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 April 11 2013 01:26 BBoyXELAnt wrote: Remember SOPA? How the government miserably failed at controlling the internet? Well that concept is brought back to life as CAD files containing gun schematics (mostly of the AR15) are going to be distrubuted and 3D printed. Anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer will, in the near future, be able to print a gun in their own home. Granted, not everyone owns a 3D printer, but it is rising technology, some say most homes will have one in the near future. Furthermore, anyone who does already own a 3D printer becomes a source for guns, whether qualified or not; sounds extremely similar to the war on drugs currently going on, a war that the government is losing. Here is a documentary (not mine):
- 3D Printable Guns
So screw the bans or the legislation, this is coming up to a level where its impossible to restrict, just like its impossible to stop the pirating of music on the internet..
Call me back when you can 3D print gunpowder.
I mean, this post is just silly.
It's technically not silly--its not like gunpowder is the hard part of gun manufacturing...
Most people simply don't have the tools (or the inclination) to be able to forge metal and fiberglass into rifles. However, if all they need is a zipfile and a printer--they hard part is already taken over.
His conclusion is bonkers though. If anything, gun companies will be the most adamantly against gun printing in much the same way the entertainment industry is against piracy. The US government won't have to do jack to attack gun printing since gun manufacturers will do the attacking for them.
lol just you wait, once 3D printers become an actual alternative and are able to produce working weapons consistently amidst the population, the NRA will do a marvelous 180 as they fight for government control.
On April 11 2013 01:26 BBoyXELAnt wrote: Remember SOPA? How the government miserably failed at controlling the internet? Well that concept is brought back to life as CAD files containing gun schematics (mostly of the AR15) are going to be distrubuted and 3D printed. Anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer will, in the near future, be able to print a gun in their own home. Granted, not everyone owns a 3D printer, but it is rising technology, some say most homes will have one in the near future. Furthermore, anyone who does already own a 3D printer becomes a source for guns, whether qualified or not; sounds extremely similar to the war on drugs currently going on, a war that the government is losing. Here is a documentary (not mine):
So screw the bans or the legislation, this is coming up to a level where its impossible to restrict, just like its impossible to stop the pirating of music on the internet..
Call me back when you can 3D print gunpowder.
I mean, this post is just silly.
It's technically not silly--its not like gunpowder is the hard part of gun manufacturing...
Most people simply don't have the tools (or the inclination) to be able to forge metal and fiberglass into rifles. However, if all they need is a zipfile and a printer--they hard part is already taken over.
His conclusion is bonkers though. If anything, gun companies will be the most adamantly against gun printing in much the same way the entertainment industry is against piracy. The US government won't have to do jack to attack gun printing since gun manufacturers will do the attacking for them.
lol just you wait, once 3D printers become an actual alternative and are able to produce working weapons consistently amidst the population, the NRA will do a marvelous 180 as they fight for government control.
Im not sure if you are trying to correct me or support me--but I agree with you lol
On April 11 2013 01:26 BBoyXELAnt wrote: Remember SOPA? How the government miserably failed at controlling the internet? Well that concept is brought back to life as CAD files containing gun schematics (mostly of the AR15) are going to be distrubuted and 3D printed. Anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer will, in the near future, be able to print a gun in their own home. Granted, not everyone owns a 3D printer, but it is rising technology, some say most homes will have one in the near future. Furthermore, anyone who does already own a 3D printer becomes a source for guns, whether qualified or not; sounds extremely similar to the war on drugs currently going on, a war that the government is losing. Here is a documentary (not mine):
So screw the bans or the legislation, this is coming up to a level where its impossible to restrict, just like its impossible to stop the pirating of music on the internet..
Call me back when you can 3D print gunpowder.
I mean, this post is just silly.
It's technically not silly--its not like gunpowder is the hard part of gun manufacturing...
Most people simply don't have the tools (or the inclination) to be able to forge metal and fiberglass into rifles. However, if all they need is a zipfile and a printer--they hard part is already taken over.
His conclusion is bonkers though. If anything, gun companies will be the most adamantly against gun printing in much the same way the entertainment industry is against piracy. The US government won't have to do jack to attack gun printing since gun manufacturers will do the attacking for them.
I was pointing out that making ammo is pretty goddamn difficult and requires specialized tools that can't just be 3D printed. The bullet is wedged into the shell. It's not like a gun, where you can put together and disassemble it easily. Making guns at home is worthless if you don't have the ammo.
On April 11 2013 01:26 BBoyXELAnt wrote: Remember SOPA? How the government miserably failed at controlling the internet? Well that concept is brought back to life as CAD files containing gun schematics (mostly of the AR15) are going to be distrubuted and 3D printed. Anyone with an internet connection and a 3D printer will, in the near future, be able to print a gun in their own home. Granted, not everyone owns a 3D printer, but it is rising technology, some say most homes will have one in the near future. Furthermore, anyone who does already own a 3D printer becomes a source for guns, whether qualified or not; sounds extremely similar to the war on drugs currently going on, a war that the government is losing. Here is a documentary (not mine):
So screw the bans or the legislation, this is coming up to a level where its impossible to restrict, just like its impossible to stop the pirating of music on the internet..
Call me back when you can 3D print gunpowder.
I mean, this post is just silly.
It's technically not silly--its not like gunpowder is the hard part of gun manufacturing...
Most people simply don't have the tools (or the inclination) to be able to forge metal and fiberglass into rifles. However, if all they need is a zipfile and a printer--they hard part is already taken over.
His conclusion is bonkers though. If anything, gun companies will be the most adamantly against gun printing in much the same way the entertainment industry is against piracy. The US government won't have to do jack to attack gun printing since gun manufacturers will do the attacking for them.
I was pointing out that making ammo is pretty goddamn difficult and requires specialized tools that can't just be 3D printed. The bullet is wedged into the shell. It's not like a gun, where you can put together and disassemble it easily. Making guns at home is worthless if you don't have the ammo.
Im not disagreeing with you on that point--I'm just saying skipping the forge metal section of home brewing guns cuts the work by half. It still takes some level of effort to get the whole package together, but if you making one part easier then the whole process is easier.
i still dont get how going from some people having guns, to everyone has guns can make you feel more safe, just because you have a gun as well? - besides lets say everyone has guns, young people are going to bring them when they go out to party to "feel safe", right, because everyone else has one, you need one as well, right, because 2 drunk college students getting into a fight, is waay worse than 2 drunk armed college students getting into fight... besides people will not stop breaking into your house or what ever, theyll just make sure to shoot first instead of maybe just threatening you or what ever. less crimes arent going to occur because of more guns, and there are certainly not going to die less people because of more guns... at least thats my opinion. if anybody can tell me how, knowing that everyone has guns will help you feel safer, id apreciate it.
On April 11 2013 02:35 WedRine wrote: i still dont get how going from some people having guns, to everyone has guns can make you feel more safe, just because you have a gun as well? - besides lets say everyone has guns, young people are going to bring them when they go out to party to "feel safe", right, because everyone else has one, you need one as well, right, because 2 drunk college students getting into a fight, is waay worse than 2 drunk armed college students getting into fight... besides people will not stop breaking into your house or what ever, theyll just make sure to shoot first instead of maybe just threatening you or what ever. less crimes arent going to occur because of more guns, and there are certainly not going to die less people because of more guns... at least thats my opinion. if anybody can tell me how, knowing that everyone has guns will help you feel safer, id apreciate it.
First, I disagree with your assumption that someone will still break into your house, regardless of knowing you are armed. Unless the burglar is trying to steal guns, they will avoid any household where they know the homeowner is a) home and b) armed. They also avoid homes with dogs, alarms, lights on, etc. Nobody whose objective is to steal some jewelry to pawn for some cash for drugs is going to choose a gunfight over no gunfight.
Second, little old ladies who are seen as victims for purse snatching, etc, are much safer in areas where, even though see may not be armed, the 50 civilian bystanders in the immediate proximity are armed. No mugger is going to strike at an open carry demonstration, for example.
As for your example with drunk college kids, gun ownership / concealed carry is a tremendous responsibility. Any responsible concealed carry citizen makes decisions about where they go, and whether they go armed based on this responsibility. It's very irresponsible to go out to a frat party armed. Anybody with common sense will avoid such a situation if they know alcohol, guns, and idiots are going to be combined.
Your refutation of common sense gun ownership is pretty much entirely based on illogical assumptions and outrageous strawman situations that have no bearing on responsible gun ownership / possession. Your college party comparison is basically comparable to an argument to ban fire because somebody could light up at a gas station.
