Cousins shot

[WTSooner]

Yep. CNN and Fox News would make it seem like our streets are littered with psychopath beta virgins who murder people every day. Nah, they just exploiting death. As Knight once said, journalism is about one or two steps away from prostitution.

The worst thing about the media's coverage of that guy is that they are totally ignoring the people he killed with something other than a gun. The guy STABBED three people to death at his apartment. He didn't stab them with a gun. He also ran 1 or 2 people over in his car, though I'm not sure either of them actually died.

Point is, if a crazy person wants to harm others, he doesn't need a gun to do it. History is chalked full of murders and mass killings that didn't involve guns.

 

[WTSooner]

Which is irrelevant to me. There's a reason the UK, Australia, and Japan have murder and gun violence rates that are microscopic compared to ours.

My guess is that violence in general is lower in those countries, so it would make sense that gun violence is lower. Guessing that gun violence as a percentage of total violence, is pretty equal across the board.

 

[steverocks35]

My guess is that violence in general is lower in those countries, so it would make sense that gun violence is lower. Guessing that gun violence as a percentage of total violence, is pretty equal across the board.

That doesn't help your argument much if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

 

[MI Sooner]

That doesn't help your argument much if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

I think we should ban college football. Countries without college football have much lower murder rates than the US, which is #1 in college football fandom.

 

[steverocks35]

I think we should ban college football. Countries without college football have much lower murder rates than the US, which is #1 in college football fandom.

Yes, because people use college football to kill other people all the time, right?

 

[WTSooner]

That doesn't help your argument much if you think about it for more than 5 seconds.

I've debated with you enough on here recently to know you have a difficult time understanding things.

It makes perfect sense.

Those countries still allow people to drive cars, yet I'm guessing they have less road rage incidents. Those countries allow people to own knives, yet they have less stabbing incidents. It has nothing to do with what is legal vs what is not legal. It has to do with culture overall. Not gun laws.

 

[DenverSooner]

You are the lawyer. Not me. Neither one of us is entrusted to interpret the constitution. That is the Supreme Courts job. It has certainly been ruled legal to infringe on the peoples right to certain kinds of arms. No automatic weapons. Nothing 50 caliber or above. No grenades or grenade or rocket launchers. No flame throwers. Restrictions on felons, ect. and background checks. Restrictions on guns in federal building and other locations.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the people have a right to a hand gun in their home. Period. Open carry, concealed carry, and all the other NRA sponsored crap is a privilege granted by society.

Before some one gives me the lecture, understand, I'm a gun owner. I have a carry permit. I usually have one close by. Also understand this. The proliferation of guns in this country is a cancer on our society. I believe that every eligible person should have access to a gun. Not to protect themselves from the criminal element. But, more so, from the gun nuts that are currently controlling the gun debate.

Of course that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Actually I would interpret Heller a bit broader than you but I agree that the Supreme Court has not addressed concealed carry, open carry, etc. I would disagree that it is a privilege. It is a Constitutional right. Nothing in the Constitution discusses birth control or abortion but it does discuss a right to keep and bear Arms.

I have never owned a gun.

 

[steverocks35]

I've debated with you enough on here recently to know you have a difficult time understanding things.

It makes perfect sense.

Those countries still allow people to drive cars, yet I'm guessing they have less road rage incidents. Those countries allow people to own knives, yet they have less stabbing incidents. It has nothing to do with what is legal vs what is not legal. It has to do with culture overall. Not gun laws.

Your argument seems to be "We're WAY more violent than those other countries so OF COURSE our gun crimes are way higher". That doesn't actually help your argument much.

/I haven't posted here much at all since the season ended so I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to recent debates, but whatevs.

 

[DenverSooner]

Yes, because people use college football to kill other people all the time, right?

Then advocate for a Constitutional convention and amend the Constitution. Don't advocate for ignoring the plain meaning of the most important legal document in the history of this Country and arguably the world.

After we judicially or legislatively ignore the Second Amendment are you ready to ignore the First or due process or equal protection or something you do value in the Constitution? There is a process in place and it needs to be followed or we need to live with an armed society.

 

[DenverSooner]

Yes, because people use college football to kill other people all the time, right?

Cars, knives, bats, poison, etc. etc. kill people. Do you want to ban all of those too. It is irrational to blame the gun. People have been killing each other long before the invention of the gun. There is a reason one of the Ten Commandments is thou shall not murder.

 

[topdaug]

Point is, if a crazy person wants to harm others, he doesn't need a gun to do it. History is chalked full of murders and mass killings that didn't involve guns.

I haven't said anything on here in quite some time, but this argument really baffles me...so, your point is that a crazy person can use any weapon to kill someone if he wants to, so let's make guns readily available?? That makes no sense...so, because the crazy person has access to other weapons, let's give him access to guns as well?? Again, no sense...

You're right, a crazy person doesn't need a gun to harm others, he'll use some other weapon, but that doesn't mean we need to allow him/her access to guns...in fact, I'd personally rather see the crazy person with a knife or something else, because he/she doesn't have the access to such quick destruction as he/she would with a gun...

Anyway, rant over...carry on...and getting back on topic, glad Isaiah should be OK...that's definitely a scary event and happy he'll be able to make it through it...

 

[steverocks35]

Then advocate for a Constitutional convention and amend the Constitution. Don't advocate for ignoring the plain meaning of the most important legal document in the history of this Country and arguably the world.

After we judicially or legislatively ignore the Second Amendment are you ready to ignore the First or due process or equal protection or something you do value in the Constitution? There is a process in place and it needs to be followed or we need to live with an armed society.

