|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On January 18 2013 19:06 Introvert wrote:
First, I would like to note a lack of facts and figures. Gun violence is not related to access to certain types of guns, especially "assault" weapons.
What is the need for figures when we are discussing entirely abstract matters? And what do you mean by lack of facts? Is anything I wrote unfactual, other than what you yourself misread? You make it appear that a rational discussion is only valid if it contains masses of arbitrary numbers and random graphs... secondly, I never spoke of gun violence being related to certain types of guns, and never used the word 'assault' once in my post, so are you replying to my post in particular, or similar posts?
You seem to miss the point of my argument entirely when you write "..., citizens should be equally well armed, ..." and then later write "No, you don't need a tank (...)." So you seriously want to take on a modern army with small arms? I am not advocating tanks or nukes for civilian use (which sounds like a paradox)! I am merely trying to make apparent the fallacy of many gunadvocate's arguments regarding the 2nd amendment. And obviously the founding fathers were aware that swords and bows got replaced by muskets, but I doubt they saw thermonuclear weapons and chemical lasers coming down the road.
I admit to being a bit harsh to the tea party people, I realize they would never actually physically encircle the whitehouse to move against a percieved tyrannical president, only lobby for legislation to the same effect. And yes, I view them as dangerous and scary, but more on an ideological and cognitive level than an actual physical threat - the same goes for the OWS ppl as well although on another level. My use of them as an example might have been a mistake, I thought it was tounge-in-cheek when I wrote it. But my point, not very clear perhaps, was at what point is the public warranted in forming militias against their tyrannical government? It seems to me like it wouldn't be hard finding groups of people in America who think this line has already been crossed, and if it has should they not rise up and fight the good fight?...
And the societal issues I am talking about? Hmmm.. poverty? Education? Bildung? War on drugs? Inequality? I agree that crime will always be around, if for no other reason than spite. But acknowledging this isn't the same as saying that we cannot/should not try to minimize crime as much as possible.
Finally, I alluded in my post to the fact that a peacful country (where gunownership is extremely heavily regulated - not even hunters are allowed to own suppresors btw) such as Denmark could still foster the nutjob who was responsible for the aforementioned shooting in Aarhus, without easy access to guns, but also without a public outcry for the need to post armed guards at school entrances and what not. So yes, the fait accompli remains that guns don't kill people, people do. But instead of treating the symptoms of a society gone awry (isn't society always, and always will be, going awry?!?) we should look at the cause instead, whatever that may be (I blame people over the age of 30 myself^^).
|
On January 18 2013 19:55 MutantGenepool wrote:
YES EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT?
THE ASSHOLES WANT TO TAKE YOUR FREEDOM FROM YOU.
ARE YOU A FUCKING IDIOT?
THE REASON THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE GUNS IS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT YOU KILLING THEIR GREEDY ASSES.
Ban me you fuckers. I don't care.
You're from a country that has recently restricted gun ownership severely (referred to as arguably the most restrictive policies in the world among countries where private ownership is allowed). Apparently your fellow countrymen and politicians are somewhat opposed to your views. I'd like to hear your reply but I'm afraid I won't.
|
Funnily enough, in NSW (the most populous state in Australia) the Shooters and Fishers Party hold the balance of power in the state parliament. They managed to get a few concessions in return for votes on crucial bills. These were around hunting in national parks etc.
A bunch of people went apeshit, saying that people were going to be killed as a result. There have been a few news stories about the increase of power of the gun lobby, but it is all BS. Its still very hard to buy a gun in Australia, and I only know three people who own guns (police officers and defense force personnel excluded). To be honest, the Australian anti-gun sentiment is less about facts, and more about not liking guns, which is fine if you are honest about it. We don't see owning a gun as a right, or even a good idea. If you have a gun, it should be for a good reason, target shooting, recreational hunting, people living in rural areas to shoot pests etc.
|
On January 18 2013 19:06 Introvert wrote:
First, I would like to note a lack of facts and figures. Gun violence is not related to access to certain types of guns, especially "assault" weapons.
More people (70) were hit in the Aurora mass shooting than any other mass shooting in the United States, and the shooter had an assault rifle. That is a fact. And in fact, 12 the of last 28 of the massing shootings since 1989 have involved assault rifles!
Look it up: http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php
No one is arguing that someone who is crazy won't get access to a handgun and won't try and kill as many people as possible. What we are arguing is that with an assault rifle, one has the the potential to do a lot more damage, a lot faster. It is the same reason people can't own nuclear weapons. Most people would be responsible and never use them, but it only takes one crazy person...
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The same can be said for restricting magazine size. The seconds it takes a shooter to reload is seconds they are not shooting, and thus more people have a chance to survive, and the police are that much closer to being there. After looking at the statistics, large magazines are correlated higher to the number of people hit than assault rifles.
|
On January 18 2013 23:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The
No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible.
So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence.
Seems like the better option to me.
|
On January 18 2013 23:37 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 23:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible. So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence. Seems like the better option to me.
First, what I said was true. Assault rifles are more efficient weapons than most other firearms in most circumstances (otherwise they would not be the preferred firearm for infantry in armies!), so if there wasn't an assault rifle involved in any given shooting, the number of victims likely goes down.
Second, there will always be mass shootings, we can't avoid that. What we can avoid is giving mass shooters assault rifles.
Third, how you do we suggest we diagnose the mentally ill? We round up everyone and test them and diagnose for mental illness, then forcibly treat those who are ill, or deny them access to firearms and this idea somehow tramples on our rights less than banning assault rifles? How do we do this?
Did you know that the Newtown shooter got his rifle from his mother who got it legally? And the Auora shooter got his rifle legally too? So they were perfectly fine mentally until the shooting... how are we supposed to know without testing people rigorously before they purchase a weapon? And what if the test is biased or flawed, and people are denied their right to own a weapon due to error, does that not trample someone's rights?
I work in a psychiatric hospital 5 days a week, I work with the mentally ill. There are plenty of people with issues, diagnosed who don't take their meds or undiagnosed who perform perfectly find in society. Mental illness is not necessarily a precursor to violence. When I said crazy, I just meant their ideas were crazy, not that they were mentally ill. There are plenty of people who are not mentally ill who have ideas that go against the mainstream. Heck, take the South 50 years ago (or even today in some places).
In fact, studies show the opposite:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/
'Gun violence and drug abuse are often presumed to go together, but we found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level. While it is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence, we found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities in any given state."
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
Just look at the map in the above link. And states have the strictest gun control, CT, CA, HI, NY, NJ, MA and RI, have some of the lowest rates of gun violence, despite many being states where people think the "gangs" are.
And here is the CDC data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_10.pdf
But there is something you can do if you want to help if you think mental health is the underlying issue here: Vote for people who support mental health funding. And who that is generally? Democrats! The same people who stand against gun control have been vehemently against mental health funding for years. The Conservative doctrine has been crystal clear on those issues for years. Did they not just try and stand up against basic healthcare for everyone when the ACA was passed? What makes you think they'll ever approve mental health funding, which is usually even more expensive and time consuming...
Don't ever forget that, funding is often the sole reason that some people who need help can't get it. I see it all the time, we are all one phone call away from being on our knees.
|
On January 19 2013 01:21 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 23:37 JingleHell wrote:On January 18 2013 23:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible. So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence. Seems like the better option to me. First, what I said was true. Assault rifles are more efficient weapons than most other firearms in most circumstances (otherwise they would not be the preferred firearm for infantry in armies!), so if there wasn't an assault rifle involved in any given shooting, the number of victims likely goes down.
The features that make an "assault weapon" (the difference exists, stop calling them assault rifles), are not the features that make it more efficient for killing. In fact, the typical civilian AR is better than an Army issue M4, but that's just bad defense procurement. A bayonet lug is irrelevant in a shooting, otherwise it would be a school bayonetting. High cap mags are a convenience, nothing stops you from carrying more magazines, and a lot of drums actually have misfeeding trouble.
Actually, if I wanted to do a lot of damage, I'd pick a scoped bolt action, like a Remington 700, which is most definitely not going to fit the arbitrary definition of "assault weapon". It's actually a popular sniper platform for military and paramilitary organizations. I'd likely net more victims that way. And, as has been pointed out multiple times, handguns tend to be a rather common platform for shootings, due to being easily concealed, banning "assault weapons" for cosmetic and convenience features wouldn't stop those in the slightest.
Second, there will always be mass shootings, we can't avoid that. What we can avoid is giving mass shooters assault rifles.
So you advocate treating symptoms. With arbitrary restrictions.
Third, how you do we suggest we diagnose the mentally ill? We round up everyone and test them and diagnose for mental illness, then forcibly treat those who are ill, or deny them access to firearms and this idea somehow tramples on our rights less than banning assault rifles? Is that a joke?
Or we fix the process of buying a gun. I've never said it isn't too easy.
Did you not know that Newtown shooter got his rifle from his mother who got it legally? And the Auora shooter got his rifle legally too? So they were perfectly fine mentally until the shooting... how are we supposed to know without testing people rigorously before they purchase a weapon? And what if the test is biased or flawed, and people are denied their right to own a weapon due to error, does that not trample someone's rights?
See above. Fixing the system is good. I do enjoy how you seem to be putting ridiculous rhetoric in my mouth. Part of fixing the system is avoiding corruption by either side.
Bud, I work in a psychiatric hospital 5 days a week. I work with the mentally ill. There are plenty of people with issues, diagnosed who don't take their meds or undiagnosed who perform perfectly find in society. Mental illness is not necessarily a precursor to violence. When I said crazy, I just meant their ideas were crazy, not that they were mentally ill. There are plenty of people who are not mentally ill who have ideas that go against the mainstream. Heck, take the South 50 years ago (or even today in some places). In fact, studies show the opposite: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/'Gun violence and drug abuse are often presumed to go together, but we found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level. While it is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence, we found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities in any given state."
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).Just look at the map in the above link. Guess what states have the strictest gun control? CT, CA, HI, NY, NJ, MA and RI. Most of those states have the lowest gun violence, despite many being states where people think the "gangs" are. And here is the CDC data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_10.pdfSo you have no clue what you're saying at all. I think you should think before you type next time. I work the mentally ill and what you're suggesting is offensive.
Cookie? I was in the Army, and I'm telling you I don't need a bayonet lug or a 30 round mag to kill people efficiently, so you're clearly not hitting the mark. And I don't just mean we should treat the mentally ill, we should generally try to fix societal issues that increase the likelihood of people trying to kill people.
Also, you're really just coming off as an arrogant prick trying to bully me around with your "superior knowledge" right now, when, in fact, you (if you're telling the truth) only have superior knowledge of PART of the picture, which has always been part of the problem in the gun control debate. Partisanship and a refusal to compromise.
You want to really help if you think mental health is the underlying issue here? Then vote for people who support mental health funding. And guess who that is generally? Democrats! The same people who stand against gun control have been vehemently against mental health funding for years. The Conservative doctrine has been crystal clear on those issues for years. Did they not just try and stand up against basic healthcare for everyone when the ACA was passed? What makes you think they'll ever approve mental health funding, which is usually even more expensive and time consuming...
Don't ever forget that, funding is often the sole reason that some people who need help can't get it. I see it all the time, we are all one phone call away from being on our knees.
Again with ridiculous assumptions. You think that just because I believe guns aren't the problem I must be some hardcore right-wing fanatic, I would never vote for a democrat, and I can't think for myself and pick based on multiple issues.
Basically, overall, you've just filled a post with a lot of judgmental (and inaccurate) bilge, tried to cover it up with a little bit of data, and thrown around ad homs to try and make me look bad for being ok with guns and gun ownership.
People like you who take these sorts of stances (on both sides of the debate) are the main problem, it's why there's no rational reform, and no functional compromise. It's why we get useless measures or no measures.
|
On January 18 2013 20:06 Dr.PeterKien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 19:06 Introvert wrote:
First, I would like to note a lack of facts and figures. Gun violence is not related to access to certain types of guns, especially "assault" weapons. What is the need for figures when we are discussing entirely abstract matters? And what do you mean by lack of facts? Is anything I wrote unfactual, other than what you yourself misread? You make it appear that a rational discussion is only valid if it contains masses of arbitrary numbers and random graphs... secondly, I never spoke of gun violence being related to certain types of guns, and never used the word 'assault' once in my post, so are you replying to my post in particular, or similar posts? You seem to miss the point of my argument entirely when you write "..., citizens should be equally well armed, ..." and then later write "No, you don't need a tank (...)." So you seriously want to take on a modern army with small arms? I am not advocating tanks or nukes for civilian use (which sounds like a paradox)! I am merely trying to make apparent the fallacy of many gunadvocate's arguments regarding the 2nd amendment. And obviously the founding fathers were aware that swords and bows got replaced by muskets, but I doubt they saw thermonuclear weapons and chemical lasers coming down the road. I admit to being a bit harsh to the tea party people, I realize they would never actually physically encircle the whitehouse to move against a percieved tyrannical president, only lobby for legislation to the same effect. And yes, I view them as dangerous and scary, but more on an ideological and cognitive level than an actual physical threat - the same goes for the OWS ppl as well although on another level. My use of them as an example might have been a mistake, I thought it was tounge-in-cheek when I wrote it. But my point, not very clear perhaps, was at what point is the public warranted in forming militias against their tyrannical government? It seems to me like it wouldn't be hard finding groups of people in America who think this line has already been crossed, and if it has should they not rise up and fight the good fight?... And the societal issues I am talking about? Hmmm.. poverty? Education? Bildung? War on drugs? Inequality? I agree that crime will always be around, if for no other reason than spite. But acknowledging this isn't the same as saying that we cannot/should not try to minimize crime as much as possible. Finally, I alluded in my post to the fact that a peacful country (where gunownership is extremely heavily regulated - not even hunters are allowed to own suppresors btw) such as Denmark could still foster the nutjob who was responsible for the aforementioned shooting in Aarhus, without easy access to guns, but also without a public outcry for the need to post armed guards at school entrances and what not. So yes, the fait accompli remains that guns don't kill people, people do. But instead of treating the symptoms of a society gone awry (isn't society always, and always will be, going awry?!?) we should look at the cause instead, whatever that may be (I blame people over the age of 30 myself^^).
If I misrepresented something, I apologize. I was hurrying, as I had to get to bed. As to the abstract matters, I have mentioned them multiple times. Where you quoted me is my first, and shortest, section of the reply. I was pointing out that, since gun control is an objective failure, control advocates have to rely entirely on these thought experiments.
If the citizens had NO OTHER WAY of defending themselves, from say, an American version of a revolutionary dictator, then yes. They should be ready, no matter what. I believe this right to self-defense is just that: a right. You try to restrict it, we have a problem. No one is advocating citizens have access to nukes, stop saying that. An individual does not and cannot use a nuke for self-defense, a nation does. (Same with tanks). EDIT: I would like to emphasize this point, as I believe it to be of crucial importance for weeding through these ridiculous arguments of "well then do you think they should have a nuclear warhead!!!???"
I have no idea where this line is, (far away), but this country was FOUNDED by people who revolted and found the line crossed. It exists, and thus, it should always be prepared for. This is one of the MAIN reasons the 2nd Amendment was passed. (Also, it is supposed to be a preventative measure: government sees armed citizens ---> decides to leave them alone.) This country has 315+ million people, you can find a little of everything. The Tea Party started as a purely anti-tax grassroot group of citizens. Since, unlike OWS, it maintains some relevance, it has moved to other issues as well. They have ZERO history of violence (compared to union thugs, OWS vandalism, etc). Nothing scary about them. And nothing is wrong with the less taxes idea. Stop acting like they are so backward you are worried for the future of America.
I have made the argument numerous times already: More guns for good guys=less dead people. That helps fight crime, I would imagine.
We should treat societal issues as a society, the government should keep its destructive hands out of it. Last thing I want is a bunch of bureaucrats deciding how to "fix" societal problems.
Jinglehell's post is excellent.
|
On January 19 2013 02:05 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 01:21 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 18 2013 23:37 JingleHell wrote:On January 18 2013 23:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible. So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence. Seems like the better option to me. First, what I said was true. Assault rifles are more efficient weapons than most other firearms in most circumstances (otherwise they would not be the preferred firearm for infantry in armies!), so if there wasn't an assault rifle involved in any given shooting, the number of victims likely goes down. The features that make an "assault weapon" (the difference exists, stop calling them assault rifles), are not the features that make it more efficient for killing. In fact, the typical civilian AR is better than an Army issue M4, but that's just bad defense procurement. A bayonet lug is irrelevant in a shooting, otherwise it would be a school bayonetting. High cap mags are a convenience, nothing stops you from carrying more magazines, and a lot of drums actually have misfeeding trouble. Actually, if I wanted to do a lot of damage, I'd pick a scoped bolt action, like a Remington 700, which is most definitely not going to fit the arbitrary definition of "assault weapon". It's actually a popular sniper platform for military and paramilitary organizations. I'd likely net more victims that way. And, as has been pointed out multiple times, handguns tend to be a rather common platform for shootings, due to being easily concealed, banning "assault weapons" for cosmetic and convenience features wouldn't stop those in the slightest. Show nested quote +
Second, there will always be mass shootings, we can't avoid that. What we can avoid is giving mass shooters assault rifles.
So you advocate treating symptoms. With arbitrary restrictions. Show nested quote +
Third, how you do we suggest we diagnose the mentally ill? We round up everyone and test them and diagnose for mental illness, then forcibly treat those who are ill, or deny them access to firearms and this idea somehow tramples on our rights less than banning assault rifles? Is that a joke?
Or we fix the process of buying a gun. I've never said it isn't too easy. Show nested quote +
Did you not know that Newtown shooter got his rifle from his mother who got it legally? And the Auora shooter got his rifle legally too? So they were perfectly fine mentally until the shooting... how are we supposed to know without testing people rigorously before they purchase a weapon? And what if the test is biased or flawed, and people are denied their right to own a weapon due to error, does that not trample someone's rights?
See above. Fixing the system is good. I do enjoy how you seem to be putting ridiculous rhetoric in my mouth. Part of fixing the system is avoiding corruption by either side. Show nested quote +Bud, I work in a psychiatric hospital 5 days a week. I work with the mentally ill. There are plenty of people with issues, diagnosed who don't take their meds or undiagnosed who perform perfectly find in society. Mental illness is not necessarily a precursor to violence. When I said crazy, I just meant their ideas were crazy, not that they were mentally ill. There are plenty of people who are not mentally ill who have ideas that go against the mainstream. Heck, take the South 50 years ago (or even today in some places). In fact, studies show the opposite: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/'Gun violence and drug abuse are often presumed to go together, but we found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level. While it is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence, we found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities in any given state."
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).Just look at the map in the above link. Guess what states have the strictest gun control? CT, CA, HI, NY, NJ, MA and RI. Most of those states have the lowest gun violence, despite many being states where people think the "gangs" are. And here is the CDC data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_10.pdfSo you have no clue what you're saying at all. I think you should think before you type next time. I work the mentally ill and what you're suggesting is offensive. Cookie? I was in the Army, and I'm telling you I don't need a bayonet lug or a 30 round mag to kill people efficiently, so you're clearly not hitting the mark. And I don't just mean we should treat the mentally ill, we should generally try to fix societal issues that increase the likelihood of people trying to kill people. Also, you're really just coming off as an arrogant prick trying to bully me around with your "superior knowledge" right now, when, in fact, you (if you're telling the truth) only have superior knowledge of PART of the picture, which has always been part of the problem in the gun control debate. Partisanship and a refusal to compromise. Show nested quote +
You want to really help if you think mental health is the underlying issue here? Then vote for people who support mental health funding. And guess who that is generally? Democrats! The same people who stand against gun control have been vehemently against mental health funding for years. The Conservative doctrine has been crystal clear on those issues for years. Did they not just try and stand up against basic healthcare for everyone when the ACA was passed? What makes you think they'll ever approve mental health funding, which is usually even more expensive and time consuming...
Don't ever forget that, funding is often the sole reason that some people who need help can't get it. I see it all the time, we are all one phone call away from being on our knees.
Again with ridiculous assumptions. You think that just because I believe guns aren't the problem I must be some hardcore right-wing fanatic, I would never vote for a democrat, and I can't think for myself and pick based on multiple issues. Basically, overall, you've just filled a post with a lot of judgmental (and inaccurate) bilge, tried to cover it up with a little bit of data, and thrown around ad homs to try and make me look bad for being ok with guns and gun ownership. People like you who take these sorts of stances (on both sides of the debate) are the main problem, it's why there's no rational reform, and no functional compromise. It's why we get useless measures or no measures.
I think this really misrepresents the politics of gun control in a fundamental way. "Partisanship and a refusal to compromise" is a very loaded and misleading phrase, as it assumes that both sides are equally interested in seeing the middle-ground.
Compromise IS gun control. All forms of even the most modest gun control, even things such as the Brady Bill which only asks that people take background checks, has been consistently demonized by the NRA.
What little gun control we have, such as the Brady Bill, we have because either the believers in the status quo compromised, or were simply out-voted. This isn't a budget plan, or tax reform, where we can negotiate over small margins. There is only a request by one side -- and a flat refusal by the other. And you seem to be asking both sides, or the side asking for change, to be more reasonable. There is only one side that needs to compromise for something to be done here, and that is the side currently demanding things be held status-quo.
I can only hope we'll get a real reduction of guns in this country. It saddens me that people still can not understand the common sense that behind our rampant gun violence, guns are an actual problem. Common sense is guns kill, because that is the reason we made them. Common sense is guns do not save lives, unless you're in the VERY RARE scenario of shooting somebody who is (ironically?) using his/her gun. Kevlar saves lives. Bulletproof windows save lives. Guns retaliate, but far, far, far, far, far, far, far more often, they just kill. And this, common sense should tell us, is why America has more gun violence than countries that possess less guns.
|
On January 18 2013 23:37 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 23:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible. So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence. Seems like the better option to me.
"Stop all crimes from happening" is not a valid policy for anything.
Every aspect of law and law enforcement is based around mitigating issues as much as possible with the resources that are available.
Gun control and better psychiatric help are not mutually exclusive.
|
On January 19 2013 09:57 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 20:06 Dr.PeterKien wrote:On January 18 2013 19:06 Introvert wrote:
First, I would like to note a lack of facts and figures. Gun violence is not related to access to certain types of guns, especially "assault" weapons. What is the need for figures when we are discussing entirely abstract matters? And what do you mean by lack of facts? Is anything I wrote unfactual, other than what you yourself misread? You make it appear that a rational discussion is only valid if it contains masses of arbitrary numbers and random graphs... secondly, I never spoke of gun violence being related to certain types of guns, and never used the word 'assault' once in my post, so are you replying to my post in particular, or similar posts? You seem to miss the point of my argument entirely when you write "..., citizens should be equally well armed, ..." and then later write "No, you don't need a tank (...)." So you seriously want to take on a modern army with small arms? I am not advocating tanks or nukes for civilian use (which sounds like a paradox)! I am merely trying to make apparent the fallacy of many gunadvocate's arguments regarding the 2nd amendment. And obviously the founding fathers were aware that swords and bows got replaced by muskets, but I doubt they saw thermonuclear weapons and chemical lasers coming down the road. I admit to being a bit harsh to the tea party people, I realize they would never actually physically encircle the whitehouse to move against a percieved tyrannical president, only lobby for legislation to the same effect. And yes, I view them as dangerous and scary, but more on an ideological and cognitive level than an actual physical threat - the same goes for the OWS ppl as well although on another level. My use of them as an example might have been a mistake, I thought it was tounge-in-cheek when I wrote it. But my point, not very clear perhaps, was at what point is the public warranted in forming militias against their tyrannical government? It seems to me like it wouldn't be hard finding groups of people in America who think this line has already been crossed, and if it has should they not rise up and fight the good fight?... And the societal issues I am talking about? Hmmm.. poverty? Education? Bildung? War on drugs? Inequality? I agree that crime will always be around, if for no other reason than spite. But acknowledging this isn't the same as saying that we cannot/should not try to minimize crime as much as possible. Finally, I alluded in my post to the fact that a peacful country (where gunownership is extremely heavily regulated - not even hunters are allowed to own suppresors btw) such as Denmark could still foster the nutjob who was responsible for the aforementioned shooting in Aarhus, without easy access to guns, but also without a public outcry for the need to post armed guards at school entrances and what not. So yes, the fait accompli remains that guns don't kill people, people do. But instead of treating the symptoms of a society gone awry (isn't society always, and always will be, going awry?!?) we should look at the cause instead, whatever that may be (I blame people over the age of 30 myself^^). If I misrepresented something, I apologize. I was hurrying, as I had to get to bed. As to the abstract matters, I have mentioned them multiple times. Where you quoted me is my first, and shortest, section of the reply. I was pointing out that, since gun control is an objective failure, control advocates have to rely entirely on these thought experiments. If the citizens had NO OTHER WAY of defending themselves, from say, an American version of a revolutionary dictator, then yes. They should be ready, no matter what. I believe this right to self-defense is just that: a right. You try to restrict it, we have a problem. No one is advocating citizens have access to nukes, stop saying that. An individual does not and cannot use a nuke for self-defense, a nation does. (Same with tanks). EDIT: I would like to emphasize this point, as I believe it to be of crucial importance for weeding through these ridiculous arguments of "well then do you think they should have a nuclear warhead!!!???" I have no idea where this line is, (far away), but this country was FOUNDED by people who revolted and found the line crossed. It exists, and thus, it should always be prepared for. This is one of the MAIN reasons the 2nd Amendment was passed. (Also, it is supposed to be a preventative measure: government sees armed citizens ---> decides to leave them alone.) This country has 315+ million people, you can find a little of everything. The Tea Party started as a purely anti-tax grassroot group of citizens. Since, unlike OWS, it maintains some relevance, it has moved to other issues as well. They have ZERO history of violence (compared to union thugs, OWS vandalism, etc). Nothing scary about them. And nothing is wrong with the less taxes idea. Stop acting like they are so backward you are worried for the future of America. I have made the argument numerous times already: More guns for good guys=less dead people. That helps fight crime, I would imagine. We should treat societal issues as a society, the government should keep its destructive hands out of it. Last thing I want is a bunch of bureaucrats deciding how to "fix" societal problems. Jinglehell's post is excellent.
I mean, this might be out of line, but I just have to ask, how thick do you have to be to think more guns will equate to less gun violence? How much crap do you have to listen to, and how often, to believe something that nonsensical? Your definition of "good guy" is, let's be honest, anyone who hasn't yet been arrested for a violent crime. Most gun violence comes from crimes of passion. We're all "good guys", until we aren't.
To be fair, I will give you that there are people in this country who would currently benefit from owning a gun. Someone who owns a small store with a cash register in the wrong part of Chicago, I certainly wouldn't blame for wanting to own a gun. Most people, however, would be safer not owning a gun. Even if you're a good marksman, and a responsible person, it doesn't mean you won't get shot standing up for yourself in a robbery, whereas a person with smarter priorities lets themselves get robbed and gets to live another day.
But in the long-term, how could anyone NOT want to see a reduction of guns in this country? That is something I will never understand. Frankly, I think it's pure insanity, the mark of a warped mind. The black-market doesn't manufacture its guns. It buys them legally. They are all legal, in the beginning (and then they're used on someone and become evidence). We absolutely can reduce the influx of guns in this country, even if it does take generations to make substantial change.
I'll admit it's hard to ban one "type" of gun. Any line you draw will be somewhat arbitrary. I think instead of banning types of firearms, we should probably start on limiting the number of weapons people can buy. You "need" a gun? Well, you don't need 5 of them. It'd be a start.
In reference to my previous post about compromise, what we also really need to do is update the Brady Bill. There are loopholes, such as trade shows, where people can circumvent background checks. The Brady Bill needs to be expounded to close these loopholes. So, who needs to compromise to get that done? Despite the NRA's protest, Reagan approved the Brady Bill wholeheartedly, and it's because of that bit of non-partisanship that we have the Brady Bill. This is another example of how the Republican Party has become more fundamentalist, at least when it comes to this topic.
|
There is no reason why citizens should not be able to possess FIREARMS. Guns dont kill people, its the person that pulls the trigger that is the culprit in trying to end anothers' life. A lot of people shoot for sport and i am one of them. There should be no reason why i should not be able to possess a firearm just because there are a few dumbshits out there who go out and end other people's lives. If they have such a desire, why dont they join the army and do it there...
|
On January 19 2013 14:59 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 02:05 JingleHell wrote:On January 19 2013 01:21 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 18 2013 23:37 JingleHell wrote:On January 18 2013 23:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
Plain and simple: No assault rifles means potentially more people survive when a crazy person pulls out a gun. The No (or fewer) undiagnosed crazy people means potentially more people survive regardless of what dangerous items are accessible. So, in one broad stroke, if we do something to help with the healthcare side of things, we could actually fix all KINDS of violence, instead of just gun violence. Seems like the better option to me. First, what I said was true. Assault rifles are more efficient weapons than most other firearms in most circumstances (otherwise they would not be the preferred firearm for infantry in armies!), so if there wasn't an assault rifle involved in any given shooting, the number of victims likely goes down. The features that make an "assault weapon" (the difference exists, stop calling them assault rifles), are not the features that make it more efficient for killing. In fact, the typical civilian AR is better than an Army issue M4, but that's just bad defense procurement. A bayonet lug is irrelevant in a shooting, otherwise it would be a school bayonetting. High cap mags are a convenience, nothing stops you from carrying more magazines, and a lot of drums actually have misfeeding trouble. Actually, if I wanted to do a lot of damage, I'd pick a scoped bolt action, like a Remington 700, which is most definitely not going to fit the arbitrary definition of "assault weapon". It's actually a popular sniper platform for military and paramilitary organizations. I'd likely net more victims that way. And, as has been pointed out multiple times, handguns tend to be a rather common platform for shootings, due to being easily concealed, banning "assault weapons" for cosmetic and convenience features wouldn't stop those in the slightest.
Second, there will always be mass shootings, we can't avoid that. What we can avoid is giving mass shooters assault rifles.
So you advocate treating symptoms. With arbitrary restrictions.
Third, how you do we suggest we diagnose the mentally ill? We round up everyone and test them and diagnose for mental illness, then forcibly treat those who are ill, or deny them access to firearms and this idea somehow tramples on our rights less than banning assault rifles? Is that a joke?
Or we fix the process of buying a gun. I've never said it isn't too easy.
Did you not know that Newtown shooter got his rifle from his mother who got it legally? And the Auora shooter got his rifle legally too? So they were perfectly fine mentally until the shooting... how are we supposed to know without testing people rigorously before they purchase a weapon? And what if the test is biased or flawed, and people are denied their right to own a weapon due to error, does that not trample someone's rights?
See above. Fixing the system is good. I do enjoy how you seem to be putting ridiculous rhetoric in my mouth. Part of fixing the system is avoiding corruption by either side. Bud, I work in a psychiatric hospital 5 days a week. I work with the mentally ill. There are plenty of people with issues, diagnosed who don't take their meds or undiagnosed who perform perfectly find in society. Mental illness is not necessarily a precursor to violence. When I said crazy, I just meant their ideas were crazy, not that they were mentally ill. There are plenty of people who are not mentally ill who have ideas that go against the mainstream. Heck, take the South 50 years ago (or even today in some places). In fact, studies show the opposite: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/07/geography-gun-violence/2655/'Gun violence and drug abuse are often presumed to go together, but we found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level. While it is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence, we found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities in any given state."
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).Just look at the map in the above link. Guess what states have the strictest gun control? CT, CA, HI, NY, NJ, MA and RI. Most of those states have the lowest gun violence, despite many being states where people think the "gangs" are. And here is the CDC data: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_10.pdfSo you have no clue what you're saying at all. I think you should think before you type next time. I work the mentally ill and what you're suggesting is offensive. Cookie? I was in the Army, and I'm telling you I don't need a bayonet lug or a 30 round mag to kill people efficiently, so you're clearly not hitting the mark. And I don't just mean we should treat the mentally ill, we should generally try to fix societal issues that increase the likelihood of people trying to kill people. Also, you're really just coming off as an arrogant prick trying to bully me around with your "superior knowledge" right now, when, in fact, you (if you're telling the truth) only have superior knowledge of PART of the picture, which has always been part of the problem in the gun control debate. Partisanship and a refusal to compromise.
You want to really help if you think mental health is the underlying issue here? Then vote for people who support mental health funding. And guess who that is generally? Democrats! The same people who stand against gun control have been vehemently against mental health funding for years. The Conservative doctrine has been crystal clear on those issues for years. Did they not just try and stand up against basic healthcare for everyone when the ACA was passed? What makes you think they'll ever approve mental health funding, which is usually even more expensive and time consuming...
Don't ever forget that, funding is often the sole reason that some people who need help can't get it. I see it all the time, we are all one phone call away from being on our knees.
Again with ridiculous assumptions. You think that just because I believe guns aren't the problem I must be some hardcore right-wing fanatic, I would never vote for a democrat, and I can't think for myself and pick based on multiple issues. Basically, overall, you've just filled a post with a lot of judgmental (and inaccurate) bilge, tried to cover it up with a little bit of data, and thrown around ad homs to try and make me look bad for being ok with guns and gun ownership. People like you who take these sorts of stances (on both sides of the debate) are the main problem, it's why there's no rational reform, and no functional compromise. It's why we get useless measures or no measures. I think this really misrepresents the politics of gun control in a fundamental way. "Partisanship and a refusal to compromise" is a very loaded and misleading phrase, as it assumes that both sides are equally interested in seeing the middle-ground. Compromise IS gun control. All forms of even the most modest gun control, even things such as the Brady Bill which only asks that people take background checks, has been consistently demonized by the NRA. What little gun control we have, such as the Brady Bill, we have because either the believers in the status quo compromised, or were simply out-voted. This isn't a budget plan, or tax reform, where we can negotiate over small margins. There is only a request by one side -- and a flat refusal by the other. And you seem to be asking both sides, or the side asking for change, to be more reasonable. There is only one side that needs to compromise for something to be done here, and that is the side currently demanding things be held status-quo. I can only hope we'll get a real reduction of guns in this country. It saddens me that people still can not understand the common sense that behind our rampant gun violence, guns are an actual problem. Common sense is guns kill, because that is the reason we made them. Common sense is guns do not save lives, unless you're in the VERY RARE scenario of shooting somebody who is (ironically?) using his/her gun. Kevlar saves lives. Bulletproof windows save lives. Guns retaliate, but far, far, far, far, far, far, far more often, they just kill. And this, common sense should tell us, is why America has more gun violence than countries that possess less guns.
I wonder if I'm the only one who kept thinking of Thomas Paine's Common Sense literature that helped motivate the American public to ultimately take up arms and fight for independence. It makes me chuckle that buzzwords can often evoke such different thoughts, emotions and reactions from people.
|
On January 18 2013 20:55 RHGaming wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2013 19:55 MutantGenepool wrote:
YES EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO OWN GUNS.
WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT?
THE ASSHOLES WANT TO TAKE YOUR FREEDOM FROM YOU.
ARE YOU A FUCKING IDIOT?
THE REASON THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE GUNS IS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT YOU KILLING THEIR GREEDY ASSES.
Ban me you fuckers. I don't care. You're from a country that has recently restricted gun ownership severely (referred to as arguably the most restrictive policies in the world among countries where private ownership is allowed). Apparently your fellow countrymen and politicians are somewhat opposed to your views. I'd like to hear your reply but I'm afraid I won't.
Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns.
How does keeping guns away from people using it for defense help stop criminals? It doesn't, they just don't want an armed republic.
To me, it's kind of mind boggling; There are people out there who are twisted, have no concern for morality, will commit horrible acts with whatever means preferred or necessary, whether guns exist or not. Why should you not have the OPTION to own a firearm, which in a typical scenario is being kept in your home, locked away - for emergencies.
Another large part of the 2nd amendment is for foreign or domestic (Government) take over. People laugh at it, but it's literally going on right now in places around the World, and has been since Mankind came about. Your Government should be working for you, and not the opposite. As we know, it's quite the opposite, very rarely is it for the good of the people. all you have to do is look past what they're saying and see what they're doing.
What's going on with gun control now can be said for anything; stabbings, car accidents, they happen. It doesn't actually address the real issue or help anybody but the criminals.
These types of regulations continue until there is nothing left, it may not be this year, but freedom is only one generation away from extinction. It's easy to forget history and be complacent when you have all the amenities of a King and a Country with the fortitude of an Ox.
|
On January 19 2013 15:36 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 09:57 Introvert wrote:On January 18 2013 20:06 Dr.PeterKien wrote:On January 18 2013 19:06 Introvert wrote:
First, I would like to note a lack of facts and figures. Gun violence is not related to access to certain types of guns, especially "assault" weapons. What is the need for figures when we are discussing entirely abstract matters? And what do you mean by lack of facts? Is anything I wrote unfactual, other than what you yourself misread? You make it appear that a rational discussion is only valid if it contains masses of arbitrary numbers and random graphs... secondly, I never spoke of gun violence being related to certain types of guns, and never used the word 'assault' once in my post, so are you replying to my post in particular, or similar posts? You seem to miss the point of my argument entirely when you write "..., citizens should be equally well armed, ..." and then later write "No, you don't need a tank (...)." So you seriously want to take on a modern army with small arms? I am not advocating tanks or nukes for civilian use (which sounds like a paradox)! I am merely trying to make apparent the fallacy of many gunadvocate's arguments regarding the 2nd amendment. And obviously the founding fathers were aware that swords and bows got replaced by muskets, but I doubt they saw thermonuclear weapons and chemical lasers coming down the road. I admit to being a bit harsh to the tea party people, I realize they would never actually physically encircle the whitehouse to move against a percieved tyrannical president, only lobby for legislation to the same effect. And yes, I view them as dangerous and scary, but more on an ideological and cognitive level than an actual physical threat - the same goes for the OWS ppl as well although on another level. My use of them as an example might have been a mistake, I thought it was tounge-in-cheek when I wrote it. But my point, not very clear perhaps, was at what point is the public warranted in forming militias against their tyrannical government? It seems to me like it wouldn't be hard finding groups of people in America who think this line has already been crossed, and if it has should they not rise up and fight the good fight?... And the societal issues I am talking about? Hmmm.. poverty? Education? Bildung? War on drugs? Inequality? I agree that crime will always be around, if for no other reason than spite. But acknowledging this isn't the same as saying that we cannot/should not try to minimize crime as much as possible. Finally, I alluded in my post to the fact that a peacful country (where gunownership is extremely heavily regulated - not even hunters are allowed to own suppresors btw) such as Denmark could still foster the nutjob who was responsible for the aforementioned shooting in Aarhus, without easy access to guns, but also without a public outcry for the need to post armed guards at school entrances and what not. So yes, the fait accompli remains that guns don't kill people, people do. But instead of treating the symptoms of a society gone awry (isn't society always, and always will be, going awry?!?) we should look at the cause instead, whatever that may be (I blame people over the age of 30 myself^^). If I misrepresented something, I apologize. I was hurrying, as I had to get to bed. As to the abstract matters, I have mentioned them multiple times. Where you quoted me is my first, and shortest, section of the reply. I was pointing out that, since gun control is an objective failure, control advocates have to rely entirely on these thought experiments. If the citizens had NO OTHER WAY of defending themselves, from say, an American version of a revolutionary dictator, then yes. They should be ready, no matter what. I believe this right to self-defense is just that: a right. You try to restrict it, we have a problem. No one is advocating citizens have access to nukes, stop saying that. An individual does not and cannot use a nuke for self-defense, a nation does. (Same with tanks). EDIT: I would like to emphasize this point, as I believe it to be of crucial importance for weeding through these ridiculous arguments of "well then do you think they should have a nuclear warhead!!!???" I have no idea where this line is, (far away), but this country was FOUNDED by people who revolted and found the line crossed. It exists, and thus, it should always be prepared for. This is one of the MAIN reasons the 2nd Amendment was passed. (Also, it is supposed to be a preventative measure: government sees armed citizens ---> decides to leave them alone.) This country has 315+ million people, you can find a little of everything. The Tea Party started as a purely anti-tax grassroot group of citizens. Since, unlike OWS, it maintains some relevance, it has moved to other issues as well. They have ZERO history of violence (compared to union thugs, OWS vandalism, etc). Nothing scary about them. And nothing is wrong with the less taxes idea. Stop acting like they are so backward you are worried for the future of America. I have made the argument numerous times already: More guns for good guys=less dead people. That helps fight crime, I would imagine. We should treat societal issues as a society, the government should keep its destructive hands out of it. Last thing I want is a bunch of bureaucrats deciding how to "fix" societal problems. Jinglehell's post is excellent. I mean, this might be out of line, but I just have to ask, how thick do you have to be to think more guns will equate to less gun violence? How much crap do you have to listen to, and how often, to believe something that nonsensical? Your definition of "good guy" is, let's be honest, anyone who hasn't yet been arrested for a violent crime. Most gun violence comes from crimes of passion. We're all "good guys", until we aren't. To be fair, I will give you that there are people in this country who would currently benefit from owning a gun. Someone who owns a small store with a cash register in the wrong part of Chicago, I certainly wouldn't blame for wanting to own a gun. Most people, however, would be safer not owning a gun. Even if you're a good marksman, and a responsible person, it doesn't mean you won't get shot standing up for yourself in a robbery, whereas a person with smarter priorities lets themselves get robbed and gets to live another day. But in the long-term, how could anyone NOT want to see a reduction of guns in this country? That is something I will never understand. Frankly, I think it's pure insanity, the mark of a warped mind. The black-market doesn't manufacture its guns. It buys them legally. They are all legal, in the beginning (and then they're used on someone and become evidence). We absolutely can reduce the influx of guns in this country, even if it does take generations to make substantial change. I'll admit it's hard to ban one "type" of gun. Any line you draw will be somewhat arbitrary. I think instead of banning types of firearms, we should probably start on limiting the number of weapons people can buy. You "need" a gun? Well, you don't need 5 of them. It'd be a start. In reference to my previous post about compromise, what we also really need to do is update the Brady Bill. There are loopholes, such as trade shows, where people can circumvent background checks. The Brady Bill needs to be expounded to close these loopholes. So, who needs to compromise to get that done? Despite the NRA's protest, Reagan approved the Brady Bill wholeheartedly, and it's because of that bit of non-partisanship that we have the Brady Bill. This is another example of how the Republican Party has become more fundamentalist, at least when it comes to this topic.
How thick do you have to be to ignore the fact that gun control has a record of failure? Plus, the VAST majority of gun owners (and citizens) are good people. Our entire system and society is based on this premise.
So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage. And what good would getting rid of guns do? A 1v3 with everyone having guns is MUCH better odds than a 1v3 where they all have knives (I admit to guessing on this one). Guns even the field. Gun control is the skewing of the odds in favor of the criminal. Like the story I posted earlier, the guy defending his store would have been more likely to lose should they all have had knives.
Also, some people want to fight to protect their property (and family). Up to them to decide, not you.
It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. So there is a legal argument. But also, you can't decide that. More crimes are committed with handguns, so what good is arbitrary restrictions, and what good does it do to limit the number? I don't think criminals barge in carrying 5 guns on their person, probably two at the most.
I don't have to agree with Reagan with everything (though I do agree with him a lot). I don't have the stats here, but how many are killed by these "loopholes?" If someone wants to commit a crime and he gets a gun from a friend, do you think they are going to report the trade?
As to why we don't want a reduction: because it is a bad idea. Better armed citizenry is safer from lone nut jobs (or groups) than having one criminal with an illegally (or legally) obtained gun.
Utopia will never be realized, thus it is better to have everyone capable of self-defenses than not.
Don't forget the whole "resistance to tyranny" part as well. Laugh now, we have no idea what the world or the USA will be like in 100 years.
|
On January 19 2013 16:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns.
Yes, criminals own guns, and yes, criminals will continue to use guns regardless of the state of gun laws. However, arming every citizen in the country will not deter criminals either. Even in nations with completely lax gun restrictions, with massive military involvement in local security, gun related crimes, gang activity, etc. still exist in large numbers.
Of course, while you won't stop career criminals, you can prevent plenty of one-time criminals from causing a large amount of harm by restricting the resources they have immediate access to.
On January 19 2013 17:29 Introvert wrote:
So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage.
This is a rather ignorant and amusing statement. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other 1st World nations that have much stricter gun laws. In other words, the "guarantee" of being a victim is higher in the US than nations like...Japan, where guns are completely illegal.
|
On January 19 2013 17:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 16:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns. Yes, criminals own guns, and yes, criminals will continue to use guns regardless of the state of gun laws. However, arming every citizen in the country will not deter criminals either. Even in nations with completely lax gun restrictions, with massive military involvement in local security, gun related crimes, gang activity, etc. still exist in large numbers. Of course, while you won't stop career criminals, you can prevent plenty of one-time criminals from causing a large amount of harm by restricting the resources they have immediate access to. Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 17:29 Introvert wrote:
So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage. This is a rather ignorant and amusing statement. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other 1st World nations that have much stricter gun laws. In other words, the "guarantee" of being a victim is higher in the US than nations like...Japan, where guns are completely illegal.
Care to respond to the rest of what I said? The only data point gun control advocates use is that of other countries, while ignoring cases like the UK and OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY.
Different counties are.. different. Like the UK. Massive gun control passes. Crime goes up. For the U.S., a lot of these crimes are committed in places like Chicago, where guns are heavily controlled. It all depends on where you live. For instance, I live in one the safest areas in the nation, but big cities will cancel out the stats of where I live. In the U.S., gun control has, at the very best, a neutral effect. The crime rate has regular fluctuations, no matter what. The gun crime rate is has gone down in the last decade since the expiration of the AWB. So you can point to Japan (where, if I recall, the police don't like to report or follow up on crime anyway, as the real numbers make the government look worse. I could be mis-remembering something tho).
Please tell me how ANYONE would be safer when they don't have a gun. You would keep a gun out of the hands of 100 good people for the sake of maybe keeping it from 1. Also, if we were all armed, we would be safer. Is a criminal going to attack a meeting of the NRA or of a school? (history already speaks to that one). When a place has heavy gun laws, the criminals will go there since they have a better chance of success.
I just found this, I fully admit to not reading all of it. (mainly went to the conclusion): http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
|
On January 19 2013 17:53 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 17:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 19 2013 16:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns. Yes, criminals own guns, and yes, criminals will continue to use guns regardless of the state of gun laws. However, arming every citizen in the country will not deter criminals either. Even in nations with completely lax gun restrictions, with massive military involvement in local security, gun related crimes, gang activity, etc. still exist in large numbers. Of course, while you won't stop career criminals, you can prevent plenty of one-time criminals from causing a large amount of harm by restricting the resources they have immediate access to. On January 19 2013 17:29 Introvert wrote:
So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage. This is a rather ignorant and amusing statement. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other 1st World nations that have much stricter gun laws. In other words, the "guarantee" of being a victim is higher in the US than nations like...Japan, where guns are completely illegal. Care to respond to the rest of what I said? The only data point gun control advocates use is that of other countries, while ignoring cases like the UK and OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY. Different counties are.. different. Like the UK. Massive gun control passes. Crime goes up. For the U.S., a lot of these crimes are committed in places like Chicago, where guns are heavily controlled. It all depends on where you live. For instance, I live in one the safest areas in the nation, but big cities will cancel out the stats of where I live. In the U.S., gun control has, at the very best, a neutral effect. The crime rate has regular fluctuations, no matter what. The gun crime rate is has gone down in the last decade since the expiration of the AWB. So you can point to Japan (where, if I recall, the police don't like to report or follow up on crime anyway, as the real numbers make the government look worse. I could be mis-remembering something tho). Please tell me how ANYONE would be safer when they don't have a gun. You would keep a gun out of the hands of 100 good people for the sake of maybe keeping it from 1. Also, if we were all armed, we would be safer. Is a criminal going to attack a meeting of the NRA or of a school? (history already speaks to that one). When a place has heavy gun laws, the criminals will go there since they have a better chance of success. I just found this, I fully admit to not reading all of it. (mainly went to the conclusion): http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
I am not so convinced about many ideas you seem to take at face value. The biggest one being that guns make gun owners safer on average than unarmed people. I have tried looking up data but it seems to swing so heavily both ways that you need to spend ages looking into the background of each organization but in the end the data seemed to suggest something close to what I have always assumed (for Americans).
Guns raise stakes. There is some evidence that overall violent crime against strangers is reduced but when it does happen it is far more deadly (much higher homicide rates). This creates an interesting question in my mind regarding gun control. Which is the better world, one with 100 robberies and 10 murders or one with 20 robberies and 20 murders?
|
On January 19 2013 18:22 Velocirapture wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 17:53 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2013 17:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 19 2013 16:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns. Yes, criminals own guns, and yes, criminals will continue to use guns regardless of the state of gun laws. However, arming every citizen in the country will not deter criminals either. Even in nations with completely lax gun restrictions, with massive military involvement in local security, gun related crimes, gang activity, etc. still exist in large numbers. Of course, while you won't stop career criminals, you can prevent plenty of one-time criminals from causing a large amount of harm by restricting the resources they have immediate access to. On January 19 2013 17:29 Introvert wrote:
So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage. This is a rather ignorant and amusing statement. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other 1st World nations that have much stricter gun laws. In other words, the "guarantee" of being a victim is higher in the US than nations like...Japan, where guns are completely illegal. Care to respond to the rest of what I said? The only data point gun control advocates use is that of other countries, while ignoring cases like the UK and OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY. Different counties are.. different. Like the UK. Massive gun control passes. Crime goes up. For the U.S., a lot of these crimes are committed in places like Chicago, where guns are heavily controlled. It all depends on where you live. For instance, I live in one the safest areas in the nation, but big cities will cancel out the stats of where I live. In the U.S., gun control has, at the very best, a neutral effect. The crime rate has regular fluctuations, no matter what. The gun crime rate is has gone down in the last decade since the expiration of the AWB. So you can point to Japan (where, if I recall, the police don't like to report or follow up on crime anyway, as the real numbers make the government look worse. I could be mis-remembering something tho). Please tell me how ANYONE would be safer when they don't have a gun. You would keep a gun out of the hands of 100 good people for the sake of maybe keeping it from 1. Also, if we were all armed, we would be safer. Is a criminal going to attack a meeting of the NRA or of a school? (history already speaks to that one). When a place has heavy gun laws, the criminals will go there since they have a better chance of success. I just found this, I fully admit to not reading all of it. (mainly went to the conclusion): http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf I am not so convinced about many ideas you seem to take at face value. The biggest one being that guns make gun owners safer on average than unarmed people. I have tried looking up data but it seems to swing so heavily both ways that you need to spend ages looking into the background of each organization but in the end the data seemed to suggest something close to what I have always assumed (for Americans). Guns raise stakes. There is some evidence that overall violent crime against strangers is reduced but when it does happen it is far more deadly (much higher homicide rates). This creates an interesting question in my mind regarding gun control. Which is the better world, one with 100 robberies and 10 murders or one with 20 robberies and 20 murders?
Did you look up how the stats on how many people are saved by guns? I'm fairly certain it's high as well. Again, I'm not sure how a gun increases the homicide rate (you have to compare within countries, remember). Can you show me what stats you are referencing? If you would like mine (like the one above), I can can provide them as well, just be specific. (or you can Google them, the evidence is everywhere).
As to your question, it's not that simple. I would ask the question: 100 murders prevented with more regulation vs 150 prevented with less regulation, for instance. The more guns in an area, the less likely criminals will try (just a guess of mine. if I was a criminal, that's how I would think). Also, I say if you want someone dead, a gun is just one way to do it (I believe more murders are committed with knives). So less guns=less gun crime, but maybe not less murder. I would like to see your (even muddled) research. You take one avenue away, there are more. For instance, you take away many guns (let's say you even manage to get them from criminals), now it's knife on knife instead of gun on gun. Great, nothing changed (well, you empowered the criminal).
There is just no good reason to punish the millions of good gun owners because of the nut jobs.
|
On January 19 2013 19:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2013 18:22 Velocirapture wrote:On January 19 2013 17:53 Introvert wrote:On January 19 2013 17:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 19 2013 16:58 v3chr0 wrote:
Well, whether you like guns or dislike guns, he's right.
Most gun laws are excessive, and have little to no effect on criminals who DO NOT obey the laws. They pass these laws on gun control, which like I i said - do hardly nothing to stop criminals - it happens again - they do the same thing, except stricter regulations, and it'll keep continuing until you don't own a firearm, yet criminals will. I can guarantee you that wherever there is poverty there will be crime, and guns. Yes, criminals own guns, and yes, criminals will continue to use guns regardless of the state of gun laws. However, arming every citizen in the country will not deter criminals either. Even in nations with completely lax gun restrictions, with massive military involvement in local security, gun related crimes, gang activity, etc. still exist in large numbers. Of course, while you won't stop career criminals, you can prevent plenty of one-time criminals from causing a large amount of harm by restricting the resources they have immediate access to. On January 19 2013 17:29 Introvert wrote:
So basically you are saying that it is better to be a guaranteed victim then have a small chance of collateral damage. This is a rather ignorant and amusing statement. The United States has a higher crime rate than many other 1st World nations that have much stricter gun laws. In other words, the "guarantee" of being a victim is higher in the US than nations like...Japan, where guns are completely illegal. Care to respond to the rest of what I said? The only data point gun control advocates use is that of other countries, while ignoring cases like the UK and OUR VERY OWN COUNTRY. Different counties are.. different. Like the UK. Massive gun control passes. Crime goes up. For the U.S., a lot of these crimes are committed in places like Chicago, where guns are heavily controlled. It all depends on where you live. For instance, I live in one the safest areas in the nation, but big cities will cancel out the stats of where I live. In the U.S., gun control has, at the very best, a neutral effect. The crime rate has regular fluctuations, no matter what. The gun crime rate is has gone down in the last decade since the expiration of the AWB. So you can point to Japan (where, if I recall, the police don't like to report or follow up on crime anyway, as the real numbers make the government look worse. I could be mis-remembering something tho). Please tell me how ANYONE would be safer when they don't have a gun. You would keep a gun out of the hands of 100 good people for the sake of maybe keeping it from 1. Also, if we were all armed, we would be safer. Is a criminal going to attack a meeting of the NRA or of a school? (history already speaks to that one). When a place has heavy gun laws, the criminals will go there since they have a better chance of success. I just found this, I fully admit to not reading all of it. (mainly went to the conclusion): http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf I am not so convinced about many ideas you seem to take at face value. The biggest one being that guns make gun owners safer on average than unarmed people. I have tried looking up data but it seems to swing so heavily both ways that you need to spend ages looking into the background of each organization but in the end the data seemed to suggest something close to what I have always assumed (for Americans). Guns raise stakes. There is some evidence that overall violent crime against strangers is reduced but when it does happen it is far more deadly (much higher homicide rates). This creates an interesting question in my mind regarding gun control. Which is the better world, one with 100 robberies and 10 murders or one with 20 robberies and 20 murders? Did you look up how the stats on how many people are saved by guns? I'm fairly certain it's high as well. Again, I'm not sure how a gun increases the homicide rate (you have to compare within countries, remember). Can you show me what stats you are referencing? If you would like mine (like the one above), I can can provide them as well, just be specific. (or you can Google them, the evidence is everywhere). As to your question, it's not that simple. I would ask the question: 100 murders prevented with more regulation vs 150 prevented with less regulation, for instance. The more guns in an area, the less likely criminals will try (just a guess of mine. if I was a criminal, that's how I would think). Also, I say if you want someone dead, a gun is just one way to do it (I believe more murders are committed with knives). So less guns=less gun crime, but maybe not less murder. I would like to see your (even muddled) research. You take one avenue away, there are more. For instance, you take away many guns (let's say you even manage to get them from criminals), now it's knife on knife instead of gun on gun. Great, nothing changed (well, you empowered the criminal). There is just no good reason to punish the millions of good gun owners because of the nut jobs.
This is our problem, you have somehow established a causation relationship that I have seen NO evidence of. I am not saying that firearms make you less safe, if anything I am saying they are safety neutral. Just because the evidence isn't compelling enough to say guns make you less safe is not strong enough evidence to say they make you more safe.
Just looking at the raw data.
+ Show Spoiler +
States with Extremely High Populations of Gun Owners(more than 50%)
1. Wyoming - 59.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 43 - Murder Rank 39
2. Alaska - 57.8% - Violent Crimes Rank 23 - Murder Rank 26
3. Montana - 57.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 41 - Murder Rank 46
4. South Dakota - 56.6% - Violent Crimes Rank 46 - Murder Rank 43
5. West Virginia - 55.4% - Violent Crimes Rank 28 - Murder Rank 31
6. Mississippi - 55.3% - Violent Crimes Rank 31 - Murder Rank 10
6. Idaho - 55.3% - Violent Crimes Rank 42 - Murder Rank 41
6. Arkansas - 55.3% - Violent Crimes Rank 11 - Murder Rank 14
9. Alabama - 51.7%
10. North Dakota - 50.7%
States with High Populations of Gun Owners
11. Kentucky - 47.7%
12. Wisconsin - 44.4%
13. Louisiana - 44.1%
14. Utah - 43.9%
14. Tennessee - 43.9%
16. Oklahoma - 42.9%
16. Iowa - 42.9%
18. South Carolina - 42.3% - Violent Crimes Rank 1 - Murder Rank 8
19. Kansas - 42.1%
20. Vermont - 42.0%
21. Missouri - 41.7%
21. Minnesota - 41.7%
23. North Carolina - 41.3%
24. Maine - 40.5%
25. Georgia - 40.3%
States with Median Populations of Gun Owners
26. Oregon - 39.8%
27. Indiana - 39.1%
28. Nebraska - 38.6%
29. Michigan - 38.4%
30. Texas - 35.9%
31. Virginia - 35.1%
32. New Mexico - 34.8%
33. Colorado - 34.7%
33. Pennsylvania - 34.7%
35. Nevada - 33.8%
36. Washington - 33.1%
37. Ohio - 32.4%
38. Arizona - 31.1%
39. New Hampshire - 30.0%
States with Below Median Populations of Gun Owners
40. Delaware - 25.5%
41. Florida - 24.5%
42. California - 21.3%
42. Maryland - 21.3%
44. Illinois - 20.2%
45. New York - 18% - Violent Crimes Rank 22 - Murder Rank 29
46. Connecticut - 16.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 37 - Murder Rank 37
47. Rhode Island - 12.8% - Violent Crimes Rank 44 - Murder Rank 36
48. Massachusetts - 12.6% - Violent Crimes Rank 20 - Murder Rank 38
49. New Jersey - 12.3% - Violent Crimes Rank 47 - Murder Rank 27
50. Hawaii - 6.7% - Violent Crimes Rank 36 - Murder Rank 47
*Violent Crimes Rank comes from Census Bureau and Murder Rates are taken from the same year (2006)
Average Violent Crimes/Murder Ranks of Top Gun Ownership States = 33.13/31.25
Average Violent Crimes/Murder Ranks of Lowest Gun Ownership States = 34.3/35.67
This show a slight correlation between more guns and more violence but not enough to draw any real conclusion from and a far more significant correlation between more guns and more murder. This is where my original conclusion came from that since violent crime is essentially equal but murder is down in relatively gun free states then other violent crimes, such as robbery, are filling the void.
This is all data comparing Americans to Americans. The bottom of the chart even has states with huge urban centers which, for other reasons, we would expect to have significantly increased murder rates (NY, MA, NJ) so if anything this mitigates the impact guns have on murder rates.
At the end of the day if gun control is just trading murder for rape or whatever then we have to find a better way, but I disagree with your reasons for disagreeing 
Edit: miscalculation fixed
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
