EnviroLink Forum

After that, look for a phenomenon that leads to more deaths and consider that more "dangerous" than the previous one.

OK, I will look for something that kills more than 195,000 Americans per year.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 3952_n.jpg

Found one!
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/smokin ... -year.html

Glad I quit 4-4-04, ban cigarettes!!! But Obama smokes................make him more of a felon than he already is!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... hXPlCjr0Vw

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Now debunk the point that that's dangerous by looking for something even deadlier. In the end, almost nothing will be dangerous.

America’s Top 10 Killers – Most Common Causes of Death

According to the CDC, the top 10 causes of death in the United States and the number of people affected are:

Heart Disease: 696,947
Cancer: 557,271
Stroke: 162,672
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,816
Accidents: 106,742
Diabetes: 73,249
Influenza/Pneumonia: 65,681
Alzheimer’s disease: 58,866
Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome, and Nephrosis: 40,974
Septicemia: 33,865

Cigarettes cause much of them and could be banned with more effectiveness toward saving lives including children's (from second hand smoke). Of course they wouldn't want to ban a cash cow that is addictive.
So the government's purpose of going for a gun ban is not to save lives, which it didn't really do before.
I quit smoking and drinking, but will keep my right to keep and bear arms that are effective against tyranny or attack from enemies foreign and domestic.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

As I said, it's illogical to refer to something more dangerous to justify not having to deal with something less dangerous.

In fact, the argument even works against itself. Ban or heavily regulate tobacco and alcohol use, and then you eventually go down the line, until you reach firearms.

Wrong! Your logic is illogical!

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

I understand the emoting done by sum who don’t understand the big picture. Freedom has trade offs. Emoting though slogans like “enough no more violence.” Intensity of moral outrage is not enough to stop the next school shooting, but it makes a lot of people feel morally superior in their attempt to control and deny freedoms to the law abiding.

Irrate sloganeering, impractical unconstitutional policy changes, and pie in the sky thinking driven by pure emotions offer nothing to a solution, and amount to self therapy to those who propose them. The notion of “we must do something. Anything.” "But if it would save only one life." That is a poor starting point to fashion rational public policy. Sadly, that is what is driving so many people, and its impossible to debate such people of high emotion even though their remedies make no sense, and history has proved these remedies a precursor to tyranny.

The democrats in the state of Colorado are completely unhinged with their proposal to hold gun manufacturers libel for further shootings. That is either completely emotional nonsense or unproductive political grandstanding attempting to take full advantage of a tragedy. Either way they are completely shameless and this should not be coming from elected officials in any state.

By some estimates there are 300 million privately owned firearms. 65 million have been purchased since 2009. Scattered across 50 million households. I’m estimating based upon sales of AR platforms since 2004 roughly 10 million rifles have been sold. Now I own a rifle that has been in my family for three generations. It was made in 1898 and it still functions. So if the left’s pipe dream of a total ban on all firearms was enacted it would literally take hundreds of years for all privately owned firearms to filter out of the system. Doesn’t exactly make sense coming from the crowd who demands this violence must end now. Same goes for high capacity magazines. I suspect that behind every double standard rests an unconfessed single standard.

A 2011 Gallop poll recorded 73% of those polled opposed a ban on handguns. And spare me the demagoguery about the “gun lobby.” Or the NRA is a “narrow special interest group.” The NRA is a general interest group looking to serve half the households in this nation. According to that same Gallop study 54% of American’s have a favorable opinion of the NRA. Even if the Assault weapons ban is reenacted it would not eliminate such weapons, and it certainly will not stop the next school shooting. It certainly didn’t stop Columbine. How naive does one have to be to believe that criminals will not acquire banned guns and magazines through a vigorous black market, and the private citizen will be left at a sizable disadvantage. Given that right to carry states have a demonstrable smaller crime rate I have to question motivation. Why seek to restrict the law abiding? Why seek to make the law abiding less safe?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

Huh? Maybe you should work more on why people use tobacco, alcohol, and kill people with guns instead of regulating the instruments of their demise?

Oh, and right on Milton! Give that man a banana!

_________________
I can have oodles of charm....... when I want to.

The big picture such as the right to own a weapon of your choice trumps someone else's right to life? How hypocritical can a stance be that touts a right of convenience over what is considered the ultimate right .... life. If laws have no effect, as you infer, why then do we have them? Could it be that although they are not absolute in prevention, they do have a preventative effect?



References, please, on where history has proven such a thing.



Actually there is a point that connects the manufacturers through their policies and marketing strategies, which may be the actual target for compromise.



A ban on production as has previously been the case with high capacity magazines and assault rifles, would take a long time to have an effect, which is why a ban on outright ownership could gain support. That whole backlash thing of which I spoke could easily play out using this defense.



And these numbers mean what?

"The poll, mostly taken before Obama released his recommendations, found 74 percent of Americans favor a ban on assault weapons, with 26 percent opposed. A ban on high-capacity ammunition clips was backed by 74 percent, and 26 percent were opposed.

The poll also found 86 percent favor expanded background checks of all gun buyers, including sales at gun shows and between private parties, with 14 percent opposed."



You mean the citizens who bought three years worth of magazines in three days? Or the citizens who later purchase the pre-ban guns?



Gallup Poll

34% personally own gun.

