DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: R.R. on October 19, 2011, 03:08:02 AM
-
I'm ready to officially support Romney. For once, debates will have an impact on my vote. I really have liked the way Romney has handled himself during these debates, especially facing tough questions. He's very smooth and can explain himself well. I think he will compare very well against Obama during their debates. Romney also seems like the best candidate to get the economy on its feet again and fix unemployment, housing, the deficit and repeal ObamaCare. I think he will also put Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania and maybe New Jersey into play. I also think there is a great possiblity that Chris Christie will accept to run as his Veep.
-
Too early for me. I think Romney is this cycles McCain, more a RINO than a small government conservative. Hate to see all the progress the tea party made just thrown away because Romney was the dems choice to run against.
You think the OWS are blipping on the radar now, wait until the flowers bloom in spring. And who has the closest connection with Wall Street? Romney.
-
I also think there is a great possiblity that Chris Christie will accept to run as his Veep.
==================================================================
I think there is very close to ZERO possibility of this. If Christie will not abandon the job the people of NJ elected him to do to run for president, why on Earth would he do the same to run for VP?
Odds that this will happen, very, very, very low.
-
If Christie will not abandon the job the people of NJ elected him to do to run for president, why on Earth would he do the same to run for VP?
He did not rule it out when asked about it recently.
-
I'm ready to officially support Romney. For once, debates will have an impact on my vote. I really have liked the way Romney has handled himself during these debates, especially facing tough questions. He's very smooth and can explain himself well. I think he will compare very well against Obama during their debates. Romney also seems like the best candidate to get the economy on its feet again and fix unemployment, housing, the deficit and repeal ObamaCare. I think he will also put Massachusetts, Michigan, Pennsylvania and maybe New Jersey into play. I also think there is a great possiblity that Chris Christie will accept to run as his Veep.
I don't think Romney has closed the sale yet. The next month will help me make my final decision. The good news is any one of them will beat Obama.
-
I think there is very close to ZERO possibility of this.
You should stop harping on Cain about bad math when clearly (you suck at math) and you should stick with teaching inner city minorities to speak Spanish, which will only be helpful for them while in prison.
So there is 0 possibility Christy won't be VP? That is impossible you big dummy because he could do it!
-
If Christie has declared that there is no way he will resign as governor of NJ to run for presoident, why would he do the same to run for vice president.
Not gonna happen.
The dummy, as ever, is you.
-
If Christie has declared that there is no way he will resign as governor of NJ to run for presoident, why would he do the same to run for vice president.
Not gonna happen.
The dummy, as ever, is you.
your math doesn't add up
-
If Christie has declared that there is no way he will resign as governor of NJ to run for presoident, why would he do the same to run for vice president.
He doesn't have to resign to run for Veep. He wouldn't have to raise money or build an organization. It would only be a 2 month campaign for him.
And when asked recently about it, he didn't refuse it, like he has for running for president in the past.
-
And who has the closest connection with Wall Street? Romney.
Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all of the GOP candidates combined.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-has-more-cash-from-financial-sector-than-gop-hopefuls-combined-data-show/2011/10/18/gIQAX4rAyL_story.html)
Obama's new chief of staff is Bill Daley who has strong Wall Street connections, including a stint with JP Morgan Chase.
Michael Froman, Obama deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, worked for Citigroup and received more than $7.4 million from the bank from January of 2008 until he entered the Obama administration this year. This included a $2.25 million year-end bonus handed him this past January, within weeks of his joining the Obama administration. Citigroup has thus far been the beneficiary of $45 billion in cash and over $300 billion in government guarantees of its bad debts.
Obama's deputy national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, was paid $3.9 million by a Washington law firm whose major clients include Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and the private equity firm Apollo Management.
Louis Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, made $227,155 last year from IndyMac Bancorp, the California bank that heavily promoted subprime mortgages. It collapsed last summer and was placed under federal receivership.
Neal Wolin, Obama's selection for deputy counsel to the president for economic policy, is a top executive at the insurance giant Hartford Financial Services, where his salary was $4.5 million.
Obama appointed Lawrence Summers, director of the National Economic Council and was Obama's top economic adviser. Summers pocketed $5 million as a managing director of D.E. Shaw, one of the biggest hedge funds in the world, and another $2.7 million for speeches delivered to Wall Street firms that have received government bailout money. This includes $45,000 from Citigroup and $67,500 each from JPMorgan Chase and the now-liquidated Lehman Brothers. For a speech to Goldman Sachs executives, Summers walked away with $135,000.
Obama's appointee to head the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mary Schapiro, led the finance industry's own regulatory body, which, unsurprisingly, did nothing to rein in Wall Street's speculative orgy. Obama's appointee to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Gary Gensler, drafted the legislation in 2000 that exempted derivatives, including credit-default swaps, from regulation.
Obama appointed Gene Sperling"another figure with close ties to Wall Street" to head the White House's National Economic Council. As NEC chair in the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s, Sperling pushed for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and other financial regulations, fueling the speculative frenzy that led to the Wall Street crash of 2008. Sperling also worked as a consultant for Goldman Sachs and several hedge funds.
-
If Christie has declared that there is no way he will resign as governor of NJ to run for presoident, why would he do the same to run for vice president.
He doesn't have to resign to run for Veep. He wouldn't have to raise money or build an organization. It would only be a 2 month campaign for him.
And when asked recently about it, he didn't refuse it, like he has for running for president in the past.
Yes my point exactly in a previous post. Plus Christy will have kept his word and finished his 4 year term as governor.
Unlike the one-term, first term, Obama who pretty much spent 6 years as a Jr Senator doing nothing but run for POTUS; and on the taxpayers dime. And of course we now know that Obama got elected only because of his negroness and not for his qualifications.
-
Newt is going nowhere. He is an obnoxious smartass and a philandering hasbeen. Women in particular think of his as a fat sleaze.
Romney has not assured himself the nomination, but this would not happen until after some real elections. Straw polls don't really count.
I agree that Perry is out. The same for Santorum and Bachmann. Cain will meet his doom in the NH primary, where sales taxes are an anathema. Paul has no chance, but there is no convincing the small band of fanatics that worship him. This is his last try.
Romney will win the nomination by default, more than likely.
-
Newt is going nowhere. He is an obnoxious smartass and a philandering hasbeen. Women in particular think of his as a fat sleaze.
Romney has not assured himself the nomination, but this would not happen until after some real elections. Straw polls don't really count.
I agree that Perry is out. The same for Santorum and Bachmann. Cain will meet his doom in the NH primary, where sales taxes are an anathema. Paul has no chance, but there is no convincing the small band of fanatics that worship him. This is his last try.
Romney will win the nomination by default, more than likely.
yeah but you keep dodging the fact you don't know math because what you said about Christy was wrong but you aren't man enough to admit you were wrong. And if you are wrong about Christy and wrong about Obama why should anybody believe a word you say? Move to France you big dummy.
-
This reply by XO was supposed to be responding to your "Rasmussen - Cain 28%, Romney 21% & Paul 10%" thread. He's getting senile. He put it in the wrong thread.
-
This reply by XO was supposed to be responding to your "Rasmussen - Cain 28%, Romney 21% & Paul 10%" thread. He's getting senile. He put it in the wrong thread.
According to my math the chances of you being correct are the same percentage as the possibility Christy becomes the VP candidate.
-
Candidate Comparison: Top Contributors
2012 Cycle
Barack Obama
Microsoft Corp $170,323
Comcast Corp $116,155
Harvard University $94,225
Google Inc $90,166
University of California $83,679
Mitt Romney
Goldman Sachs $354,700
Credit Suisse Group $195,250
Morgan Stanley $185,800
HIG Capital $176,500
Barclays $155,250
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012 (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012)
-
President Barack Obama has received more money from
Wall Street than any other politician over the past 20 years.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/10/obama-attacks-banks-while-raking-in-wall-street-dough/)
-
Why Democratic Strategists Have Begun to Root for Mitt Romney
It wasn't long ago that conventional wisdom among Democratic strategists handicapped Mitt Romney as President Obama's toughest potential Republican challenger. But lately there has been a big shift.
In fact, it is becoming clearer and clearer that Mitt Romney is the very embodiment of the political narrative that will likely define the 2012 Presidential race. Unless there is a miracle, the outcome of next year's election will likely be determined by whom the public blames for the lousy economy.
Of course the Republicans will argue that the culprit is the "overreaching," "innovation-stifling" big government and its leader, President Obama. Their prescription to solve the country's economic woes: eliminate every regulation in sight, cut taxes for the wealthy and free Wall Street bankers that lead us into the promised land.
Democrats, on the other hand, will pin the blame exactly where it belongs -- on the reckless speculation of the big Wall Street banks, their Republican enablers -- and the stagnant middle class incomes that have resulted from the top one percent of Americans siphoning off virtually all of the country's economic growth since 1980. They will fault the "do-nothing Republican Congress" for their insistence on defending the status quo, and their refusal to create jobs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-democratic-strategist_b_1019360.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/why-democratic-strategist_b_1019360.html)
-
Does the top few percent siphon off the production of the nation , or do the lead and cause a lot of the Nations production?
-
Although I endorsed Mitt I am still open to Cain or Newt. I would like to see Cain explain his 9 9 9 plan a little better in debates rather than just saying the criticism is just apples and oranges. And Newt I would like to see gain in the polls and start beating Obama in consecutive polling.
-
I don't pay any attention to endorsements, other than in the case of judges about whom I have no other information.
The Newtster is a rather reprehensible cad and even those who acknowledge his intelligence dislike him because he is such a smartass. Remember that the GOP threw him out as House Speaker, and then drove him out of the House, in the same fashion as they did Steele and Mel Martinez. I don't see voters warming up to him or Mrs Gingrich III and her appetite for Tiffany's. Do we really need a "Sugar Daddy in Chief"?
Cain is busily trying to withdraw his large foot from his equally large mouth, now that we know that 999 was looted from a videogame, and that it would punish the poor and middle class of all.
-
I don't pay any attention to endorsements, other than in the case of judges about whom I have no other information.
The Newtster is a rather reprehensible cad and even those who acknowledge his intelligence dislike him because he is such a smartass. Remember that the GOP threw him out as House Speaker, and then drove him out of the House, in the same fashion as they did Steele and Mel Martinez. I don't see voters warming up to him or Mrs Gingrich III and her appetite for Tiffany's. Do we really need a "Sugar Daddy in Chief"?
Cain is busily trying to withdraw his large foot from his equally large mouth, now that we know that 999 was looted from a videogame, and that it would punish the poor and middle class of all.
Since you intensely dislike all of Obama replacements you will be very unhappy for several years after they remove Obama. Good!
-
There are no Obama replacements now, and probably will be none until 2016.
-
now that we know that 999 was looted from a videogame, ................
A simple combination occuring in two places isn't proof of anything.
When I was in the Navy there was a guy we all knew as XO , every ship had one, but I don't think you stole it from the Navy's executive officer corps.
-
I'm in the process of reconsidering my endorsement of Romney. It was premature. I stayed up very late last night watching various speeches and interviews of Herman Cain. I like what I see.
-
I'm in the process of reconsidering my endorsement of Romney. It was premature. I stayed up very late last night watching various speeches and interviews of Herman Cain. I like what I see.
Welcome to the fold brother. As a last resort Romney will do.
-
Romney/Christie?
Christie doesn't rule it out like he ruled out running for president.
"The fact is if Governor Romney comes to me and wants to talk to me about that, we'll have a full conversation about that and then (my wife) Mary Pat and I will make that decision about what we want to do with our future."
-
"The fact is if Governor Romney comes to me and wants to talk to me about that, we'll have a full conversation about that and then (my wife) Mary Pat and I will make that decision about what we want to do with our future." (Gov Chris Christie)
Oh yeah the ticket is going to be Romney/Christie or Romney/Rubio.
Either will be a strong ticket that will demolish Obama/Biden.
Obama/Clinton which the ticket will probably be...will be harder to beat.
-
Romney already has the northeast. Why would he pick a running mate from New Jersey?
BSB
-
Because he has the conservative credentials and a following that expands the country, far more than Romney. Folks out here are still hoping that Christie will decide to relocate to CA, though the damage done to this state, by the left, is probably far too advanced for any fix
But in the end, its still all about the Presidential nominee. I'm leaning more & more Romney, though Newt would be a far superior choice than our current CnC, as well
-
Christie and Rubio have BOTH declared that they are not going to be VP candidates.
Newt is totally incapable of leading anything, including his own party, and he has proved that already. He is not so much an idea-creating genus as he is a crackpot. And anyone who chose him for VP would be a total fool.
-
Who's considering Newt for VP?? Who, here in the saloon, has even suggested that??
-
Christie and Rubio have BOTH declared that they are not going to be VP candidates.
As you can see from the quote I provided from Christie he has not ruled himself out as a vp candidate.
-
Christie and Rubio have BOTH declared that they are not going to be VP candidates.
And Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in 1990 promised
to "serve all four years if re-elected" Arkansas Governor
-
Romney already has the northeast. Why would he pick a running mate from New Jersey?
Obama from Illinois already had the northeast, why pick a running mate from Delaware?