On April 11 2013 02:16 Acritter wrote: I was pointing out that making ammo is pretty goddamn difficult and requires specialized tools that can't just be 3D printed. The bullet is wedged into the shell. It's not like a gun, where you can put together and disassemble it easily. Making guns at home is worthless if you don't have the ammo.
Actually, "making" ammo isn't that difficult (assuming you're referring to loading/reloading bullets). While specialized tools are required, it's just comprised of measuring and assembling. It's more time-consuming than it is difficult, as you have to give care and attention to each individual round. It may seem like a daunting task at first, but once you get into a rhythm, you tend to flow like a well-oiled machine.
Two of the top 5 safest states in the US are Vermont and Utah.
Both are are on opposite ends of the political spectrum... Utah conservative, Vermont liberal.
Everyone owns guns in both those states. You can open/conceal carry. And in Vermont you don't need a license of any kind.
Vermont murder ratre was 1.3 per 100,000 Utah murder rate is 1.9 per 100,000
So I'd say they are close. Denmark is a little bit better than Vermont. And Belgium is a little bit better than Utah.
I can pull 10 counties out of northern Virginia that, population wise equal a small country in Europe..and will have a equal if not better murder rate.
Fairfax County has 1.2 million people in it...and during a work day probably closer to 1.5 million. Their murder rate is under 1.0 per 100,000. And everybody has a gun up their as well.
On April 10 2013 09:13 Fruscainte wrote: It's funny how your entire post is completely refuted by the thing I've been beating down your throat this entire time.
The 2nd Amendment talks about how arms shall be permitted to be owned by all citizens, and this right shall not be infringed. Infringed is important. Reducing the amount of bullets a weapon can hold is infringing a right to bear arms because it is a limitation. Again, this case explicitly protects this notion. Saying you can ban all this shit as long as no guns themselves are being banned is the legal equivalent of saying all free speech but free speech said through the internet is banned.
Cars and Y2K and shit are completely irrelevant because none of those are explicitly protected under the Constitution. This isn't the "economics of governmental means of production" thread, this is the "should people be allowed to own guns thread".
And I'm going to say this again just for emphasis -- the second amendment is not only about being able to own a gun. It's about being able to own ANY weapon and that right never being infringed upon. That means you can't regulate how big of a sword someone can legally own, or how big of a sling someone can legally own, or many bullets are allowed in a magazine. If that last line "and this can not be infringed upon" was not in the Amendment, your entire argument would be 100% correct. However, the "shall not be infringed" clause along with the 2008 DC vs Heller decision completely nullifies your entire argument.
I'm not even going to respond to your "regulation" argument because it's semantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics. The militia refers to the people. The militia is an example of the necessity of the second amendment because militia's are inherently non-government regulated. "Regulated" refers to discipline. It's saying that every citizen has an almost civic duty to stay trained in their weapons independent of government control.
If you yourself are going to make an argument based on emantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics, as though "shall not infringe" is some special semantics, it doesn't make sense to criticize other people being semantic. Likewise, if you are going to make an argument based on Heller, you should probably actually read Heller and see what it says. The Supreme Court actually did rule that certain arms can be restricted and even banned, but that semiautomatic pistols are not among those arms.
Thats kind of what I understood--but I'm not a lawyer so I thought I might have misunderstood something.
The origin of the case was because Heller had his license denied because of how his pistol loaded ammunition.
How pistols and subsequently all guns load ammunition is a byproduct of modern weaponry. That is why the Court outright said in their explanation after the case that "common" weaponry shall not be infringed upon in anyway. In essence, guns can not be banned or can not have mechanisms of themselves banned (ie: magazine size, rates of fire, etc.) restricted simply because they are more modern or dangerous or what have you. If the weapon or mechanism is common to the times, it is completely protected. This leaves some room for interpretation of course, it was a pretty vague decision.
