|
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 24 2013 12:13 Defacer wrote:
1) As an outsider looking in, the speed that the Boston Massacre suspects were identified and apprehended was impressive as hell. USA! USA! USA!
2) As an outsider looking in, the thing I found the most bewildering about the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech shootings was that the first law these perpetrators broke (more or less) was shoot a bunch of people in a public space.
While I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, it doesn't seem like gun legislation in most states makes it particularly difficult for criminals to build an arsenal legally.
I wish more gun owners and sellers (and the NRA) would see things like mandatory background checks, licenses and training as less of an imposition or limitation on 'their freedoms', and more like a civic duty — one that differentiates from 'the commoners' and riff-raff that want to 'play' with guns abd use them irresponsibly.
I know this is a bit "late" but...
The problem is that we don't know that someone is a criminal until AFTER they have committed a crime. Criminality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Yes, you can prescribe the limitations of what constitutes criminality, but until someone has descriptively undertaken those actions, there are no criminals. The measures suggested do nothing to affect actual criminals, not because of the "..only criminals would have guns" schpeal, but because of the way we define a criminal action. Otherwise we're starting to edge into thought-crimes.
I mean, hell, minority report is still just science fiction.
People will die, there will be more mass shootings, bombings; there are crazies in the world. We can cower and pass laws in the futile hope that we'll somehow legislate away the problem, but the problem has and always will be the people themselves.
I would say we'd be better served to acknowledge the horrific actions, condemn the evil men who perpetrate them, grieve and move on. Laws passed are simply a victory for the crazies, not the sane law-abiding citizen. They've made you afraid. Afraid and angry. Afraid and angry enough to begin using the law to target gun-owners in some Stalin-esque paranoid purge.
I entreat people to refuse to deprive others of their liberties on the supposition that they may abuse them. That is nothing more than tyranny of the masses, the hated, unthinking and reviled Democracy in pure form. Democracy is evil.
To specifically address the inevitable, "but we're not talking about confiscation, we're talking about a database/background checks", do you really, truly believe it will stop there? I've heard it said countless times in this thread alone that, "It's only a matter of time". To pretend otherwise is naivety. Whether you want to view this issue battle by battle, so be it. But remain cognizant that there is a larger ideology looming behind either side.
|
On April 24 2013 18:20 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 15:13 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:50 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 14:31 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 14:15 Myrddraal wrote:On April 24 2013 13:52 cLAN.Anax wrote:On April 24 2013 13:19 Myrddraal wrote:If you want to give the impression that you actually care about innocent lives, and the issue itself rather than seeming like all you care about it your own right to own guns, perhaps you should avoid posting things like this:
This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA.
As one who would probably agree with Sermokala's position here, I say we do want to protect innocent lives, but we want to do so while recognizing the right to safely own and operate firearms by law-abiding citizens. Because we don't believe that our safe ownership and operation of firearms as law-abiding citizens is the problem that is causing the gun violence we see today. We're suggesting that the problem lies elsewhere, while many, many others so vehemently assert that it must be because of a "loose" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the proliferation of firearms or the size of magazines or the legality of loosely-termed "assault weapons." I agree wholeheartedly that law abiding citizens are not the cause of the vast majority of gun violence, that it is mostly to do with socioeconomic issues, however I feel like those issues are extremely difficult to fix and having fairly lax gun regulations along with said issues is a dangerous combination. The main thing in these kinds of discussions which bothers me, is when people on the pro-gun get up in arms about their freedoms or point to the second amendment when confronted by ideas that do not hinder safe operation of firearms such as needing a license to buy a gun. Some people will argue that the license will do nothing, I'm fine with that, if you're able to put forth a solid argument, but I fail to see how some people can argue that their freedom to "buy a gun without a license" matches up to the potential good that it could do if implemented and enforced correctly. We say it won't prove effective because one who is heck-bent on causing harm will find ways around existing laws to cause said harm. Legislation is not magic; background checks, safety tests, and gun licensing only prevent people from legally acquiring firearms. I am one who's still okay with those checks and tests and licenses (so long as it doesn't lead to a national registry) because I don't see them doing harm or increasing the problem at all. But I still contend that they are insufficient and other methods, methods those on the left do not often espouse, must be pursued. Yes I am well aware, I wasn't trying to argue this point because it's been repeated a million times before as has your counter argument, it just goes round in circles. At least the approach that you have actually allows a discussion. Could you give me a couple of brief examples of other methods that pro-gun supporters would be more likely to adopt? True, and fair enough. I had a liberal agree with me on this conclusion on another site. I would support legislation that would expand background checks if it also allowed for those who passed to carry on public property. If we are to trust them in their own homes with firearms, I believe we should be able to trust them in the public square with them too. Tougher checks, tests, and licenses would account for that public trust. Private property would still be up to the respective owners, so people and businesses with private property could elect to enforce gun-free zones on their property. Also, though widely unpopular, I don't think the effectiveness of armed guards can be argued. Areas of great concentrations of wealth are protected by armed security, and are only deterred in the face of superior firepower; why should we not protect our schoolchildren in the same way? Permitting legal carriers to carry on public property, open or concealed, would also serve as "armed guards" of sorts, including teachers in public schools. + Show Spoiler [Tangent.] +privatizing the school system would let gun-control advocates choose to keep their institutions and instructors gun-free, but that leads into a whole other topic altogether, and will only serve to complicate this one, but it intrigued me and I thought it was worth mentioning  Do you need a license to claim freedom from unreasonable searches?Do you need a license to practice your religion? I live Idaho. You can open carry everywhere except schools and the airports. Owners of private property can ask you to leave if you are open carrying. Idaho is also a "shall issue state" meaning if you pass the tests/checks you have to be issued a CCW permit. This is in comparison to CA "may issue state" meaning you could pass everything and they could deny you CCW. This is why often there are more CCW permits issued in Conservative counties than Liberal controlled counties even though the liberal counties have ten times the population. We an even open carry in our Capital! + Show Spoiler ++ Show Spoiler +
That's just so cool. Those pics crack me up. X-D Surprised we don't hear more about Idaho, this issue, and its crime rate.
|
On April 24 2013 22:45 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 12:13 Defacer wrote:
1) As an outsider looking in, the speed that the Boston Massacre suspects were identified and apprehended was impressive as hell. USA! USA! USA!
2) As an outsider looking in, the thing I found the most bewildering about the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech shootings was that the first law these perpetrators broke (more or less) was shoot a bunch of people in a public space.
While I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, it doesn't seem like gun legislation in most states makes it particularly difficult for criminals to build an arsenal legally.
I wish more gun owners and sellers (and the NRA) would see things like mandatory background checks, licenses and training as less of an imposition or limitation on 'their freedoms', and more like a civic duty — one that differentiates from 'the commoners' and riff-raff that want to 'play' with guns abd use them irresponsibly. I know this is a bit "late" but... The problem is that we don't know that someone is a criminal until AFTER they have committed a crime. Criminality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Yes, you can prescribe the limitations of what constitutes criminality, but until someone has descriptively undertaken those actions, there are no criminals. The measures suggested do nothing to affect actual criminals, not because of the "..only criminals would have guns" schpeal, but because of the way we define a criminal action. Otherwise we're starting to edge into thought-crimes. I mean, hell, minority report is still just science fiction. People will die, there will be more mass shootings, bombings; there are crazies in the world. We can cower and pass laws in the futile hope that we'll somehow legislate away the problem, but the problem has and always will be the people themselves. I would say we'd be better served to acknowledge the horrific actions, condemn the evil men who perpetrate them, grieve and move on. Laws passed are simply a victory for the crazies, not the sane law-abiding citizen. They've made you afraid. Afraid and angry. Afraid and angry enough to begin using the law to target gun-owners in some Stalin-esque paranoid purge. I entreat people to refuse to deprive others of their liberties on the supposition that they may abuse them. That is nothing more than tyranny of the masses, the hated, unthinking and reviled Democracy in pure form. Democracy is evil. To specifically address the inevitable, "but we're not talking about confiscation, we're talking about a database/background checks", do you really, truly believe it will stop there? I've heard it said countless times in this thread alone that, "It's only a matter of time". To pretend otherwise is naivety. Whether you want to view this issue battle by battle, so be it. But remain cognizant that there is a larger ideology looming behind either side.
Don't have time to respond fully, but I just want to point out that the majority of pro-gun advocates arguments are also rooted in paranoia — ranging from "we need to train teachers to defend themselves in schools" to "we need guns to protect our liberties in the event of a US junta, civil war or robo-apocalypse."
Hell, there are a large majority of gun owners that own guns BECAUSE they are paranoid.
My argument is not actually rooted in fear of guns, it is root in a desire for people to RESPECT gun owners. THAT is what will protect your second amendment rights.
The issue is that there is absolutely NO reason to simply respect gun owners on paper. They've done almost nothing to earn respect — the qualifications for getting a gun legally in most states are pitifully low. It's harder to keep a job at McDonalds than to get a gun.
As long as gun advocates insist on having such low standards, you will always face serious political opposition to guns.
|
On April 25 2013 02:10 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 22:45 Kimaker wrote:On April 24 2013 12:13 Defacer wrote:
1) As an outsider looking in, the speed that the Boston Massacre suspects were identified and apprehended was impressive as hell. USA! USA! USA!
2) As an outsider looking in, the thing I found the most bewildering about the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech shootings was that the first law these perpetrators broke (more or less) was shoot a bunch of people in a public space.
While I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, it doesn't seem like gun legislation in most states makes it particularly difficult for criminals to build an arsenal legally.
I wish more gun owners and sellers (and the NRA) would see things like mandatory background checks, licenses and training as less of an imposition or limitation on 'their freedoms', and more like a civic duty — one that differentiates from 'the commoners' and riff-raff that want to 'play' with guns abd use them irresponsibly. I know this is a bit "late" but... The problem is that we don't know that someone is a criminal until AFTER they have committed a crime. Criminality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Yes, you can prescribe the limitations of what constitutes criminality, but until someone has descriptively undertaken those actions, there are no criminals. The measures suggested do nothing to affect actual criminals, not because of the "..only criminals would have guns" schpeal, but because of the way we define a criminal action. Otherwise we're starting to edge into thought-crimes. I mean, hell, minority report is still just science fiction. People will die, there will be more mass shootings, bombings; there are crazies in the world. We can cower and pass laws in the futile hope that we'll somehow legislate away the problem, but the problem has and always will be the people themselves. I would say we'd be better served to acknowledge the horrific actions, condemn the evil men who perpetrate them, grieve and move on. Laws passed are simply a victory for the crazies, not the sane law-abiding citizen. They've made you afraid. Afraid and angry. Afraid and angry enough to begin using the law to target gun-owners in some Stalin-esque paranoid purge. I entreat people to refuse to deprive others of their liberties on the supposition that they may abuse them. That is nothing more than tyranny of the masses, the hated, unthinking and reviled Democracy in pure form. Democracy is evil. To specifically address the inevitable, "but we're not talking about confiscation, we're talking about a database/background checks", do you really, truly believe it will stop there? I've heard it said countless times in this thread alone that, "It's only a matter of time". To pretend otherwise is naivety. Whether you want to view this issue battle by battle, so be it. But remain cognizant that there is a larger ideology looming behind either side. Don't have time to respond fully, but I just want to point out that the majority of pro-gun advocates arguments are also rooted in paranoia — ranging from "we need to train teachers to defend themselves in schools" to "we need guns to protect our liberties in the event of a US junta, civil war or robo-apocalypse." Hell, there are a large majority of gun owners that own guns BECAUSE they are paranoid. My argument is not actually rooted in fear of guns, it is root in a desire for people to RESPECT gun owners. THAT is what will protect your second amendment rights. The issue is that there is absolutely NO reason to simply respect gun owners on paper. They've done almost nothing to earn respect — the qualifications for getting a gun legally in most states are pitifully low. It's harder to keep a job at McDonalds than to get a gun. As long as gun advocates insist on having such low standards, you will always face serious political opposition to guns.
Out of curiosity--would simply mass producing a personal stash of biological weapons like Anthrax be a more effective and easier to hide operation than guns when it comes to protecting ourselves from a government controlled military? I mean, if we're actually going to believe that it is paranoia and not just political bullheadedness--why only hold on to guns when there are better and more effective ways of stopping military advances?
|
On April 25 2013 02:10 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 22:45 Kimaker wrote:On April 24 2013 12:13 Defacer wrote:
1) As an outsider looking in, the speed that the Boston Massacre suspects were identified and apprehended was impressive as hell. USA! USA! USA!
2) As an outsider looking in, the thing I found the most bewildering about the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech shootings was that the first law these perpetrators broke (more or less) was shoot a bunch of people in a public space.
While I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, it doesn't seem like gun legislation in most states makes it particularly difficult for criminals to build an arsenal legally.
I wish more gun owners and sellers (and the NRA) would see things like mandatory background checks, licenses and training as less of an imposition or limitation on 'their freedoms', and more like a civic duty — one that differentiates from 'the commoners' and riff-raff that want to 'play' with guns abd use them irresponsibly. I know this is a bit "late" but... The problem is that we don't know that someone is a criminal until AFTER they have committed a crime. Criminality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Yes, you can prescribe the limitations of what constitutes criminality, but until someone has descriptively undertaken those actions, there are no criminals. The measures suggested do nothing to affect actual criminals, not because of the "..only criminals would have guns" schpeal, but because of the way we define a criminal action. Otherwise we're starting to edge into thought-crimes. I mean, hell, minority report is still just science fiction. People will die, there will be more mass shootings, bombings; there are crazies in the world. We can cower and pass laws in the futile hope that we'll somehow legislate away the problem, but the problem has and always will be the people themselves. I would say we'd be better served to acknowledge the horrific actions, condemn the evil men who perpetrate them, grieve and move on. Laws passed are simply a victory for the crazies, not the sane law-abiding citizen. They've made you afraid. Afraid and angry. Afraid and angry enough to begin using the law to target gun-owners in some Stalin-esque paranoid purge. I entreat people to refuse to deprive others of their liberties on the supposition that they may abuse them. That is nothing more than tyranny of the masses, the hated, unthinking and reviled Democracy in pure form. Democracy is evil. To specifically address the inevitable, "but we're not talking about confiscation, we're talking about a database/background checks", do you really, truly believe it will stop there? I've heard it said countless times in this thread alone that, "It's only a matter of time". To pretend otherwise is naivety. Whether you want to view this issue battle by battle, so be it. But remain cognizant that there is a larger ideology looming behind either side. Don't have time to respond fully, but I just want to point out that the majority of pro-gun advocates arguments are also rooted in paranoia — ranging from "we need to train teachers to defend themselves in schools" to "we need guns to protect our liberties in the event of a US junta, civil war or robo-apocalypse." Hell, there are a large majority of gun owners that own guns BECAUSE they are paranoid. My argument is not actually rooted in fear of guns, it is root in a desire for people to RESPECT gun owners. THAT is what will protect your second amendment rights. The issue is that there is absolutely NO reason to simply respect gun owners on paper. They've done almost nothing to earn respect — the qualifications for getting a gun legally in most states are pitifully low. It's harder to keep a job at McDonalds than to get a gun. As long as gun advocates insist on having such low standards, you will always face serious political opposition to guns.
I never claimed my side wasn't equally paranoid (and I actually alluded to it in my last paragraph).
What's more, I maintain my argument (from WAY back in the thread) that informed voting is a more important responsibility than gun-ownership and should have more restrictions. Some would disagree for one reason or another. Suddenly we're in an argument about personal valuation (aka: Dead End). Saying we have low standards isn't an argument. I believe my standards for gun-ownership are sufficient, you don't. I believe most peoples standards for voting are insufficient, most people disagree.
|
On April 24 2013 22:45 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 12:13 Defacer wrote:
1) As an outsider looking in, the speed that the Boston Massacre suspects were identified and apprehended was impressive as hell. USA! USA! USA!
2) As an outsider looking in, the thing I found the most bewildering about the Sandy Hook, Aurora and Virginia Tech shootings was that the first law these perpetrators broke (more or less) was shoot a bunch of people in a public space.
While I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own guns, it doesn't seem like gun legislation in most states makes it particularly difficult for criminals to build an arsenal legally.