-
Picking a running mate from NJ would make sense because NJ has a large population. But I don't think Christie would take the job. I say this, because Christie said he would not. Rubio also said that he would not run for VP as well.
Perry would be ideal, because of being from Texas, but would be a bad choice in light of the fact that Perry is a demonstrable ignorant goober.
Biden was not chosen for regional reasons, that is pretty clear. He was chosen for his long experience in Congress, I think. Also, perhaps Obama and Biden hit it off well.
-
Would you (or anyone else) repost the quote where Christie states, under no uncertain terms, that he absoslutely would not accept a VP position
I thank you, in advance
-
You may continue to believe.
Christie said he would not consider leaving the job NJ voters elected him to do.
If he decides to run, then he is not the truthful person you think he is.
-
Quote please. Your say so simply doesn't have the prerequisate credibility. Where did he state, in no uncertain terms, no VP position for him, no way, no how
-
Biden was not chosen for regional reasons, that is pretty clear.
Exactly my point...that there are other reasons besides "regional reasons" in VP choices.
-
I don't think Christie would take the job. I say this, because Christie said he would not. Rubio also said that he would not run for VP as well.
Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton in 1990 promised
to "serve all four years if re-elected" Arkansas Governor
-
Because he has the conservative credentials and a following that expands the country, far more than Romney.
Between Romney and Christy, which is the strong Second Admendment supporter?
Limited appeal in the south and midwest.
-
To be honest Plane, I've heard neither's rhetoric on their 2nd amendment positions
-
To be honest Plane, I've heard neither's rhetoric on their 2nd amendment positions
Hehehehe
I bet you haven't!
-
Have you? Please share
-
Limited appeal in the south and midwest.
Baloney.
Once the South and Midwest gets to know these guys better
they will have much "appeal" over Barack Hussein Obama.
These guys would carry the South and Midwest over Obozo.
-
The real Romney trouble is that he is willing to tell me what I want to hear.
Everyone elese too I bet.
2008: "Lifelong" devotion to hunting meant "small varmints"
Romney's efforts to get right with the right landed him in trouble. Running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate in 1994, he declared, "I don't line up with the NRA" on gun control. By 2008, Romney had reversed himself on his [and other issues], which quickly gave rise to charges of hypocrisy and opportunism. A YouTube video began making the rounds that captured him firmly stating his liberalish social views, comically juxtaposing them with his newly adopted arch-conservative stances. From then on, th flip-flopper label was firmly affixed to Mitt's forehead.
Oh, and also the one about this "lifelong" devotion to hunting, which turned out to mean he'd done it twice. "I'm not a big-game hunter," Romney said, then explained that his preferred prey were rodents, rabbits, and such--"small varmints, if you will."
He couldn't fathom why the caricature of him was sticking. When Romney's staff showed him the devastating YouTube video, his first reaction was ,"Boy, look how young I was back then."
Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p.293-295 , Jan 11, 2010
GovWatch: 1994: did not “line up with the NRA”
Top Romney Flip Flops: #3. Gun Control:
Campaigning for the Senate in 1994, Romney said he favored strong gun laws and did not “line up with the NRA.” He signed up for “lifetime membership” of the NRA in August 2006 while pondering a presidential run, praising the group for “doing good things” and “supporting the right to bear arms.”
Source: GovWatch on 2008 campaign: “Top Ten Flip-Flops” , Feb 5, 2008
Support the 2nd Amendment AND the assault weapon ............http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm (http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htm)
http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Gun-Control.php (http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Gun-Control.php)
http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htmLegislations (http://www.issues2000.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Gun_Control.htmLegislations)
After throwing his support behind several gun control laws at the early stage of his political career, most notably, the Brady Act, Romney has reevaluated his position is now opposed to any further gun control legislations
"I believe we need to focus on enforcing our current laws rather than creating new laws that burden lawful gun owners. I believe in safe and responsible gun ownership and that anyone who exercises the right to keep and bear arms must do so lawfully and properly. I do not believe in a one-size-fits-all federal approach to gun ownership because people keep and use firearms for different reasons. Law-abiding citizens have a right to protect their homes and their families and as President, I will vigorously defend that right."
January 7, 2008, The Washington Post
-
So, if I understand the timeline, it was 1994 when Romney wasn't a big NRA fella. Anything since then that would refute all his pro-2nd amendment positions since?
-
Romney's position on the 2nd is opportunistic. My guess is his position evolved depending on his ambitions and of course SCOTUS rulings. At heart Romney is a boy scout.
-
Most of his positions are. Question is, here and now, what has been said since way back in 1994 that would refute all the pro 2nd amendment positions he's made since
Keep in mind, I'm not trying to defend Romney, just trying to get a clearer picture of any criticism aimed at his 2nd amendment position. Is the notion that if it becomes politically appropriate, he'd support a lesser vision of the 2nd?
-
What is your sense of the man? What do you think his position would be if the court started veering towards an anti-2nd position. Would he fight or acquiesce.
Romney reminds me a lot of Obama as their core beliefs as revealed are gelatinous.
-
No president is going to do anything about the gun nuts or their guns. The Court has decided everything there is to decide, and Congress will pass no more amendments. It is a total non-issue with either Romney or Obama.
-
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/10/03/news/chris-christie-might-not-run/ (http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/10/03/news/chris-christie-might-not-run/)
........But Chris Christie would have many problems if he did run. He could count on no support from Tea Party activists in New Jersey. One activist (and CNAV contributor) wrote over the weekend that Christie was not a genuine conservative, but a “Trojan horse.” Part of the problem: Christie’s support comes from the very “money-bag” men whom the Tea Party loathes and despises. Another part is Christie’s seeming ignorance of key issues that affect human liberty. Those issues include gun control, radical Islam, immigration, and “global warming.”
After confronting Chris Christie prior to his election regarding the Second Amendment, your humble reporter quickly recognized that he didn’t have any idea about firearms or the purpose of the Second Amendment. He didn’t know what an assault weapon is or how it functions. The Governor was and still is an enthusiastic supporter of Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban. So if you’re in favor of gun control, then Governor Christie is your man.
In the one test that Christie faced on gun control, he commuted, to time served, the seven-year sentence of Brian Aitken. Aitken ran afoul of New Jersey’s gun laws while transporting a pistol, that he had lawfully bought in Colorado, to his new Hoboken apartment. Christie could have granted Aitken a full pardon, but he did not.
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/New_Jersey/Chris_Christie/views/The_Second_Amendment/ (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Governor/New_Jersey/Chris_Christie/views/The_Second_Amendment/)
Governor Christie supports gun conrtrol laws. He has supported the assault weapons ban, opposes concealed carry laws, and supports the New Jersey one gun per month law.
While running for Assemblyman in 1995 Chris Christie put out a campaign flyer noting his support for the assault weapons ban. He called the support for repealing the ban dangerous, crazy, and radical.
In 2009 while seeking the Governor's office in 2009, US Attorney Christie put out a fact sheet noting that he supported New Jersey's gun laws and opposed concealed carry laws. He mocked the idea that he "stood with the NRA."
After assuming office, Governor Christie supported a recently passed New Jersey that only allowed each person to purchase one handgun per day.
(http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Images/items/chrischristie_1995gun2.jpg)
(http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Images/items/chrischristie_1995gun.jpg)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/us/politics/imagining-a-christie-campaign-for-president.html?pagewanted=all (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/us/politics/imagining-a-christie-campaign-for-president.html?pagewanted=all)
On gun control, Mr. Christie is out of step with Second Amendment supporters who view with suspicion any laws that restrict access to firearms.
When Jon S. Corzine, the former Democratic governor of New Jersey, accused him in 2009 of standing with the National Rifle Association, Mr. Christie’s campaign noted his support of the federal assault weapons ban. “Hardly the N.R.A. position,” his literature said.
The most problematic issue may be his stand on illegal immigration. ......
-
What is your sense of the man? What do you think his position would be if the court started veering towards an anti-2nd position. Would he fight or acquiesce.
If you recall an earlier poll you presented, on how we would rate the candidates on their core beliefs, I do believe I had Romney down at the bottom, so I'm not the one who's going to support a Romney candidacy, as the end all be all to supporting a much needed conservative wave of reform. No I don't "think" he'd go all anti 2nd amendment, since I don't see the courts going anti 2nd amendment. Quite the opposite in fact. So, if his winds move with the courts, I'm good with what's currently sitting in the Judicial seats of the Suprme Court. and if he can manage to plunk another 1 or 2 right leaning folks in Ginsburg's or Breyer's seats, then I'd say his potential for aquiescence is even further removed
-
After assuming office, Governor Christie supported a recently passed New Jersey that only allowed each person to purchase one handgun per day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can anyone expect to have a decent handgun collection when cruelly limited to only buying 365 handguns per year!
How unreasonable!
-
After assuming office, Governor Christie supported a recently passed New Jersey that only allowed each person to purchase one handgun per day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can anyone expect to have a decent handgun collection when cruelly limited to only buying 365 handguns per year!
How unreasonable!
If you found a rare gun you really wanted and there were six there with consecutive serial numbers....
Well you better find them outside of New Jersey.
Rare gun collectors are no more nuts than stamp collectors , so yes , quite nuts.
-
If you found a rare gun you really wanted and there were six there with consecutive serial numbers....
=============================================================================
What are the odds of that happening? About the odds of six '57 Chevy Belair convertibles with consecutive serial numbers, perhaps? The odds for this would be right up there with being hit by lightning twice or abducted by aliens.
I really think that anyone so obsessed really needs to get a life. Or perhaps they could have five close buddy gun collectors that would conspire to buy one gun each to be resold on different and legal days.
-
What are the odds that a law against buying 356 guns in a year have prevented any crime of any sort?
Has a law that rifles not have bayonet lugs , flashhiders , and a pistol grip ever prevented a violent act even once?
Lets make silly and ineffective laws, just to say that we are not idle.
-
Well summized, Plane
-
No president is going to do anything about the gun nuts or their guns.
You mean no President is going to do anything about anti-gun nuts or their idiotic notions of the 2nd amendment
-
That is precisely what I mean. There are already far to many guns in private hands to expect any federal law would or could take them away from their owners. Most gun owners are not criminals, but the few that are not wound and kill a lot of people.
-
Good thing we already have laws against that sort of thing
-
If we had fewer guns, many fewer would be wounded or killed.
The more guns there are, the more gun crimes there are. Making something illegal does not make it impossible.
-
Fewer guns won't stop the bad guys from breaking the laws already. They would decrease the amount of personal protection though. Leave it to Xo to support the bad guys
-
If more guns made a society safer, then the safest countries would be those with no gun restrictions at all, and the most dangerous would be those that have the most restrictions.
Such is not the case: in fact, the reverse is true.
However, I see gun laws, other than banning machine guns and bazookas and such, to be a waste of time, since there are already too many guns to ever expect that the police or anyone could possibly confiscate enough of them to make any difference, and many gun nuts and cops would get blown away in the process. So I do not think that any purpose is served by this. One of my my neighbors is a scrawny little guy that is a nice fellow when sober, who was always reaching for a pistol when any conflict arose and cannot talk for more than thirty minutes without talking about how guns have kept him safe. Two of his sons are currently in prison for gun crimes, one for armed robbery, another for a parole violation involving owning an illegal military rifle of some sort.
On July 4th and New Years he likes to fire his pistol into the air, so I stay indoors when he pulls it out. And the possibility of firing blanks has never occurred to him.
The 2nd Amendment is not a major issue except among gun nuts, in my opinion. And my opinions do not make anyone safer or more threatened in any way, since I have never supplied not confiscated a gun or voted on a law that would affect gun laws in any way.
-
Actually, the reverse of your reverse is true. In the U.S. Areas with looser (more LIBERAL) gun laws have lower %'s of violent crime, than areas that have the very strictest of gun laws/ownership
Nice try, though
-
If we had fewer guns, many fewer would be wounded or killed.
The more guns there are, the more gun crimes there are. Making something illegal does not make it impossible.
This strike me as terribly illogical, as if each gun could only be used badly once .
If guns are causing violence , then why is violence decreasing during the centurys that guns became common ?
-
There are many things that influence violent behavior. The average age of the population is important, the lower this is, the more violence there is, and countries that have constant wars have more violence than those that do not. Sweden and Switzerland are far less violent than the US. So is Spain.
Countries that have few guns among the population, like Japan, have far less violence than the US as well.
-
There are many things that influence violent behavior. The average age of the population is important, the lower this is, the more violence there is, and countries that have constant wars have more violence than those that do not. Sweden and Switzerland are far less violent than the US. So is Spain.
Countries that have few guns among the population, like Japan, have far less violence than the US as well.
I don't see any corelation or evidence of causation.
Violence is down sharply in our own country since thirty years ago , in the same space of time gun ownership better than tripled.
Some people think it intuitive that fewer guns would result in fewer violent crimes, as if it were the guns committing the crimes.
When the weapon of a crime is a rock or a stick do we examine the role the availability of rocks and sticks play in the crime?
-
Countries that have few guns among the population, like Japan, have far less violence than the US as well.
And notice how you glossed right over the FACT that areas with more permissive gun laws have lower violent crime than those areas with far more restrictive gun laws. Imagine that ;D