However, one thing is clear. Placing a restriction on a gun not because of the type of gun it is (ie: shotgun, pistol, assault rifle, etc.) but because of some aspect of it (ie: how it intakes ammunition, how fast it fires, what kind of magazine it has) is just as unconstitutional as banning a certain type of gun altogether. All that can be restricted are, as the Court put it, "weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
I know it seems like a stretch, but that's what these cases are. They are not cut and dry rulings on whether or not you can ban pistols or not. It is an entire analysis of the Constitutional reach of the Second Amendment, and if ruling that banning a certain function of a pistol is unconstitutional then ANY banning of ANY subset function of ANY weapon is thereby unconstitutional until someone brings a case to the Court arguing otherwise. Let me make this entirely clear for you: You are correct. It may be completely constitutional to ban magazine sizes under our Second Amendment. However, as it stands right now and the casework that has been decided by the Supreme Court it can only be inferred that it is, in fact, unconstitutional as of now. The thing you have to keep telling yourself reading over that case is that it was not a ban on pistols, but a ban on pistols that loaded from the bottom and automatically chambered another bullet after every shot.
Also, I want to touch on something you said earlier Magpie, about how our Second Amendment rights are already infringed since Felons cant own weapons. Firstly let me say that I agree that making people second class citizens is completely ludicrous. Secondly however, our Fourteenth Amendment handles that area. This is another example that kind of illustrates how I'm seemingly taking this ruling so far. The Fourteenth Amendment has a Due Process Clause which states that an individuals right to life, liberty, or rights may not be taken without due process. That implies, however, that a persons rights CAN be taken IF there is due process. Taking a felons right to own guns away after the due process of our court system is completely constitutional.
On April 10 2013 09:13 Fruscainte wrote: It's funny how your entire post is completely refuted by the thing I've been beating down your throat this entire time.
The 2nd Amendment talks about how arms shall be permitted to be owned by all citizens, and this right shall not be infringed. Infringed is important. Reducing the amount of bullets a weapon can hold is infringing a right to bear arms because it is a limitation. Again, this case explicitly protects this notion. Saying you can ban all this shit as long as no guns themselves are being banned is the legal equivalent of saying all free speech but free speech said through the internet is banned.
Cars and Y2K and shit are completely irrelevant because none of those are explicitly protected under the Constitution. This isn't the "economics of governmental means of production" thread, this is the "should people be allowed to own guns thread".
And I'm going to say this again just for emphasis -- the second amendment is not only about being able to own a gun. It's about being able to own ANY weapon and that right never being infringed upon. That means you can't regulate how big of a sword someone can legally own, or how big of a sling someone can legally own, or many bullets are allowed in a magazine. If that last line "and this can not be infringed upon" was not in the Amendment, your entire argument would be 100% correct. However, the "shall not be infringed" clause along with the 2008 DC vs Heller decision completely nullifies your entire argument.
I'm not even going to respond to your "regulation" argument because it's semantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics. The militia refers to the people. The militia is an example of the necessity of the second amendment because militia's are inherently non-government regulated. "Regulated" refers to discipline. It's saying that every citizen has an almost civic duty to stay trained in their weapons independent of government control.
If you yourself are going to make an argument based on emantics built upon semantics built upon even more semantics, as though "shall not infringe" is some special semantics, it doesn't make sense to criticize other people being semantic. Likewise, if you are going to make an argument based on Heller, you should probably actually read Heller and see what it says. The Supreme Court actually did rule that certain arms can be restricted and even banned, but that semiautomatic pistols are not among those arms.
Thats kind of what I understood--but I'm not a lawyer so I thought I might have misunderstood something.
The origin of the case was because Heller had his license denied because of how his pistol loaded ammunition.
How pistols and subsequently all guns load ammunition is a byproduct of modern weaponry. That is why the Court outright said in their explanation after the case that "common" weaponry shall not be infringed upon in anyway. In essence, guns can not be banned or can not have mechanisms of themselves banned (ie: magazine size, rates of fire, etc.) restricted simply because they are more modern or dangerous or what have you. If the weapon or mechanism is common to the times, it is completely protected. This leaves some room for interpretation of course, it was a pretty vague decision.
However, one thing is clear. Placing a restriction on a gun not because of the type of gun it is (ie: shotgun, pistol, assault rifle, etc.) but because of some aspect of it (ie: how it intakes ammunition, how fast it fires, what kind of magazine it has) is just as unconstitutional as banning a certain type of gun altogether. All that can be restricted are, as the Court put it, "weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."
I know it seems like a stretch, but that's what these cases are. They are not cut and dry rulings on whether or not you can ban pistols or not. It is an entire analysis of the Constitutional reach of the Second Amendment, and if ruling that banning a certain function of a pistol is unconstitutional then ANY banning of ANY subset function of ANY weapon is thereby unconstitutional until someone brings a case to the Court arguing otherwise. Let me make this entirely clear for you: You are correct. It may be completely constitutional to ban magazine sizes under our Second Amendment. However, as it stands right now and the casework that has been decided by the Supreme Court it can only be inferred that it is, in fact, unconstitutional as of now. The thing you have to keep telling yourself reading over that case is that it was not a ban on pistols, but a ban on pistols that loaded from the bottom and automatically chambered another bullet after every shot.
Also, I want to touch on something you said earlier Magpie, about how our Second Amendment rights are already infringed since Felons cant own weapons. Firstly let me say that I agree that making people second class citizens is completely ludicrous. Secondly however, our Fourteenth Amendment handles that area. This is another example that kind of illustrates how I'm seemingly taking this ruling so far. The Fourteenth Amendment has a Due Process Clause which states that an individuals right to life, liberty, or rights may not be taken without due process. That implies, however, that a persons rights CAN be taken IF there is due process. Taking a felons right to own guns away after the due process of our court system is completely constitutional.
That wasn't me I know about the due process ruling of the 14th amendment. I might have quoted him wrong though--in any case I understand where you're going with their ruling. My not seeing it doesn't mean jack if that's how the 2008 ruling saw it. I can only hope for a new ruling later on in my life--but yes, if that's how the Heller case was ruled then that's how it was ruled.
"common use" can still be argued--but in the end that's a state by state thing. CA has strict knife laws that only has some support due to boar hunters wanting a big enough knife to hunt boar. But since no one else really needs blades in CA the state has laws against them--which would fit the "common use" modifier of the 2008 ruling. But if you go to a red state where everyone has rifle--then common use ruling would also apply there and hence you can't get rid of the rifles there. This automatically prevents federal mandates that would ignore a state law on weapons. Which is unfortunate, but nothing can be done until another ruling comes up.
On April 11 2013 04:00 Fruscainte wrote: Well it was fun discussing this with you then :D
I think at this point we can do nothing but agree to disagree on the philosophy of guns itself though.
Which I feel is a good place to be
Although, my personal distaste for guns =/= my support for their ban. I hate banning anything no matter the product. Banning guns for violence is like banning sex for pregnancies to me. It's better to educate than it is to restrict.
On April 11 2013 03:15 RCMDVA wrote: Two of the top 5 safest states in the US are Vermont and Utah.
Both are are on opposite ends of the political spectrum... Utah conservative, Vermont liberal.
Everyone owns guns in both those states. You can open/conceal carry. And in Vermont you don't need a license of any kind.
Vermont murder ratre was 1.3 per 100,000 Utah murder rate is 1.9 per 100,000
So I'd say they are close. Denmark is a little bit better than Vermont. And Belgium is a little bit better than Utah.
I can pull 10 counties out of northern Virginia that, population wise equal a small country in Europe..and will have a equal if not better murder rate.
Fairfax County has 1.2 million people in it...and during a work day probably closer to 1.5 million. Their murder rate is under 1.0 per 100,000. And everybody has a gun up their as well.
You say Fairfax County is full of guns. Prove it, I've never seen anything that indicates that Nova's gun rates are the same as the rest of the state of Virginia. I won't even get into why Utah and Vermont are poor states with which to make examples of in regards to the relationship between gun control and violence.
And yes, you're right. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof and that China example in my first example had no casualties. Their purpose isn't to demonstrate that. The purpose is to demonstrate ludicrous notion that anti-gun proponents have that people with knives cant' cause nearly as much damage as someone with a gun because people can subdue them. If someone can stab 41 fucking people before being subdued, I think that kind of proves a point.
Im kinda confused by this. I'd say someone stabbing 100 people but not killing any is techncially far "less damage" than shooting dead 20 people in 5 minutes.
I'd stay stabbing 41 people and causing serious injury is a tragedy and 20 people being shot to death is a tragedy and trying to quantify which is "more" tragic is not only petty but extremely disrespectful and the focus should be "why are people stabbing and shooting people to death" and not "let's ban these specific weapons but let the crazies continue doing their thing with just a slightly lower kill/hospitalization count"
If guns were not available in Newton whatsoever, want to know what Lanza would have done? He would have walked into the school, stabbed his mother to death and either cut his own throat right there or went on a nice attempted stabbing spree and stabbed, heavily injuring or killing quite a few children before being stopped. Which I'm sure there would not have been that much resistance due to it being a building full of children. The damage would have been significantly "less", but the problem is not fucking gone. A crazy just killed his mom and tried to stab a bunch of children and then slit his own throat. The issue isn't the tool the crazy person is using it's the damn crazy person and we need to work on stopping the crazy person.
Are you kidding me? "and trying to quantify which is "more" tragic is not only petty but extremely disrespectful". No it isn't. Trying to appeal to some kind of emotion here to avoid the numbers is lame. YES, OF COURSE it's better if 41 people got stabbed and not a single person died compared to 20 people actually dying. It isn't even close and anyone with common sense will realize that. None of these scenarios should happen and both are tragedies but the point is that the difference IS huge.
I completely agree with you that mental health is the main concern and the root of the problem. Maybe it would be better to invest more in that field rather than trying to apply gun control, I don't know. But attempting to limit access to guns/ammo seems like something that could help in the meantime even if it inconveniences some gun nuts who are terrified of "government taking away their guns".
And yes, you're right. The Berlin Hauptbahnhof and that China example in my first example had no casualties. Their purpose isn't to demonstrate that. The purpose is to demonstrate ludicrous notion that anti-gun proponents have that people with knives cant' cause nearly as much damage as someone with a gun because people can subdue them. If someone can stab 41 fucking people before being subdued, I think that kind of proves a point.
Im kinda confused by this. I'd say someone stabbing 100 people but not killing any is techncially far "less damage" than shooting dead 20 people in 5 minutes.
I'd stay stabbing 41 people and causing serious injury is a tragedy and 20 people being shot to death is a tragedy and trying to quantify which is "more" tragic is not only petty but extremely disrespectful and the focus should be "why are people stabbing and shooting people to death" and not "let's ban these specific weapons but let the crazies continue doing their thing with just a slightly lower kill/hospitalization count"
If guns were not available in Newton whatsoever, want to know what Lanza would have done? He would have walked into the school, stabbed his mother to death and either cut his own throat right there or went on a nice attempted stabbing spree and stabbed, heavily injuring or killing quite a few children before being stopped. Which I'm sure there would not have been that much resistance due to it being a building full of children. The damage would have been significantly "less", but the problem is not fucking gone. A crazy just killed his mom and tried to stab a bunch of children and then slit his own throat. The issue isn't the tool the crazy person is using it's the damn crazy person and we need to work on stopping the crazy person.
But attempting to limit access to guns/ammo seems like something that could help in the meantime even if it inconveniences some gun nuts who are terrified of "government taking away their guns".
I find it kind of funny that every single anti-gun proponent, except for a select few (ex: Magpie, even, surprisingly considering how heated our discussion got back there) I've encountered inevitably reverts to the extremely ignorant ad hominem of just saying all pro-gun owners are paranoid nutjobs who are afraid of big brother coming to get them.
You think you'd come up with something more original by now. You don't see me calling you a bleeding heart liberal every time I post something in regards to this topic, why do you feel the need to remind the class you think that we're all a bunch of paranoid nutjobs every time you post then?
On April 11 2013 03:15 RCMDVA wrote: Two of the top 5 safest states in the US are Vermont and Utah.
Both are are on opposite ends of the political spectrum... Utah conservative, Vermont liberal.
Everyone owns guns in both those states. You can open/conceal carry. And in Vermont you don't need a license of any kind.
Vermont murder ratre was 1.3 per 100,000 Utah murder rate is 1.9 per 100,000
So I'd say they are close. Denmark is a little bit better than Vermont. And Belgium is a little bit better than Utah.
I can pull 10 counties out of northern Virginia that, population wise equal a small country in Europe..and will have a equal if not better murder rate.
Fairfax County has 1.2 million people in it...and during a work day probably closer to 1.5 million. Their murder rate is under 1.0 per 100,000. And everybody has a gun up their as well.
There's a few problems with this line of thought. The most glaring one is that 1.9 is really not that close to 0.9 at all. It's more than twice as much, or the ratio between Bolivian and US murder rates. Second, you are looking at the tails of the distribution. It turns out that the difference at the tails is smaller than at the median (didn't do the analysis, just eyeballing the numbers there).
