Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Gun Control Stalled in Senate

Though I am against laws that would further restrict the types of guns and magazines one can buy/own, I am actually a big supporter of strong, consistent and thorough background checks.  And even better yet, enforcing the current laws and prosecuting those that break the laws.

Seems pretty logical to me, though of course some seem to fear that someday a Fascist government arise and come to retrieve all those well documented guns from us law abiding citizens.  While of course the power hungry government and criminals will still have theirs... 

Yet it appears even the politicians in the Senate are having a hard time swallowing the law as written.  Thoughts? 

CNN Senate Rejects Background Checks
FOX News Senate Rejects Background Checks
G2A Guns 1
G2A Guns 2
G2A Guns 3

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

In my opinion, in rejecting the mildest possible form of gun control legislation, the US Senate aligned itself with the slaughterers of children, and provided the strongest possible evidence that we do indeed live in a culture of death.

---Hiram

Anonymous said...

If there is a culture of death, it is far more likely because of the deaths of 20 million pre-born babies than of 20 Connecticut school kids.

And there are more kids killed in Chicago EVERY MONTH, where we have strict gun laws, than occurred in Newtown. Emotional lawmaking is the irrational lawmaking and the worst kind of mischief.

J. Ewing

J. Ewing

John said...

20 million seems a bit high. Closer to ~1.2 million/yr. I was amazed it was that high... Must have more clinics than we have... somewhere in the US.
Abortion Statistics

However you are correct that it dwarfs the gun related deaths by far.
Gun Deaths

Anonymous said...

I'm talking about the cumulative total since Roe v. Wade; probably much higher.

J.

John said...

I think I saw a number closer to ~50 million since Roe v Wade. The question though is what is the value of each life?

~1.2 million unwanted non-viable embryos per year vs ~30,000 vibrant living people who have others that care for and miss them.

I am thinking most will believe the ~30,000 are more important. Especially when it is young and innocent elementary school children.

From my pragmatic perspective, just imagine if those ~1.2 million mothers were forced to deliver the unwanted and unloved children... I believe that would definitely have had a negative effect on our society's welfare costs and crime rates. It may not be ideal, however it sure is a practical solution.

Freakonomics: Who To Believe

Anonymous said...

YOUR point is that these 1.2 million BABIES were killed because they were "unwanted." That is a deep disrespect for human life, and the fact we claim that as a RIGHT says something terrible about our society as a whole. What would happen, do you suppose, if that option were NOT available, or at least seriously proscribed in law? Would there be more responsibility taken for casual sex, and more respect for life?

J.

John said...

Apparently not so much so... It appears that a lot of abortions
occured pre Roe V Wade, and that it resulted in the death of a lot of desperate women. NOW Before After Roe V Wade

And the reality is that Roe V Wade has resulted in lower crime rates. Which of course makes logical sense. If the truly unwanted children never exist, they can not be abused, neglected, recruited by gangs, own guns, etc.

Finally, being a Conservative who values using the correct words. (ie marriage = man/woman) Using the word baby to describe a 12 week old fetus seems very inaccurate of you.

Anonymous said...

Agreed. Sorry about the loaded language but it WAS deliberate on my part. The problem that the radical pro-abortion people have (actually what they have succeeded at) is redefining the term "baby." Not content with living by the actual Roe v. Wade decision saying that it is a "fetus" until viability and a "baby" after that, they keep insisting that an abortion is a right until the "15th month." You cannot tell me that there is a respect for human life built into that sort of thinking.

As for using abortion to reduce the crime rate, I suppose Hitler, Margaret Sanger and Khan Noonien Singh had pretty much the same idea.

J. Ewing

Anonymous said...

How and why this took such a weird turn from gun control to choice is a little baffling, but I'll answer your question, J.

J asks: "What would happen, do you suppose, if that option were NOT available, or at least seriously proscribed in law? Would there be more responsibility taken for casual sex, and more respect for life?"

Facts reply: "Laws that restrict abortion did not seem to lower the number of procedures. On the contrary, restrictive laws were associated with higher rates."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-7

And this is why the vast majority of pro-choice Americans like me want abortion to be safe, legal, and rare. The first two seem to ensure the other.

--Annie

Laurie said...

As long as you are going for accuracy while off on this tangent, most abortions take place within the first 8 weeks when the developing human is best described as an embryo.

Here is another tangent for you as we consider the magnitude of innocent people dying in different ways- Under nutrition contributes to 2.6 million deaths of children under five each year - one third of the global total

Maybe we Americans should do more about that (as a country and as individuals)

John said...

Annie's Economist Link

John said...

Based on J's view... It seems to me that people would stop having irresponsible sex if they can not provide food for their children...

On a more serious note. Until the folks in Africa, India, etc start controlling their reproduction rate, I am in no hurry to send them more food. Unfortunately those deaths are the only thing preventing a devastating population explosion.

Wiki India Growth Rate
Africa Growth Rate