Like a dictator, Obama threatens unprecedented gun control by executive order

You mean 'UK police did shoot 84 bullets', not 'UK police needed to shoot 84 times'. You wouldn't know how much they needed to shoot.

UK has had very low numbers long before they had gun restrictions. As already stated, this argument is bad statistics.

 

No it is a pretty good analysis. Your logic is extremely flawed with the U.K. It's baseline is so low that even an increasing trend doesn't account for the difference.

Why is the U.K. so much lower than the U.S.? how do you explan that fact?

 

NO idea. But since UK's violence rate (including gun violence rate) was far lower than the US before the UK had gun regulation, it stands that the UK gun regulation is not the cause.

 

That is sound logic.

 

godwin's law in motion.

historically speaking, marriage has been used as a cudgel against oppressed groups. Hitler killed homosexuals, Stalin made it a criminal offense.

but I would never go back to the attitudes and mores of the 1930s in order to justify my views on the 21st century, because if you're going to go there, remind me when the President has the secret trains built, and democracy suspended.

 

Things that could be done that would not infringe on anyone's perception (right or wrong) of the 2nd amendment, nor take away anyone's guns...

• reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons
• close loopholes that allow gun buyers to skirt background checks
• restrict high-capacity magazines
• make gun trafficking a felony
• prosecute people lying on gun background-check forms
• require all state/federal agencies to send data to the National Gun Background Check Database

No debate. Executive Order. Just do it.

 

I'd like to see you prove this contention, seeing as the divurgence between the set of gun laws in both countries can be traced back to the 1820s.

where are them accurate 19th century stats and empirical studies???

 

I am comfortable with all of the above. Gun owners can still have and purchase guns.

 

You could easily argue that had the UK not implemented gun regulation, gun violence today would be much much higher. Do you not see that is just as legitimate of a hypothesis as the one you are putting forward?

 

Simple solution:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VZrFVtmRXrw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Language NSFW

 

I like this list. What exactly do you mean when you say restrict, when talking about high-capacity magazines.

 

Why executive order? Why not have our representatives vote on it?

 

Unfortunately, many representatives are too beholden to special interests, obstructionism, and/or rigid ideology to vote in the best interests of the American people.

 

Um, not readily available to anyone wanting to buy them?

I would prefer an outright ban on their sale.

 

you don't like the representatives the people put into office, so you want to go around them? You think that's morally sound?

 

These are nice but probably not enough - a comprehensive solution is going to involve many fronts. Higher taxes on guns & ammo (think cigarettes)....more stringent registration requirements, annual inspections, and above all, mandatory insurance, to subsidize the tremendous damage that "hobbyists" inflict on the rest of us due to their love of guns.

 

In the absence of reasonable representation by an obstructionist segment of the Republican party, and a fear or inability of moderate Republicans to confront them, in this instance, strong action by the president in protecting the American people is both morally sound and the right thing to do.

Either lead or get out of the way.

 

Agreed, but it would be a start.

 

Define obstructionist? You mean Republicans disagree? Seems to me all your saying is you know legislation won't get past the people's representatives so you suggest bypassing the people's representatives. That's pretty disgusting.

 

I agree with this list as well.