It's not really about size either: Germany, the most populous country in Europe, happens to be one of the safest too. Actually, smaller countries tend to be worse in the EU, but that's just an artifact of Eastern Europe and the Baltics having smaller countries AND being less safe on average. I guess you could look at the safest regions in the EU vs safest counties in the US but that would be less significant and it's not obvious how the results should be interpreted either. (And in the end you'd probably find that the safest regions in the EU are still significantly safer than the safest counties in the US)
Either way, the US does have a huge murder problem. It probably has a lot to do with drug laws, proximity of even more violent societies, less egalitarian society and a criminal justice system that emphasizes punishment over rehabilitation. Whether gun laws make the problem worse or not is debatable and probably very hard to untangle from other factors.
The real problem isn't even gun laws. It's the whole method of starting with: "Guns are good" and looking for data that fits the assumption. That's how lawyers argue. Obviously, they don't care whether their client is innocent or guilty. Responsible citizens should act more like jurors though. Evaluate the evidence impartially and then decide.
Really, people shouldn't be debating gun laws at all, at first. They should be asking why does the US have higher homicides rates than the rest of the developed world and why does it have by far the largest prison population. I'm always surprised how this almost doesn't come up in political debates at all, even though from the outside it seems like the number one issue (far more important than 'terrorism' or even the budget deficit).
Hypercube, I can guarantee that many Americans take huge issue with our prison system and accompanying flawed incarceration process. This just isn't quite the thread for that discussion
On April 11 2013 04:55 farvacola wrote: Hypercube, I can guarantee that many Americans take huge issue with our prison system and accompanying flawed incarceration process. This just isn't quite the thread for that discussion
I wasn't trying to start a discussion
I guess I'm a little worried how this whole issue is framed. When you focus on a single decision, it's easy to lose track of the underlying issue (high levels of violence and its consequences.)
It's also much easier to get into this 'lawyer mentality', where you just want to convince others instead of looking at every piece of evidence.
On April 11 2013 01:35 Sermokala wrote: I remember just after sandy hook that I saw this where this guy was just creating assult weapons and magazines and there was nothing the federal government could do to stop it.
scares the shit out of me. Now everyone can become an arms manufacturer with a few thousand dollars.
There's no such thing as an "Assault Weapon". Its a made up word. Any states that ban or restrict them typically define them as any semi-automatic rifle with 1 or more banned features.
They both fire the same rounds, 5.56mm. They both can take the same sized magazines. They're both semi-automatic. But the AR15 has a pistol grip, so its banned, as if it makes a difference what kind of grip it has.
The real issue here, isn't that the Ruger mini14 should also be considered an assault weapon, but that the people who pass the laws don't actually know what they're talking about. The term "assault weapon" is a bullshit, scary buzzword used by the media because most people don't actually know what it means. Ask most people what an "Assault Weapon" is and they'll say a machine gun or an assault rifle. But guess what, they aren't. Machine guns and assault rifles are fully automatic, "Assault Weapons" aren't.
On April 11 2013 03:15 RCMDVA wrote: Two of the top 5 safest states in the US are Vermont and Utah.
Both are are on opposite ends of the political spectrum... Utah conservative, Vermont liberal.
Everyone owns guns in both those states. You can open/conceal carry. And in Vermont you don't need a license of any kind.
Vermont murder ratre was 1.3 per 100,000 Utah murder rate is 1.9 per 100,000
So I'd say they are close. Denmark is a little bit better than Vermont. And Belgium is a little bit better than Utah.
I can pull 10 counties out of northern Virginia that, population wise equal a small country in Europe..and will have a equal if not better murder rate.
Fairfax County has 1.2 million people in it...and during a work day probably closer to 1.5 million. Their murder rate is under 1.0 per 100,000. And everybody has a gun up their as well.
Correlation != Causation.
The areas with laxer guns laws may have less crime, but is that the reason why they have less crime?
I'd be willing to be that with fewer gun restrictions, Chicago would be just as bad as it is now.
EPT
I know about the due process ruling of the 14th amendment. I might have quoted him wrong though--in any case I understand where you're going with their ruling. My not seeing it doesn't mean jack if that's how the 2008 ruling saw it. I can only hope for a new ruling later on in my life--but yes, if that's how the Heller case was ruled then that's how it was ruled.