I wish more gun owners and sellers (and the NRA) would see things like mandatory background checks, licenses and training as less of an imposition or limitation on 'their freedoms', and more like a civic duty — one that differentiates from 'the commoners' and riff-raff that want to 'play' with guns abd use them irresponsibly. I know this is a bit "late" but... The problem is that we don't know that someone is a criminal until AFTER they have committed a crime. Criminality is descriptive, not prescriptive. Yes, you can prescribe the limitations of what constitutes criminality, but until someone has descriptively undertaken those actions, there are no criminals. The measures suggested do nothing to affect actual criminals, not because of the "..only criminals would have guns" schpeal, but because of the way we define a criminal action. Otherwise we're starting to edge into thought-crimes. I mean, hell, minority report is still just science fiction. People will die, there will be more mass shootings, bombings; there are crazies in the world. We can cower and pass laws in the futile hope that we'll somehow legislate away the problem, but the problem has and always will be the people themselves. I would say we'd be better served to acknowledge the horrific actions, condemn the evil men who perpetrate them, grieve and move on. Laws passed are simply a victory for the crazies, not the sane law-abiding citizen. They've made you afraid. Afraid and angry. Afraid and angry enough to begin using the law to target gun-owners in some Stalin-esque paranoid purge. I entreat people to refuse to deprive others of their liberties on the supposition that they may abuse them. That is nothing more than tyranny of the masses, the hated, unthinking and reviled Democracy in pure form. Democracy is evil. To specifically address the inevitable, "but we're not talking about confiscation, we're talking about a database/background checks", do you really, truly believe it will stop there? I've heard it said countless times in this thread alone that, "It's only a matter of time". To pretend otherwise is naivety. Whether you want to view this issue battle by battle, so be it. But remain cognizant that there is a larger ideology looming behind either side.
Out of all the arguments in this post, it seems like the one that sticks out to me is
"The problem is the people, not the guns. Gun restrictions won't make a significant difference in combating the problem."
Is this correct?
If so, has anyone posted that Daily Show skit where they talk to the gun advocate about Australia?
|
On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence?
192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Using this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me.
|
On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me.
Sort of--that does not take into account overlap ownership. 192,000,000 guns =/= 192,000,000 gun owners (albeit even if that number got cut in half the ratio would still be tiny, just saying guns present does not equate to gun owners present since many people own more than one gun.
|
On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me.
Poor analysis. You're talking about a majority of people, and then you go and do an analysis on guns without recognizing the reality that gun owners often own multiple guns. This is just the most glaring error that is inflating your incredibly oversimplified analysis.
|
On April 24 2013 22:45 Kimaker wrote:
People will die, there will be more mass shootings, bombings; there are crazies in the world. We can cower and pass laws in the futile hope that we'll somehow legislate away the problem, but the problem has and always will be the people themselves.
then there is the other topic that more and more needs to be considered before the whole "crazy people" argument gets raised. and that is to consider that these events that are happening in the US are not the result of crazy people but planned events designed to shape policy.
The Boston Marathon bombing should be a reasonable example of this as you have the people of 4chan and reddit working on it. If you review all the evidence out there and tie it in with different media reports a very different picture than the official narrative materializes. At some point people need to realize that its no longer coincidence when drills for the same event are happening at the same spot a real event occurs. On the flip side if the huge security with bomb sniffing dogs, etc was not there to orchestrate the event they what does that say about their ability to prevent these things? Obvioulsy they have no ability whatsoever to stop these things from happening so may as well save some money and get back some freedoms and fire them.
just a side argument here but related, the title of the thread "should people be allowed to own and carry guns?". I would like to counter with "should governments be allowed to own and carry guns?". the greatest mass murderers of worldwide citizenry are governments, groups of people put in place by the elite to do their bidding. lets use Iraq as an example, over a million iraqi citizens dead including women and children for what? for control of iraq's rich oil fields for the elite. a horrible lie used to start it. who is going to hold the US government accountable? ideally its citizens would/will because we can be damned sure the elite controlled UN wont.
|
On April 25 2013 03:27 Dryzt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 22:45 Kimaker wrote:
People will die, there will be more mass shootings, bombings; there are crazies in the world. We can cower and pass laws in the futile hope that we'll somehow legislate away the problem, but the problem has and always will be the people themselves.
then there is the other topic that more and more needs to be considered before the whole "crazy people" argument gets raised. and that is to consider that these events that are happening in the US are not the result of crazy people but planned events designed to shape policy. The Boston Marathon bombing should be a reasonable example of this as you have the people of 4chan and reddit working on it. If you review all the evidence out there and tie it in with different media reports a very different picture than the official narrative materializes. At some point people need to realize that its no longer coincidence when drills for the same event are happening at the same spot a real event occurs. On the flip side if the huge security with bomb sniffing dogs, etc was not there to orchestrate the event they what does that say about their ability to prevent these things? Obvioulsy they have no ability whatsoever to stop these things from happening so may as well save some money and get back some freedoms and fire them. just a side argument here but related, the title of the thread "should people be allowed to own and carry guns?". I would like to counter with "should governments be allowed to own and carry guns?". the greatest mass murderers of worldwide citizenry are governments, groups of people put in place by the elite to do their bidding. lets use Iraq as an example, over a million iraqi citizens dead including women and children for what? for control of iraq's rich oil fields for the elite. a horrible lie used to start it. who is going to hold the US government accountable? ideally its citizens would/will because we can be damned sure the elite controlled UN wont.
I've always viewed the "crazies" as a natural outgrowth of a sick society. Americans are stressed, confused and depressed in record numbers and we can't figure out why.
I argue it's because of massive social cognitive dissonance. We're fed so much information that is insinuated to be "true" that conflicts with what we observe it causes stress. What's more, morally, the whole country is confused as well. Jonathan Haidt did an interesting article on how when perceived reality and your internal morality match, it produces stability. Stability on a societal scale, is a result of that covalence on a societal scale. When there is homogeneity of culture and morals (relatively) there is stability and prosperity since people can avoid all the psychological trappings of large scale cognitive dissonance. Aka, being told their way of life is wrong, and having it legislatively altered out from underneath them while their morals still say the old thing.
That's the context I view the entire gun-debate in. People who literally cannot comprehend each others values. Though for the truly honest, it's not for a lack of trying. And I'll say, I'm accusing both sides equally with something that's not really an accusation per say.
|
On April 25 2013 03:26 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me. Poor analysis. You're talking about a majority of people, and then you go and do an analysis on guns without recognizing the reality that gun owners often own multiple guns. This is just the most glaring error that is inflating your incredibly oversimplified analysis.
Right, because it's more likely that each gun owner has an average of 250 firearms in their possession instead. I suddenly realize that advertising must work, at least a little, on me, because I immediately think of those shaving razor "get real" commercials.
192,000,000 / 400,000 = 480
480 / 2 = 240
250 > 240
250 = majority
|
On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me.
There are a lot more guns in the USA than 192 million.http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-033113.pdf
Using the above data there has been over 167 million background checks for firearm purchases since Nov 1998. Now some of these individuals failed said background check and were unable to purchase a firearm. Others purchased multiple firearms in a single transaction. This does not include guns sold before Nov 1998. These numbers do not include the number of curios and relics firearms sold.(C&R make up a very small percent of sales)
|
On April 25 2013 04:00 norjoncal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me. There are a lot more guns in the USA than 192 million. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-033113.pdfUsing the above data there has been over 167 million background checks for firearm purchases since Nov 1998. Now some of these individuals failed said background check and were unable to purchase a firearm. Others purchased multiple firearms in a single transaction. This does not include guns sold before Nov 1998. These numbers do not include the number of curios and relics firearms sold.(C&R make up a very small percent of sales)
Background checks often happen on resale. Granted I'm not saying that your point is invalid (according to all evidence I have available to me, I would say that your point stands), but the number of background checks in the past 15 years is nowhere near a perfect indicator of gun ownership, although it is probably a decent indicator of trends in gun sales.
|
On April 25 2013 03:27 Dryzt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 22:45 Kimaker wrote:
People will die, there will be more mass shootings, bombings; there are crazies in the world. We can cower and pass laws in the futile hope that we'll somehow legislate away the problem, but the problem has and always will be the people themselves.
then there is the other topic that more and more needs to be considered before the whole "crazy people" argument gets raised. and that is to consider that these events that are happening in the US are not the result of crazy people but planned events designed to shape policy. The Boston Marathon bombing should be a reasonable example of this as you have the people of 4chan and reddit working on it. If you review all the evidence out there and tie it in with different media reports a very different picture than the official narrative materializes. At some point people need to realize that its no longer coincidence when drills for the same event are happening at the same spot a real event occurs. On the flip side if the huge security with bomb sniffing dogs, etc was not there to orchestrate the event they what does that say about their ability to prevent these things? Obvioulsy they have no ability whatsoever to stop these things from happening so may as well save some money and get back some freedoms and fire them. just a side argument here but related, the title of the thread "should people be allowed to own and carry guns?". I would like to counter with "should governments be allowed to own and carry guns?". the greatest mass murderers of worldwide citizenry are governments, groups of people put in place by the elite to do their bidding. lets use Iraq as an example, over a million iraqi citizens dead including women and children for what? for control of iraq's rich oil fields for the elite. a horrible lie used to start it. who is going to hold the US government accountable? ideally its citizens would/will because we can be damned sure the elite controlled UN wont.
So.
1. You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word coincidence.
2. Police effectiveness is binary
3. U.S. oil interests are not very big in Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Iraq
|
On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me.
Allow me to offer a different perspective on the same statistics.
Lets say 400,000 people were killed or violently ill from consuming processed chicken. Like, they got poisoned from frozen chicken from the supermarket.
Now, while statistically that's marginal compared to the total amount of chicken produced and consumed in a year, it would be treated a bit like an epidemic. You certainly couldn't pretend that the system was fine the way it is, or didn't have room for improvement.
So while I think the idea of banning guns is as ridiculous as banning chicken, I do think its fair to want to look at gun legislation, mental health care and training to see if it can be buffed.
|
On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me.
I'm curious if that 400,000 accounts for self defense situations or not. I'm pretty sure the homicides committed by guns was something of 8,600 or something in 2011.
|
On April 25 2013 05:02 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me. Allow me to offer a different perspective on the same statistics. Lets say 400,000 people were killed or violently ill from consuming processed chicken. Like, they got poisoned from frozen chicken from the supermarket. Now, while statistically that's marginal compare to the total amount of chicken produced and consumed in a year, it would be treated a bit as an epidemic. You certainly couldn't pretend that the system is fine the way it is, or doesn't have room for improvement. So while I think the idea of banning guns is as ridiculous as banning chicken, I do think its fair to want to look at gun legislation, mental health care and training to see if it can be buffed.
PETA would like a word with you 
|
On April 25 2013 03:26 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me. Poor analysis. You're talking about a majority of people, and then you go and do an analysis on guns without recognizing the reality that gun owners often own multiple guns. This is just the most glaring error that is inflating your incredibly oversimplified analysis.
Even if every gun owner owns 10 guns, which is an overestimation, its still only 2%.
On April 25 2013 05:05 Fruscainte wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2013 03:10 Millitron wrote:On April 24 2013 08:08 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 07:40 Rhino85 wrote:
Sometimes I feel like the pro gun control crowd severely underestimates the respect most gun owners, like myself, have for firearms. We know how dangerous they are and choose to take that responsibility. Just because you don't want the responsibility doesn't mean you can dictate that we cannot have it. Its like police and military are somehow more responsible and by default less fallible, they are not. More people in our country need to be less dependent on government and more self reliant in my opinion. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Furthermore, I think firearm use in suicide needs to be brought up. A sizeable number of suicides are committed with firearms, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that it is precisely their ease of use and procurement that inflates such a number. Isn't making suicide harder to commit a good thing, because, you know, it is often an action born out of despair and belligerence? 192,000,000 guns in the US, 400,000 gun crimes in 2011 http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesUsing this data, only 0.2% of guns are used in crimes. Sure sounds like a majority to me. I'm curious if that 400,000 accounts for self defense situations or not. I'm pretty sure the homicides committed by guns was something of 8,600 or something in 2011.
Self-defense isn't a crime, so I doubt it.
|
This came up earlier in the thread but I missed the chance to make a comment about it. Criticism of Australia's gun laws are an increase in violent crime since it was enacted in 96. But there was already a steady increase in violent before that link (figure 3.) I spent some time looking for explanations but found nothing substantial. The best answers were that people are reporting crimes more than before and that the population growth of 18-34 year old males (major criminal demographic) increased more so than the rest of the population due to immigration.
This is an article on how criminals acquire guns. link
It says gun theft is about 10-15% of the reason, which is low on the reason list. Apparently straw purchases and corrupt licensed dealers are a big issue.In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.
The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street.
It seems enforcement of current laws would help significantly but I am not familiar enough on what action to take. Even though gun theft isn't huge I still think it would be good to put legislation on requiring people to secure their weapons in safes if they are not near/using them. I would appreciate any additional information TLers can provide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://brightcove04.o.brightcove.com/13293232001/13293232001_2185304090001_F0319E1DFBD943098691778FABA43E80.jpg?pubId=13293232001)
![[image loading]](http://media.idahostatesman.com/smedia/2013/02/23/16/49/t2xgo.AuSt.36.jpeg)
