The case against guns

[Blind groper]

[quote="Collector1337"

So, you're claiming that getting a gun pulled on you during an argument is not a life threatening situation?[/quote]

Deep sigh.

Collector, how many times will you try to put words in my mouth?

I did not say that. Nor is that what happens. What happens very often, according to the university researchers, is that 2 guys are in a heated argument and one pulls a gun. The gun slinger then tries to claim this as a DGU. Bullshit, of course.

For the other guy, without a gun, it is definitely a life threatening situation, and this often ends with the unarmed guy being murdered. According to the FBI, this argument scenario is the most common cause of gun murder. But all too often, even when there is no murder, the gun wielder rationalises his actions as self defense, and this lie is repeated to those researchers who do surveys on guns used defensively.

[Seth]

To Seth,
Who thinks more guns means less crime.

That is true only according to John Lott, whose "work" has been discredited. The real evidence from more than one researcher, is that Lott us a fraud who invents his 'statistics'.

Murder rates inside the USA have nothing to do with local laws, since anyone who wants a gun gets a gun. But if you look at murder rates among OECD nations, the trend is clear. Fewer guns means fewer murders.

On concealed carry, the work of researchers who are not John Lott show a clear cut trend. More guns equals more gun crime.

You lie. So does the Harvard crew.

They, and you, have been debunked.

[Jason]

In case any of you are wondering if I'm laughing at you...


Yes.

Yes I am.

[Seth]

Collector

As I have been at pains to point out many times, the DGU figures quoted by John Lott, and repeated by every gun loving organisation, have been found by more honest researchers to be phony.

Harvard researchers have found that a very large percentage of DGU claims are for illegal actions, like winning an argument by pulling a gun, where no threat exists.

Liar.

DGU figures vary from researcher to researcher. But if we disallow the phony figures, and disallow the 'argument winning', and disallow situations where no real risk existed, then the number shrinks very, very dramatically. Of course, that would require honest research.

Even if your claims were true, it wouldn't matter because to coin a hoary old phrase, if guns in law abiding hands save even ONE life, it's all worth it.

On the business of NRA bribes.
This is public knowledge. It takes the form of a legal bribe called a campaign donation. I call it corruption.

Ah, pulling stuff out of your rectum again I see. There is no such thing as a "legal bribe." That's just a bogus term you made up to try to support your unsupported argument. If campaign donations are "bribes," then Barack Obama is the most corrupt politician in all of history, give the billion dollars he received, and spent, for his first election.

You're so full of shit. Campaign donations by organizations like the NRA, which exist for the purpose of representing the interests of their members speaking with one voice, are quintessential free speech, as the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United. The NRA is 5 million individuals donating money to an organization that represents and protects their interests in Congress. It is, as the SCOTUS pointed out, an indisputable exercise of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Liberal nitwits love to call it "bribery" and suchlike, but they have no compunctions about donating THEIR money to "special interest PACs" like, oh, Planned Parenthood or ACORN, or the AFL-CIO to represent their interests before the government.

Every interest is a "special interest" and every person has an unalienable right to band together with other people of like mind and donate money to advance their interests, and their desired candidates, in Congress.

So your bullshit accusation is just that, complete bullshit. The NRA doesn't do anything every liberal PAC doesn't do as well. The NRA acts strictly and quite carefully within the law, precisely because asshats who hate gun owners are looking for any iota of evidence of criminal activity on the part of the NRA. And they have found exactly zero illegal campaign activity by the NRA in more than a hundred years, which is more than can be said for, oh, ACORN or the unions.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

Campaign donations are supposed to come without strings attached. When the donor requires the politician who receives the money to vote according to the donors wishes, that is corruption.

It happens frequently, of course, in the USA, and that is why America is described as having a corrupt political system. When the NRA requires those it gave money to, to vote against gun control, that is corruption.

On your other points, calling me a liar is not an argument. I have, several times, posted references to back up my claims. You just express your own ideas without evidence. Not very convincing.

[Collector1337]

When the NRA requires those it gave money to, to vote against gun control, that is corruption.

Defending 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms is a good thing. It is not corrupt. That's doing what they should be doing. All politicians should be.

[JimC]

To Seth

Campaign donations are supposed to come without strings attached. When the donor requires the politician who receives the money to vote according to the donors wishes, that is corruption.

It happens frequently, of course, in the USA, and that is why America is described as having a corrupt political system. When the NRA requires those it gave money to, to vote against gun control, that is corruption.

On your other points, calling me a liar is not an argument. I have, several times, posted references to back up my claims. You just express your own ideas without evidence. Not very convincing.

BG, I think that there are many other political systems where donations to parties or individuals are made with a certain amount of quid pro quo.

In some places (Russia and Eastern Europe spring to mind), the corruption is massive, overt, and in effect means that crime and government are in a symbiotic relationship.

In other places, it is more subtle, but nonetheless real; including Oz, and I would imagine, NZ too. The NRA example may be a little more blatant than some, but it is simply part of a continuum. When Australian trade unions donate money to the labour party, they are expecting a sympathetic friend in court somewhere down the track...

Ideally, I would place much tighter restrictions on political donations in general, and restrict political advertising by competing parties to factual statements of policies, with televised debates. No ad-men orchestrating emotive campaigns, full of manipulative nonsense...

[Seth]

To Seth

Campaign donations are supposed to come without strings attached.

The hell they are! What planet do you live on? Really? Because it's not Earth.