13% other household member owns gun

51% owns no gun


Notice any trends?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I assume this is related to the book written by Lott since there are no references given. The assumption of causation is not evidence of causation.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ ... fss_papers

In turning to the crime data itself, Lott initially offers a comparison between the crime rates of those states with shall issue laws and those without them, which are further divided into those with may issue laws and those prohibiting concealed weapons outright. The violent crime rates in shall issue states are substantially lower – although it must be emphasized that these crime rates were substantially lower even before the laws were adopted. Lott shows that the states adopting shall issue laws tend to be Republican and have high NRA membership and low but rising crime rates.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Here is the testimony of someone who has some skin in this game.

Bill Stevens has a daughter at Sandy Hook. Stevens testified before the Connecticut government body considering gun control.

“My name is Bill Stevens I live in Newtown. My 5th grade daughter was in lock down on Dec.14th, 2012. Unfortunately one of her classmates little sister was murdered at Sandy Hook that day when lock down and 911 was not enough to protect her from an evil person. Not to protect her from an assault rifle or some other inanimate object, but from an evil person.

Quite different from the elaborate security you all enjoy here at the capital. By the way it was fun getting frisked on the way in here. I’m not here to site crime statistics, life’s saved with a gun, or any economic impact of the proposed asinine legislation of some of these gun control bills you have proposed. I will however read from the Connecticut state Constitution. Section 15 reads very clearly, we all know what the 2nd Amendment says, but Section 15 says very clearly every citizen has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. There’s no registration, no permitting, no back ground check. Quite frankly I am shocked at some the testimony here today. I case some here failed American history there is something called the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and a process by which to amend it.

The same goes for the state Constitution. These rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator not you politicians to all citizens regardless of race, gender, or creed. In order to limit the rights of individuals there is something called due process. And, legislation is not due process. You want to take my rights away lets go to court. In regards to due process the final report for Sandy Hook with all the facts on Sandy Hook will likely not be issued until this summer which was clearly stated in the news paper. How can any legislation be passed in good faith or good conscience without all of the facts.

Again gun ownership is a Constitutional right. But, its not for everyone and that’s okay. And, shouldn’t make gun owners suspect regardless of how many guns they have, or how much ammunition they may have. My guns are not dangerous. They are at home locked up collecting dust and cat hair. But, criminals and tyrants especially beware. Lock down is not an option at the Stevens residence. 911 will be dailed after the security of my home has been established. Why is that same security my daughter enjoys at home with her dad is not available at school in Newtown? That is what you should be considering. Not making her dad a criminal.

Charlton Heston made the phrase, “From my cold, dead hands,” famous. I will tell you here today you will take my ability to protect my Victoria from my cold dead hands.”

At this point Stevens slapped the table as he got up and left.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

Not exactly a truthful presentation. Bill Stevens has no children as Sandy Hook nor did he have any there at the time of the shooting.

His ignorant opinions speak for themselves, since somehow, "legislation is not due process" now.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Well, we certainly know now where you are getting your information from. A completely leftist outlet known for lying about a great many things. Defiantly not a reputable information source who attempted to tell a man he does not have a daughter that he clearly has. Why would someone go before a state government and lie about something that is clearly verifiable? If he did everyone other than Slate would be trumpeting that fact. And, you come forth and claim he is not honest without verifiable links or information? Excuse me but your shoveling shit here. This man comes off as completely honest and for that he is lied about for an agenda. A laughable internet site that has demonstrated a complete bias to leftist causes. Completely pathetic counter argument really. Beneath you in all respects. Please try to do better in the future. You might use the democraticunderground.com for your next supposed source to stay true to form. Once again confirming my observation you are nothing but a dogmatic intractable drone. Incapable of reasonable thought.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... y_the.html

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

http://stufffromjudy.posterous.com/best ... unconditio



I would have gut shot him instead!

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Then why didn't you reference it?



No, that is a compound logical fallacy. The daughter he has, according to his email, was at another school that day, but why let facts get in the way of a good misrepresentation.



He did not, you did. He said she was in lock down, while you and others claim she was in Sandy Hook.



You mean like the original source?



No, YOU are not honest about verifiable links or information.



I am only trying to shovel that you dumped back out of the way so the truth can be known.



So you lied about him for an agenda?



Really? Which site do you reference? The one to which you linked or the one posting his email to them about the truth of the matter?



Wrong, but you are on a roll. Too bad you did not claim it was a testimony in Congress as some have done. That would have added to the misrepresentation level.



What you did, is beneath me and I would never have done it.



At least I have not been caught in a lie and then tried to defend it by slinging mud. You have no credibility what so ever at this point and that reflects on the position you support as well.



The original source: (even mentioned in the link you provided if you had bothered to read it)

http://www.examiner.com/article/sandy-h ... un-control

UPDATE: I was contacted last night by Mr. Stevens with the following correction:

Thank you for the nice article about my testimony in Hartford. Unlike the Liberal media who don't let facts get in the way, I just wanted to let you know that my daughter does not attend Sandy Hook Elementary, but was in "lock down" nonetheless on December 14, 2012 at Reed Intermediate School (5th & 6th grade) about a mile away with her classmates, one of whom lost his little sister that day.

Do you really think a "completely leftist outlet known for lying about a great many things" would present a "nice article about <Stevens> testimony in Hartford" or that Stevens would bother to contact them if they had?

Two words ..... EPIC FAIL

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein