesn't really address the issue here.   I have added to the conversation, explained my position, but you have not.   You think saying strike 3 is clever and will end the conversation.   What ends it is your refusal to offer anything of substance to substantiate your opinion.  

My opinion is double down on prosecuting gun crimes and give enhanced sentencing for the use of guns during a crime.  At the very least, this will get those guys off the streets which will lower gun violence by that much.   It might perhaps lower gun violence or the use of guns in crimes due to the enhanced penalties.   Is this not even worth considering?  Apparently not for you.    There are strict gun control measures in Mexico, tough to get, but not banned.   Yep, that stopped all those cartels.

We have a difference of opinion here.   Let's leave it at that.

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, mspart said:

NYC got tough on crime under Giuliani.  Crime went down.    WA state had 3 strikes your out and prosecuted crime hard from 90s on.   Crime rate when down. 

All of that is not happening anymore and we wonder why crime rate is going up.  There is such a thing as cause and effect.   We have seen it in live action both ways.   Are we now too sophisticated to get tough on crime?   We have better ways to deal with crime?   The answer is demonstrably NO. 

Nice try with the baseball funny, but glibness doesn't really address the issue here.   I have added to the conversation, explained my position, but you have not.   You think saying strike 3 is clever and will end the conversation.   What ends it is your refusal to offer anything of substance to substantiate your opinion.  

My opinion is double down on prosecuting gun crimes and give enhanced sentencing for the use of guns during a crime.  At the very least, this will get those guys off the streets which will lower gun violence by that much.   It might perhaps lower gun violence or the use of guns in crimes due to the enhanced penalties.   Is this not even worth considering?  Apparently not for you.    There are strict gun control measures in Mexico, tough to get, but not banned.   Yep, that stopped all those cartels.

We have a difference of opinion here.   Let's leave it at that.

mspart

I guess I don't have to watch Fox News today. Thanks for the summary.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, BobDole said:

So the same person who says if we ban guns the bad guys will still own guns also says that the bad guys are really worried about consequences of using a gun in a crime.

Now that is logic well used.

One of my ORIGINAL sayings fits here:
There are a lot of people for whom logic is not a close friend.  Not even a casual acquaintance. 

ORIGINAL, as opposed to regurgitating the same worn out crap you hear from somewhere, especially that which you find appealing because it fits your preconceived notions.   

This pseudo-soliciting of ideas could be best described by a phrase I remember from my youth... dry humping.  It will be just about as productive.  Any suggestion even slightly outside the box will will be met with ridicule and the old "you don't know what you're talking about", because you don't know an AN-97 from a BX-603, or whatever??  On the other hand, any of the decades old ideas the "idea solicitors" are better prepared for will be met with using the NRA's well rehearsed playbook.


To sum up... What changes could be made to reduce gun violence, as long as nothing changes?

Might as well watch a bunch of monkeys trying to f@%$ a football.  (Assuming they had previously seen other monkeys trying to f@%$ a football, otherwise they wouldn't have a clue.)

Edited by BerniePragle
Question mark?
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mspart said:

What ends it is your refusal to offer anything of substance to substantiate your opinion.  

mspart

 

3 hours ago, BobDole said:

I guess I don't have to watch Fox News today. Thanks for the summary.

Case closed.

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BobDole said:

I guess I don't have to watch Fox News today. Thanks for the summary.

Dude...come on...that is weak as F.   Listen to what he is saying and quit blaming  Fox.  Or just say...Liberal policy is all you will believe in and vote for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2023 at 11:24 PM, Plasmodium said:

Of course not.  It's 23minutes of production from a disreputable reporter.

When I saw this, it reminded me of the old National Enquirer.  They always had those ridiculous headlines... Woman Reports "I was abducted by aliens and gave birth to an alien baby".  Always accompanied by "photographic evidence".  Sad how easily these people are manipulated.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/2/2023 at 3:44 PM, jross said:

I disagree with Yang a lot, but poverty is one of the deeper causes of many problems.  The Universal Basic Income idea was a logical idea to me.  Studies have shown it works.  Now I don't know... implemented wrongly, it will increase inflation.  But seems we have to do better for the poorest families so the kids can break the cycle.  

It goes against my nature to express the above.  I prefer a limited government and for people to be self-accountable for their health, savings, and such. Keeping the streets clean and helping the young'uns have decent nurture in their formative years seems right to me.

Yang is a business man and I want more of those types in the presidential spot.

I agree with one qualifier.  That this would be funded not by additional debt on the middle class, but instead by the endless corporate handouts from our federal government.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta love the accusation of someone spewing talking points from one side or the other, then turn around and do the exact same thing while trying to personally attack someone's intelligence...you seriously can't make this stuff up...but I guess whatever people need to do to make themselves feel better for 2 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2023 at 8:00 PM, mspart said:

 

Case closed.

mspart

That's cute, I don't have time to debate with Fox News. I don't swallow the pill of either party like most of you do. There is nothing I can say to sway you, not worth the time. Your head is so buried in Trump's ass that it isn't funny. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2023 at 9:37 AM, BobDole said:

So the same person who says if we ban guns the bad guys will still own guns also says that the bad guys are really worried about consequences of using a gun in a crime.

Now that is logic well used.

If they are incarcerated they can't harm the public. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how many weapons has this country freely, openly, and with much fan fair shipped over to a different part of the world to push someone's agenda?

how many weapons that have been left behind/sold/secretly given under the table by this country to different parts of the world while pushing someone's agenda are now ending up in entirely different parts of the world being used to push someone's else's agenda?

why does this keep happening over and over again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2023 at 7:39 AM, BerniePragle said:

When I saw this, it reminded me of the old National Enquirer.  They always had those ridiculous headlines... Woman Reports "I was abducted by aliens and gave birth to an alien baby".  Always accompanied by "photographic evidence".  Sad how easily these people are manipulated.

Those were always sold in checkout line.  I can remember telling my mom there is no way that is true!  A short time later - "Is that really true?". Turns out, the publisher has a close, decades long relationship with some prominent person.  He buries personal scandals for that person who shall remain nameless.

Edited by Plasmodium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...