When the donor requires the politician who receives the money to vote according to the donors wishes, that is corruption.

"Require?" You mean "desire." And of course a donor of money, be it five bucks or five million bucks, wants the candidate to pay attention to their "special interests" if they get elected. That's precisely why people donate money to candidates. Jeez, are you really this ignorant or are you a Poe? There's absolutely nothing wrong, morally, ethically or legally, about expecting a candidate you fund to serve your interests. Why else would you give them money?

What you don't like is that five million NRA members speak louder than you do. Well, tough shit, that's "democracy" ain't it? Funny how Handgun Control, or whatever they call themselves today, isn't nearly as powerful as the NRA. That's because their message (the one they try to "require" politicians to obey) isn't as resonant with the people of the United States.

I'm an Endowment Member of the NRA, and I purchased SEVEN life memberships for my sister's family precisely because I want our voices to be louder than yours in Congress. That's my right, just as it's any American's right. It's called "electing representatives" and "petitioning for redress of grievances."

It happens frequently, of course, in the USA, and that is why America is described as having a corrupt political system. When the NRA requires those it gave money to, to vote against gun control, that is corruption.

And how, exactly, does the NRA "require" politicians to to these things, pray tell? Do you perhaps mean by saying "If you don't do as we ask, we won't give you any more money and we will campaign against you at the next election"?

Dude, that's the political process. Liberal nitwits do exactly the same thing. That's why a good many Obama supporters are now pissed off at him, for not doing what he promised THEM in return for the BILLION dollars of their money he spent getting elected.

Sauce, goose, gander.

[Seth]

When the NRA requires those it gave money to, to vote against gun control, that is corruption.

Defending 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear arms is a good thing. It is not corrupt. That's doing what they should be doing. All politicians should be.

Indeed.They actually swear an oath to do just that, and when they attempt to infringe on that right, they are engaged in treason as far as I'm concerned.

[Blind groper]

Here in NZ, Seth, the country chosen by international survey as the least corrupt in the world, any politician accepting campaign donations in return for favors is not just kicked out of parliament, but very likely will end in prison. That is not just corruption, but a serious crime. People voted into government are required to represent the people, not limited interest groups.

For a politician to accept a campaign donation from the NRA in return for voting their way on gun control, by the standards of true democracy, is corruption.

[Seth]

Here in NZ, Seth, the country chosen by international survey as the least corrupt in the world, any politician accepting campaign donations in return for favors is not just kicked out of parliament, but very likely will end in prison.

Depends on how you define "favors." Do you give a campaign donation to a candidate who supports concealed carry? No, you don't. You give your money to a candidate who says he or she will represent your interests in re guns (or whatever other special interest you might have) and you withdraw your support, and your money from elected politicians who violate your trust by voting for things you don't like. If anyone were idiot enough to believe it, one might consider the implicit threat of not donating to be a criminal attempt to influence an official. But it's not, of course, it's just free speech being manifested in terms of money needed by candidates to run for office.

That is not just corruption, but a serious crime. People voted into government are required to represent the people, not limited interest groups.

Um. Horseshit. Every elected official on the planet panders to special interest groups that he thinks will approve of his policies and positions. That's how they get elected, and how they stay in office. If you're too stupid to understand that you have no business being allowed to vote.

Your version is "I represent the people!" Er, which people? All people? Then how do you make decisions about what to vote for and against? If you represent ALL the people, literally, then your votes must exactly reflect the proportionate democratic alignment of the people you represent. If you vote for something that anyone disagrees with, then according to BG's rules, you're a corrupt politician because you misrepresented some people at the behest of those who hold the opposite opinion and gave you money to represent them.

Every individual, group, organization or business that lobbies the legislature is a "special interest," including the Socialists, Greenies, anti-gunners, pro-gunners, and every single other collection of individuals who have a particular (special) interest in one or another aspect of government.

The representative's job is to tell voters what HE believes in and supports during the campaign and then DO THAT, so that those who voted to elect him get what they voted for.

If your system were true, we wouldn't need elections, we'd just draft people at random, regardless of their beliefs or ideas.

For a politician to accept a campaign donation from the NRA in return for voting their way on gun control, by the standards of true democracy, is corruption.

And for one to accept a campaign donation from the Socialist Party in return for voting their way on school curricula, is that corruption too? How about accepting campaign donations for preventing cruelty to animals in return for proposing "free range" laws for chickens? Is that "corruption?"

How old are you anyway, twelve?

Time to grow up if you want to debate with the adults.

[Blind groper]

I am not 12. But I live in a largely non corrupt country. I feel sorry for you poor dweebs whose politicians are for sale to the highest bidder. No wonder your country is such a mess.

[Collector1337]

Voting for gun control and against the 2nd Amendment is treason. The NRA doesn't need to "bribe" anyone. They are doing the right thing defending our rights.

[Jason]

Voting for gun control and against the 2nd Amendment is treason.

First of all, no it isn't.

Second of all, do you see the constitution as an ossified holy relic or a 'living' constitution that may be changed (or ammended) to keep it relevant to the issues of the times?

[Collector1337]

Voting for gun control and against the 2nd Amendment is treason.

First of all, no it isn't.

Second of all, do you see the constitution as an ossified holy relic or a 'living' constitution that may be changed (or ammended) to keep it relevant to the issues of the times?

Yes, it is.

"Holy?" WTF?

So, what about when the government wants to restrict your 1st Amendment rights to, "keep it relevant to the issues of the times?"