tennyson wrote:

Rongone wrote:

"Good reason"

"Proper reason"

Common sense (oops . . . did I just say that?) tells you that any reasonable person thinking soundly would arrive at the rational decision that increasing the availability of one of the root causes of a problem will exacerbate that problem rather than relieve it.

In other words, the court's decision will do little or nothing towards solving the problem of shootings and violent crimes committed with a gun.

True. 

Of all the major developed nations we have one of the worst records in terms of gun-related murder rates. 





 

Unfortunately, gun,,,,,, enthusiasts are not data driven thinkers.

Yeah . . . So bring a bottle of vodka to an AA meeting.

Make heroin easily available to recovering addicts.

Keep feeding obese kids 1/4 pounders, large fries, and a coke big gulp 5 meals per week.

Inject more American "boots on the ground" into foreign conflicts to end the war.

These tried and true remedies always solve the problem by introducing more of one of the major root causes into the situation. From my perspective, the court's interpretation of what are good and proper reasons to restrict some gun use by the district was overridden by saying that if everyone had a gun there would be less incidents of shooting. That just doesn't make rational sense nor stand up to a test of reasonable standards. And, based on the statistics shown in the previous chart, the court's line of thinking seems to be counter productive to reducing violent gun related crime.

Last edited by Rongone (5/20/2015 7:22 am)

A quick refresher about the Federal Courts responsibility.
There seems to be some confusion about what they do!
 
 
The federal judiciary operates separately from the executive and legislative branches, but often works with them as the Constitution requires. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other disputes about federal laws. However, judges depend on our government’s executive branch to enforce court decisions.
Courts decide what really happened and what should be done about it. They decide whether a person committed a crime and what the punishment should be. They also provide a peaceful way to decide private disputes that people can’t resolve themselves. Depending on the dispute or crime, some cases end up in the federal courts and some end up in state courts. Learn more about the different types of federal courts.
 

Common Sense wrote:

Rongone wrote:

"Good reason"

"Proper reason"

Common sense (oops . . . did I just say that?) tells you that any reasonable person thinking soundly would arrive at the rational decision that increasing the availability of one of the root causes of a problem will exacerbate that problem rather than relieve it.

In other words, the court's decision will do little or nothing towards solving the problem of shootings and violent crimes committed with a gun.

So the citizens who wants to protect themselves by applying for a gun permit are going to be the problem? People who have permits rarely are involved in firearm crimes.
 
The bad guys are already doing what they do!
 
 

 

My point is, simply stated, that the enhancement of the proliferation of firearms does nothing in regards to reducing the high level of violent crimes committed with a gun in the United States. In fact, that increased proliferation of firearms may be part of the problem of increased gun related crime. Rather than arbitrarily adding fuel to this fire, I believe reasonable discussions need to be held on the subject of gun related violence and crime looking into the root causes and possible steps that can be taken that may lead to a reduction in these crimes. From my perspective, guns, ammo, and gun ownership are essential components of that discussion.

Brady Bunch wrote:

Rongone wrote:

Yeah . . . So bring a bottle of vodka to an AA meeting.

Keep feeding obese kids 1/4 pounders, large fries, and a coke big gulp 5 meals per week.

.

 
I don't think those analogies are correct to the court case discussed. They aren't saying bring a bottle of vodka to an AA meeting, the analogy would be the court said we shouldn't limit or restrict vodka to everyone because some people have a problem.

Same with obese kids reference, the court said we shouldn't limit those foods t everyone just because some people are obese.

Those analogies just aren't correct to this situation

Your analogy doesn't work either. No one is using the vodka bottle to murder other people..