GMTom wrote:Just like how Canadian strict gun laws stopped that incident posted earlier I suppose?
and thank you for pointing out just how out of the ordinary this event was, so kind of you to show it is very limited ...just like it is in Canada?

Well, such events do happen elsewhere. The question is how prevalent they are in comparison.

For example, Gill killed one person and injured another 19 in 2006. Including that, how many incidents that are similar have happened in Canada, with how many casualties. What are the rates per million Canadians? Compare that to similar numbers obtained from the USA, and a whole bunch of other countries while we are at it.

Would that tell us more than just trading anecdotes?

I realise that this means using a scientific approach, rather than a rhetorical one, and so might be something you want to run screaming away from, but don't you think it would help more than vague guesswork?

Let's be clear, Dan, I've voiced no aspirations as to Mr. Loughner's fate--only predictions. Insanity defenses are difficult to manage in the most sympathetic of US jurisdictions, and from what I understand of Arizona law, even more difficult there.

The relative increase in Mr. Loughner's risk under your proposed reforms would be miniscule--again as evidenced by the abject failure of of our law enforcement bodies to enforce bans on other contraband (including such as can literally be smelt a mile away), while the loss of an important freedom (so important that we included it in an amendment to our Constitution) for law-abiding citizens would be significant. I am not incapable of applying balancing tests, Dan, I just think that in the matter of gun control the balance is against increased restrictions on ownership by law abiding citizens.

You are correct that our invitation to your ancestors to depart forthwith was inspired by more than just taxes (I would add over-reaching government, among other issues, to your list). But taxes were (and remain) important enough to be included in a number of memorable slogans that, it cannot be denied, played a large role in winning popular support to the cause of revolution. From where I sit, it appears that you are continuing the long-standing British tradition of misapprehending what motivates your American cousins.

Mach. My ancestors did not 'depart', they'd been right here all along, other than those who came to the UK from Ireland and other nearby countries. Some of them worked to oppose the very same elites that your ancestors fought (those that were not natives and themselves swept out of their homeland by the colonists, of course). In many ways they succeeded, and because it took longer and ended later, we inherited a more modern set of ideas.

Oh, I know what motivates you here. You want to continue the Revolutionary Wars and pretend that all Brits are Tories who want to bring you back under heel. A nice little myth to stack up against the rest, I guess.

On the topic of guns and freedom etc, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. You are happy to live in a nation where 18th Century values are more important than 21st Century lives. I am not.

danivon wrote:Oh, I know what motivates you here. You want to continue the Revolutionary Wars and pretend that all Brits are Tories who want to bring you back under heel. A nice little myth to stack up against the rest, I guess.

No, Dan. I just want you to remember who won them!

On the topic of guns and freedom etc, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. You are happy to live in a nation where 18th Century values are more important than 21st Century lives. I am not.

And so far as I know, no-one has asked you to. I note that such does not stop your kibbutzing as to our internal laws and customs.

Machiavelli wrote:

danivon wrote:Oh, I know what motivates you here. You want to continue the Revolutionary Wars and pretend that all Brits are Tories who want to bring you back under heel. A nice little myth to stack up against the rest, I guess.

No, Dan. I just want you to remember who won them!

I think you'll find it was France. Yorktown, which you cited as an example earlier, was essentially won because France controlled the sea (after Chesapeake) and much of the army on your side was Rochambeau's French. He just let Washington get the glory.

On the topic of guns and freedom etc, I suspect we will have to agree to disagree. You are happy to live in a nation where 18th Century values are more important than 21st Century lives. I am not.

And so far as I know, no-one has asked you to. I note that such does not stop your kibbutzing as to our internal laws and customs.

'Tis a freedom that I dearly cherish, Mach.

Rep. Cohen (D-TN) pulls a Godwin.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028960-503544.html

Does this constitute the same offense as what Sarah Palin said?

Green Arrow wrote:Rep. Cohen (D-TN) pulls a Godwin.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028960-503544.html

Does this constitute the same offense as what Sarah Palin said?

You just don't get it, do you? In Daniworld, when Palin says something, people die. When Democrats use such rhetoric, it's "whataboutery."

I don't think anyone here would say we didn't care how much our health care is costing us either now or at anytime in the past decade or more. Our system is most certainly broken and even the most conservative of us here would admit that. We did and do have a problem with the suggested solutions, to imply we had no problem before is not true in the least. Just because we don't like Obamacare does not mean we liked how things were before! (you are either confused or disingenuous, my money is on the latter)

Further, gun restrictions are one thing and we do have some states with tighter controls than others and every state has some restrictions of course. The problem I have is how the liberal lefties will often point to some minor idea but they always always always escalate into incredible restrictions to total banning. I happen to be all for tighter restrictions, I am more liberal than you might think on this issue, but I do not want total banning of hand guns nor do I want to make the restrictions so tight it ends up nearly banned just the same. I understand you are mentioning only simple steps, but I also know what comes next, it always does.

some posts between mine!
regarding the Nazi quote,
It's not the same thing, not unless he puts crosshairs on a map, pictures say more than words (Democrats can't read possibly?)

Green Arrow wrote:Rep. Cohen (D-TN) pulls a Godwin.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028960-503544.html

Does this constitute the same offense as what Sarah Palin said?

Steve and Tom, can you do me the courtesy of allowing me to provide my own answers, rather than thinking you know what I will say yourself? Probably not, but I have to at least ask.

Is it the 'same' offence? Pretty much, although he clearly has more appreciation for the history of Nazi propaganda tactics than Palin did of historic anti-semitism. So perhaps he should know better, but that's balanced out by the way he explains it. Net effect, it's just about as bad. He could have just mentioned that there was a lot of false propaganda and hyperbole around, without giving the Goebbels comparison.

He's not the first to invoke comparisons with the Nazis in the healthcare debate, and I daresay he won't be the last. Every time someone does it, the debate sinks lower. Who cares if people who are sick can get treatment, or what the costs are, when we can slur the opposition?

GMTom wrote:Further, gun restrictions are one thing and we do have some states with tighter controls than others and every state has some restrictions of course. The problem I have is how the liberal lefties will often point to some minor idea but they always always always escalate into incredible restrictions to total banning. I happen to be all for tighter restrictions, I am more liberal than you might think on this issue, but I do not want total banning of hand guns nor do I want to make the restrictions so tight it ends up nearly banned just the same. I understand you are mentioning only simple steps, but I also know what comes next, it always does.

Ahh, so you are not arguing against what I've written, but what I haven't but you suspect I would, if only I thought the way you think I do?

Common theme, this.

I think the UK has a good balance. If we had a total ban on handguns, we would not win medals in shooting competitions in the Olympics or Commonwealth games.