It's funny that you think it has a "plain meaning" when legal minds have been debating it for decades. In fact, the interpretation of the 2nd amendment as "carte blanche" for gun ownership has only been around since about 1977 when the NRA first started going nuts.

Now, personally, I'm not against gun ownership, but I do think that the gun craze in this country is completely out of control. There are over 200 million guns in America. I don't have the answers, but throwing your hands in the air and saying, "well, we can't do a thing, that 250 year old document says so" is definitely not the answer.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

 

[topdaug]

Cars, knives, bats, poison, etc. etc. kill people. Do you want to ban all of those too. It is irrational to blame the gun. People have been killing each other long before the invention of the gun. There is a reason one of the Ten Commandments is thou shall not murder.

Again, those items have killed people in the past, but a gun is a means to a quicker body count than any of what you just listed...it takes much less time to kill ten people with a gun than it would to kill ten people with a bat or a knife...and if the murder rates of those being hit by cars were anywhere near the murder rates of those killed by gun violence, then you'd have an argument, but the fact of the matter is that guns have become the weapon of choice...the argument of the gun control debate has always been to blame the person, but blame lies on the weapons as well, because they've made killing much more easily accessible...

And the Second Amendment, written in a time when we were fearful of a monarchy and king's rule over the lands, pertains to the ability of each state to maintain a militia that may be armed...

 

[steverocks35]

I haven't said anything on here in quite some time, but this argument really baffles me...so, your point is that a crazy person can use any weapon to kill someone if he wants to, so let's make guns readily available?? That makes no sense...so, because the crazy person has access to other weapons, let's give him access to guns as well?? Again, no sense...

You're right, a crazy person doesn't need a gun to harm others, he'll use some other weapon, but that doesn't mean we need to allow him/her access to guns...in fact, I'd personally rather see the crazy person with a knife or something else, because he/she doesn't have the access to such quick destruction as he/she would with a gun...

Anyway, rant over...carry on...and getting back on topic, glad Isaiah should be OK...that's definitely a scary event and happy he'll be able to make it through it...

Yep, it's a good thing Adam Lanza didn't have a lead pipe instead of an AR-15! That would've been bad!

 

[furge]

It sucks that Isaiah got shot, and I wish him a speedy recovery.

It also sucks that this thread has flown WAY off-topic. If it were three pages deep with thoughts and prayers, we'd look good as fans.

If it were ONLY three pages deep as an offshoot of Huffington Post or National Review, etc., it would reflect well on the temper of civil discourse.

Aaaaaand of course it's the internet, so neither is the case. Welp, carry on.

Best wishes to Mr. Cousins, his family, his coaches and teammates.

 

[MNsooner]

This is still a basketball board right? Did I stumble into Con Law 101?

 

[NickZepp]

Again, those items have killed people in the past, but a gun is a means to a quicker body count than any of what you just listed...it takes much less time to kill ten people with a gun than it would to kill ten people with a bat or a knife...and if the murder rates of those being hit by cars were anywhere near the murder rates of those killed by gun violence, then you'd have an argument, but the fact of the matter is that guns have become the weapon of choice...the argument of the gun control debate has always been to blame the person, but blame lies on the weapons as well, because they've made killing much more easily accessible...

And the Second Amendment, written in a time when we were fearful of a monarchy and king's rule over the lands, pertains to the ability of each state to maintain a militia that may be armed...

Mass shootings in the US peaked about early 20th century. We've had relatively few since then. We have media sensationalism both ways about violence culture, but overall we aren't that violent. We have a high incarceration rate but that's because we put people in jail for many nonviolent crimes and have created a more violent culture in some ways with drug laws that promotes violence in some poorer, more culturally ethnic areas. But as a society in America we have far less violence now and it's declining every year than we have in the past for a variety of reasons.

Cousins got shot in stray bullet from a gang shooting. Nobody in a gang has a gun in a legal matter. It doesn't matter what law you have against guns it won't take a gun away from a gang member. What will hurt gang violence is if we take any reason away from them having gang territory. In other words take away the black market drug culture. We are already seeing signs of loosening drug laws in a couple states like California and Colorado effect cartels in Mexico.

 

[steverocks35]

Mass shootings in the US peaked about early 20th century. We've had relatively few since then. We have media sensationalism both ways about violence culture, but overall we aren't that violent. We have a high incarceration rate but that's because we put people in jail for many nonviolent crimes and have created a more violent culture in some ways with drug laws that promotes violence in some poorer, more culturally ethnic areas. But as a society in America we have far less violence now and it's declining every year than we have in the past for a variety of reasons.

Cousins got shot in stray bullet from a gang shooting. Nobody in a gang has a gun in a legal matter. It doesn't matter what law you have against guns it won't take a gun away from a gang member. What will hurt gang violence is if we take any reason away from them having gang territory. In other words take away the black market drug culture. We are already seeing signs of loosening drug laws in a couple states like California and Colorado effect cartels in Mexico.

Actually we had more mass shootings in the 1990s than any other decade, and it wasn't close.
Also, there have been more mass shootings in this decade already than the entire 1970s.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990

 

[AdaSooner]

As a sportsman and lifelong gun owner with a license to carry a weapon legally, I have a strong opinion about the second amendment. However, this is not a forum to discuss gun rights, so please do not turn this thread into a discussion that will not accomplish a thing except get people on both sides of the issue riled up.

 

[steverocks35]

You're absolutely right, my mistake. Mea culpa.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk