Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules

Page 5 of 21 [ 328 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 21 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

29 Jun 2015, 1:22 pm

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

Eh, depends entirely on your interests.

Both sides wish to, and do legislate against harmless lifestyles.

For me, I'd rather freedom to own scary looking firearms (not just ones "they" think I'm safe with) than the ability to marry a dude. Hence, I think the lefties insist I live by their rules more so (which have more bearing in emotions than facts, kinda like that religion thingy of the righties).

guns aren't harmless.

Then mine must be defective. They haven't even bumped an individual.

How many other U.S. firearms haven't harmed anyone?

anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Well, then, let's take your opinion seriously. If there are about 300 million U.S. firearms in private ownership, where are the corresponding statistics to show a commensurate number of deaths?

your question would be valid if it was a case of 1:1 gun ownership:person. it's not.

Then, answer it from the consideration of 100 million U.S. firearm owners.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf page 22 onwards (least biased source i could find)
as far as I can tell this is not x/100,00 people.

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms (X72-X74) 21,175
Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) 505
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms (*U01.4,X93-X95) 11,208
Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent (Y22-Y24) 281

These are statistics for one year (2013), but, they don't show a trend. For example, we know that "[t]here were 11,101 firearm homicides in 2011, down by 39% from a high of 18,253 in 1993" and that "[n]onfatal firearm-related violent victimizations against persons age 12 or older declined 70%, from 1.5 million in 1993 to 456,500 in 2004" ( http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf ). So, while firearm sales increased dramatically since 1993 in the United States, the number of deaths and other victimizations declined even more dramatically. Correlation? Most statisticians say that it is. So, "more guns, less crime" appears to be true.

there is a correlation between firearms ownership, weak gun laws and gun deaths(for the states anyway) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-i ... -gun-laws/

Feyokien
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,303
Location: The Northern Waste

29 Jun 2015, 1:22 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Then what's next knives, swords, followed by any blunt weapons?

*person in their front yard picking up sticks* "HE'S GOT A CLUB, GO LETHAL!"

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

29 Jun 2015, 1:26 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Fugu wrote:

And how many of these deaths where caused by legally acquired fire-arms? See I do not doubt there are many gun deaths every year, but I am not convinced banning them would get rid of that problem....what about people willing to illegally acquire guns, in the case of a gun wound someone might be more reluctant to seek medical treatment if they are worried of being charged for owning a gun like if there is an accident banning guns does not address these, and what kind of fair compensation would their be...some people have guns that have been passed down for generations, which are still functional and have sentimental value so it also seems a little ridiculous to force people to surrender all their guns...regardless in a failed attempt to make everyone safe, when it wouldn't even have that effect.

Then what's next knives, swords, followed by any blunt weapons?

it's more a problem of attitude really, America isn't the wild west any more.

you can't throw a knife or rock 50 feet and have a good chance of hitting something.

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

29 Jun 2015, 1:33 pm

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Dillogic wrote:

guns aren't harmless.

Then mine must be defective. They haven't even bumped an individual.

How many other U.S. firearms haven't harmed anyone?

anecdotal evidence isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Well, then, let's take your opinion seriously. If there are about 300 million U.S. firearms in private ownership, where are the corresponding statistics to show a commensurate number of deaths?

your question would be valid if it was a case of 1:1 gun ownership:person. it's not.

Then, answer it from the consideration of 100 million U.S. firearm owners.

there is a correlation between firearms ownership, weak gun laws and gun deaths(for the states anyway) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-i ... -gun-laws/

Utah is one of the most privately armed states with the laws to protect the practice. Apart from a few gang-related shootings in the last few years, our firearm-related deaths are almost non-existent. I notice that Utah's example wasn't included the Harvard republication of a New York Times report about a "liberal Center for American Progress" research survey. In fact, Utah didn't even rank in the survey's list of states which "suffer the highest levels of gun violence" despite the rate of firearm ownership here. So, doesn't that suggest that the statistics were cherry-picked?

_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,964
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Jun 2015, 1:37 pm

Fugu wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Fugu wrote:

it's more a problem of attitude really, America isn't the wild west any more.

you can't throw a knife or rock 50 feet and have a good chance of hitting something.

I didn't suggest it was, nonetheless I don't think it makes sense to ban guns/weapons across the board. Sure you can't throw a knife or rock that far, they aren't exactly very far range weapons....der. Still quite lethal when one is in the proper range...but not so sure it can be said of all guns you would have a good chance of hitting something accurately at 50 ft I could be wrong there though.

_________________
We won't go back.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

29 Jun 2015, 2:17 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Fugu wrote:

it's more a problem of attitude really, America isn't the wild west any more.

you can't throw a knife or rock 50 feet and have a good chance of hitting something.

fair enough, though with a knife you have to be in melee range, which makes it easier for you to be hurt by your own weapon. guns don't really suffer this downside.

AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 72,618
Location: Portland, Oregon

29 Jun 2015, 2:34 pm

That's because conservatives now are more paranoid than ever.

_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!

androbot01
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

29 Jun 2015, 2:35 pm

I find it an odd irony that conservatives want to contain government power while at the same time want to use the power of government to control people's personal lives.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

29 Jun 2015, 2:47 pm

pcuser wrote:

Why do conservatives insist on telling the rest of us how we must live our lives? Of course their rules come from their religious beliefs as if the rest of us cannot have morals or ethics...

The question should be "Why do both the left and the right insist on telling us how we must live our lives?"

It hardly applies to just one group.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,645
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

29 Jun 2015, 2:48 pm

androbot01 wrote:

I find it an odd irony that conservatives want to contain government power while at the same time want to use the power of government to control people's personal lives.

Especially if it at all involves anything icky and sinful as sex. And that goes double for gay sex. Then again, they think if they didn't people would be onto them regarding their double lives as closet cases.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

29 Jun 2015, 2:48 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

but last I checked 'liberals' isn't even an organized political party and for the most part they don't all have the same opinions on all the issues.

Similarly, Conservatives is not an organized political party.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

29 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm

The_Walrus wrote:

"Liberals" literally just unconstitutionally legally forced their beliefs on same-sex marriages on the rest of America.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of same-sex marriage - but let's not pretend it's only conservatives who do this.

Genuine liberals could argue that they advocate freedom, and forcing freedom upon people isn't force at all. Liberals aren't going to stop heterosexual people living as they want, they're just going to enable homosexuals to have the same legal recognition that heterosexuals have enjoyed since governments started recognising marriages. That's a good thing, but the way it was achieved isn't how America is supposed to work.

American conservatives only seem particularly concerned about rights in two of the situations which distinguish them from American leftists. Those are guns and taxes.

The impression I get from the internet is that American conservatives are a dying breed and increasingly those who identify as such actually have pretty liberal views on many issues, including crime. That doesn't seem to be reflected in their political representatives - I've not seen a presidential candidate with libertarian views on drugs, equality, and immigration. Hopefully soon such a candidate will emerge and be electable.

(Some of these issues are by no means exclusive to America, I just added that qualifier because it seemed the OP was exclusively talking about American politics)

We should distinguish between Classical Liberalism and the liberalism of today which would better be termed "Progressive".

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

29 Jun 2015, 2:53 pm

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

there is a correlation between firearms ownership, weak gun laws and gun deaths(for the states anyway) http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-i ... -gun-laws/

if by 'cherrypicked' you mean they listed the top 10, and Utah is only slightly better than those 10.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

29 Jun 2015, 2:54 pm

blauSamstag wrote:

The_Walrus wrote:

in what regard was the ruling unconstitutional?

What part of the Constitution gives the government power to decide anything about marriage?

The only two places I can think of are:

1) The Tenth Amendment would reserve that power for the states.
2) If, as I believe, marriage is a religious institution, the First Amendment would leave it to religion.

I can't find any reason for the federal government to be involved in the issue at all.

(To make it clear: I'm not opposed to same sex marriage -- I just think it ought to be up to each church to decide for themselves.)

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

29 Jun 2015, 2:56 pm

eric76 wrote:

pcuser wrote:

Why do conservatives insist on telling the rest of us how we must live our lives? Of course their rules come from their religious beliefs as if the rest of us cannot have morals or ethics...

The question should be "Why do both the left and the right insist on telling us how we must live our lives?"

It hardly applies to just one group.

The right is operating on the platform of small government while telling people what they shouldn't be able to do with their bodies at the same time, which is not congruent with a small gov platform.

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

29 Jun 2015, 2:56 pm

pcuser wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

I neither need nor want abortion coverage in Obamacare, but I am forced to accept it. Isn't that insisting that I live by the rules (and morals) created by Democrats (remember, not one congressional Republican voted for Obamacare)?

I don't need female reproductive health care, but I pay for it for those who do. That's how insurance is supposed to work. I don't begrudge paying for it as some of what you pay for goes to my prostate health, for instance. Just because you don't like something which is a legal right doesn't mean you can pick and choose where your money goes. The only thing you or I should care about is that most of that money goes for health care. Also, liberals tend to want laws allowing freedom, whereas conservatives tend to want to restrict rights to others. They also want to force others to live by their rules. Liberals don't care whether you are in a straight or gay marriage. They only insist that their rights are protected as your straight marriages carry those rights and benefits. You need to think about how these issues play out in the real world, not a book of fairy tales...

By that logic, we should group airplanes and cars into the same insurance policies since "that's how insurance is supposed to work".

Page 5 of 21 [ 328 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 21 Next

Jump to:

Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules Post Reply New Topic

Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules