Leadership

[_Themis]

I never said I don't care. You are just trying to distract with separate issues instead of dealing with the gun issue. Over 30K lives are lost to guns each year. Sure drugs and alcohol can be related to it. How many die each year from Islamic terrorism in the US. People have shown the number to be a fraction of all gun related deaths. Since you say drugs and alcohol kill even more, which is a the greater threat to the US?

Drugs and alcohol are a much greater threat...it is not even close. 30K people die from guns, and drugs and alcohol are behind many if not most of those killings, and compounded the homeless, the broken homes, divorces and relationships ruined...it is not even close.

I am not sure what the percentage of gun death have alcohol or drugs involved, but it doesn't mean there is not an issue with guns laws and how they can reduce gun related deaths. This is what the topic is about.

We don't put drug attics in jail, we put them in jail when they commit crimes.

Most jurisdictions in the US I know put people in jail caught doing drugs or possessing them.

So what you are saying is make it easier for people to get addicted and then spend tax payer money to tell them it is bad to take drugs? Simply incredible.

Incredible indeed that you keep trying to twist what I say into something else. Not very honest.

I don't now if you have ever had an addiction or not, but it just doesn't work that way Themis. Drugs and alcohol make you stupid and incapable of making decisions for your life. Every kid in America knows to "just say no"...it does not work. What works is a caring mother and father that educate their children. A government telling you it is okay to take it, and then when you are addicted telling you it is bad? Do you really believe that is the answer?

I missed where the government said is was ok to take them. Your statement here is not relevant. I never suggested people on drugs and less ability to make right choices.

Do you understand what drugs like speed and heroin do to a person? And you want to make it legal?

While some do as a way of dealing with the problem, I did not. I said decriminalization. Bit of a difference if you understand what it means.

You have not addressed my question between Salt Lake City and San Bernardino...why?

I did recognize there are other factors, but it was not relevant to why proper gun rules and enforcement will still have an impact and reduce deaths in areas of high crime and low. High crime areas would probably see the most impact. You do realize that there are areas of Canada, Australia, etc that have high crime rates?

[_Markk]

I am not sure what the percentage of gun death have alcohol or drugs involved, but it doesn't mean there is not an issue with guns laws and how they can reduce gun related deaths. This is what the topic is about.

You made the assertion or implication that somehow gun deaths are a greater threat that alcohol and drug, which is just not the case.

The topic is about guns and laws. I have shown you that a city with the most stringent gun laws has more than 500% more murders that a city of the same size. with the least stringent gun laws. Which shows what Themis?

Most jurisdictions in the US I know put people in jail caught doing drugs or possessing them.

CFR...unless the person has warrants, or act like jerks, violate probation or parole, or commit another crime, will in the very most case be cited, especial in the inner cities where drug use is more common. You simply are wrong.

Pot as an example in So Ca. it is around a $130.00 dollar fine for pot possession, it costs over $300.00 to process so the rarely give tickets. They also ticket speed and heroin, but in many case do nothing know the DA will not file charges.

Again CFR

[_Markk]

Incredible indeed that you keep trying to twist what I say into something else. Not very honest.

Then explain what you meant? If you decriminalize drugs, then they will be more easily obtainable, more addictions etc. You want to educate and treat the addictions? Who will do this and pay for it?

While some do as a way of dealing with the problem, I did not. I said decriminalization. Bit of a difference if you understand what it means.

Then explain it, help me understand your thought here?

I missed where the government said is was ok to take them. Your statement here is not relevant. I never suggested people on drugs and less ability to make right choices.

If we make drugs legal, then what does that say and mean? Come on Themis?

I did recognize there are other factors, but it was not relevant to why proper gun rules and enforcement will still have an impact and reduce deaths in areas of high crime and low. High crime areas would probably see the most impact. You do realize that there are areas of Canada, Australia, etc that have high crime rates?

Canada and Austrailia are not the US...and it is naïve to believe we can be like them and them like us. Our constitution allows us to own firearms. And as I have shown, stricter gun laws is not the answer, if it were, San Bernardino would have less gun violence than SLC.

What would make a bigger difference...more gun laws, or parents that parent? A culture that enforces right and wrong in the community? Do you think that might be why there are 500% less murders in SLC, when almost anyone can carry a gun?

[_Themis]

You made the assertion or implication that somehow gun deaths are a greater threat that alcohol and drug, which is just not the case.

Feel free to quote where I say this.

The topic is about guns and laws. I have shown you that a city with the most stringent gun laws has more than 500% more murders that a city of the same size. with the least stringent gun laws. Which shows what Themis?

Stringent I guess is a vague term. I don't see it, and I already said given that other states may have less laws it is easy to get guns into any area in the lower 48. You even admitted lack of enforcement. Have you looked at other countries Markk? I suspect not.

CFR...unless the person has warrants, or act like jerks, violate probation or parole, or commit another crime, will in the very most case be cited, especial in the inner cities where drug use is more common. You simply are wrong.

Pot as an example in So Ca. it is around a $130.00 dollar fine for pot possession, it costs over $300.00 to process so the rarely give tickets. They also ticket speed and heroin, but in many case do nothing know the DA will not file charges.

Again CFR

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/heroin-state-and-federal-penalties.html

[_Themis]

Incredible indeed that you keep trying to twist what I say into something else. Not very honest.

Then explain what you meant? If you decriminalize drugs, then they will be more easily obtainable, more addictions etc. You want to educate and treat the addictions? Who will do this and pay for it?

Decriminalize personal use. That doesn't necessarily mean it will be more available. Especially when the war on drugs was lost long ago and are easy to get. The jail system has not shown much good in helping people to be better. It's worse in areas where jails are privatized and drugs are a good way to keep your clientele numbers up.

Then explain it, help me understand your thought here?

Decriminalize does not mean it will be legal. Only that a person will not face criminal charges and possibly jail time.

If we make drugs legal, then what does that say and mean? Come on Themis?

Come on what? You haven't shown where the government has said it was ok.

Canada and Austrailia are not the US...and it is naïve to believe we can be like them and them like us. Our constitution allows us to own firearms. And as I have shown, stricter gun laws is not the answer, if it were, San Bernardino would have less gun violence than Salt Lake City.

Sorry but you show extreme ignorance here. These countries have problem areas of high crime and drug use. They can be compared in many ways.

What would make a bigger difference...more gun laws, or parents that parent? A culture that enforces right and wrong in the community? Do you think that might be why there are 500% less murders in Salt Lake City, when almost anyone can carry a gun?

Many things can help, but why should we ignore an important area that can help?

[_MeDotOrg]

One thing is certain: NRA types never want to talk about gun deaths. They want to talk about gun deaths AND. As in, gun deaths and drugs, gun deaths and alcohol, guns deaths and crime, gun deaths and poverty, gun deaths and ANYTHING other than gun deaths themselves. Much easier to make a bad point when you muddy up the water.

Virtually every Republican at the debate last night got up and said the first job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people.



Again and again and again, President Obama calls for rational gun control, but the very same Republicans, who last night swore up and down their solemn oath to protect the American people, cash their campaign contributions from the N.R.A.

If the terrorist could rack up half the deaths gun homicides in this country, I guarantee you people would be talking about using nuclear weapons in the middle east. But as long as it's real Americans killing each other with real American bullets, THAT'S American exceptionalism.

Again, look at the graph and remember that, according to virtually every Republican candidate last night, the first job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people.

[_canpakes]

Markk - you may have already ventured an opinion on this elsewhere in the thread (and I may have missed it) but I'm curious as to your opinion about limiting or denying firearms sales to folks on the no-fly list. Not that this necessarily has anything to do with the conversation in general but it would shed some light on your temperament regarding firearms legislation and controls.

Also, how you might feel about restrictions on firearms purchase/ownership by folks with mental health issues (which is a stickier subject).

Thanks, and Merry Almost Christmas.

[_Some Schmo]

Virtually every Republican at the debate last night got up and said the first job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people.

Yep, and yet, not only do they ignore all the gun deaths (domestic terrorism - apparently for the GOP, it's only a terrorist act if a brown guy does it), they also ignore health care. Call me crazy, but I thought seeing a doctor is about protecting yourself and keeping safe.

No, the only reason they keep puking up this BS line is so they can sell us on more wasteful military spending and data collection.

Sorry to say it, but today's GOP is the party of ignorant racist stupidity in a loud mouth package.

[_Markk]

Markk - you may have already ventured an opinion on this elsewhere in the thread (and I may have missed it) but I'm curious as to your opinion about limiting or denying firearms sales to folks on the no-fly list. Not that this necessarily has anything to do with the conversation in general but it would shed some light on your temperament regarding firearms legislation and controls.

Also, how you might feel about restrictions on firearms purchase/ownership by folks with mental health issues (which is a stickier subject).

Thanks, and Merry Almost Christmas.

Merry Christmas thanks!

I have absolutely no problem with it if I understand it correctly.

What are "requirements" to be on the no fly list, I am not sure what they really are pundits on both sides spin it? But I have no problem with it if they are real bad guys.

[_Markk]

One thing is certain: NRA types never want to talk about gun deaths. They want to talk about gun deaths AND. As in, gun deaths and drugs, gun deaths and alcohol, guns deaths and crime, gun deaths and poverty, gun deaths and ANYTHING other than gun deaths themselves. Much easier to make a bad point when you muddy up the water.

Virtually every Republican at the debate last night got up and said the first job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people.



Again and again and again, President Obama calls for rational gun control, but the very same Republicans, who last night swore up and down their solemn oath to protect the American people, cash their campaign contributions from the N.R.A.

If the terrorist could rack up half the deaths gun homicides in this country, I guarantee you people would be talking about using nuclear weapons in the middle east. But as long as it's real Americans killing each other with real American bullets, THAT'S American exceptionalism.

Again, look at the graph and remember that, according to virtually every Republican candidate last night, the first job of the President of the United States is to protect the American people.

Then by your spin we should outlaw alcohol? The USA has about 4 death from alcohol per 1000, where many countries have basically zero, or less than 1% per thousand. Should I use Niger or Pakistan as you do England and Australia as a example in deaths and laws in other countries?

There are certain things a free society chooses to live with. We like our guns, our alcohol, tobacco and Big Macs.

Talk about irony...democrats want to outlaw Cheetos and soda, and yet booze gets a free ride, and gun kill far less than bad food and booze?

Honestly...do do you want all guns outlawed, do you own guns?