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 May 12 2013 06:26 Kimaker wrote: @Stratos_speAr
"Uh, no, the NRA is the perfect example of that. The vast majority of the country wants some kind of gun regulation, and yet the NRA is the most powerful lobbying group in the country when their official stance is basically "no gun regulation at all".
Where is this magical 90% that I keep hearing people harping on coming from? The indication would be that just slightly more than half of all Americans favor's increased gun control. Most emphatically NOT a "vast majority".
Top 10% in contributions, top 5% in lobbying, and top 5% in outside spending. Alright, so I was incorrect. They are not THE most powerful lobbying group. That said, my point still stands. An extremely fringe ideology still has incredibly powerful influence.
Why is it so hard for you to google things that you don't believe to be true? Yes, it is true, drugs kill more people than guns. Stop arguing semantics and saying "drug abuse is subjective". That wasn't even important, it was just a little tidbit to add to the fact that drugs kill more people.
One, your stats are in direct contradiction with my source. Yours cites 3k less gun deaths.
That said, it doesn't change the fact that you're right; there are more gun deaths than there are drug deaths. However, what does this prove? Because drugs are incredibly regulated. All this shows is that drugs are a pretty bad thing to have around. Are you trying to show that guns shouldn't be regulated, or that drugs shouldn't be? Because this stat doesn't show either.
I like how you just refused to acknowledge the point about gun/car ownership and gun/car death, and how you were completely wrong about "significantly more car deaths". Oh, and I also like how you just dropped the alcohol bit too when when it's absurd to say that alcohol causes more death when there's exponentially more alcohol consumption in this country than gun use. Also, it's nice that it took you 2 seconds to find stats, but that's YOUR job, since you brought the point up.
Also, it's cute that you say that I don't read when you won't even admit to fucking up when you questioned why I brought up the NRA point when I specifically explained it in the very passage you quoted. Don't forget that you accused me of bringing up the Hitler argument when that was patently false. Want to actually man up to either of those mistakes?
Not only this, but you dropped the Norway/Australia example when you realized that they didn't throw the bait-and-switch with a gun registry AND they didn't have the legal/constitutional protections on firearms possession that we do. Not even a hint of facing your own examples when they don't favor you.
The rest of your point has no relevance. If you want to keep making this discussion meaningful, you're going to have to explain to me why, in a country that DOES have both constitutional and legal protection of firearm possession, it is rational to be afraid of a simple registry and believe that it would suddenly turn into a mass gun confiscation.
Because responding to your "points" are a waste of time, I've already explained myself several times and there is no reason for me to repeat myself again. Also, if you're just going to talk like a douche bag (see: "it's cute") why would I bother to give in to your childish demands?
You don't dictate what makes this a "meaningful discussion". I'm not wasting my time with your red herrings. It isn't my job to educate you about anything, I made a claim and you denied it without even seeing if it was true.
Yes, I'm the one denying and throwing out "red herrings".
I made the implication that background checks/gun registry would be a reasonable step for more responsible gun control.
You made the claim that a gun registry will lead to gun confiscation.
I pointed out why this is not the case.
You refuse to address my claims that debunked your examples.
Are we done here? I don't see why I should show you any respect when you've shown me zero in this thread, so don't pretend like you're on some moral high ground, because that's just a bunch of bullshit. You've been just as insulting as I have been.
More of the same from you I see. I'm being melodramatic? At least I'm not being a bigoted asshole calling people heartless because they want to defend their constitutional rights.
Yea, this was you, the second time we addressed each other recently, calling me a bigoted asshole. So if you want to back away from the mudslinging, you have to man up and admit that you were just as much a part of it.
I made the implication that background checks/gun registry would be a reasonable step for more responsible gun control.
You made the claim that a gun registry will lead to gun confiscation.
I pointed out why this is not the case.
Don't mean to be a busy-beaver because I haven't been following the whole conversation. But the usefulness of the gun registry in Canada has been debated for quite sometime.
I don't think it leads to gun confiscation, but it doesn't actually effect the amount of illegal guns in circulation, either. It is also expensive to create a registry and administrate it.
The one way that it does improve public safety is that law enforcement use it to determine if they are approaching a car or a house of a registered gun owner, and what kind of guns they might have. This can alter how they prepare or respond to a vehicle they've pulled over or a domestic violence call.
I think this was posted earlier in the thread, but there has already been a case where gun confiscation has occured in the United States. It may not be mass confiscation, but this is what people are afraid of.
I think this was posted earlier in the thread, but there has already been a case where gun confiscation has occured in the United States. It may not be mass confiscation, but this is what people are afraid of.
This example proves the opposite of what you meant. The city instigated the confiscation, and the govt. courts are what resulted in the guns being given back. So....good point.
Just remember, when gun grabbers tell you their goal is not to grab your guns, they are lying to you.
Unless, of course, this voice that no one can identify (even in the article) was actually a random bystander that was making fun of the senators.
And, to be fair, there is indeed a minority of gun owners that want to have guns and do whatever they want with them and don't want any regulations who I've come into contact with a fair bit, though they don't use this site very much. The "that's the line they've developed" could actually mean that that's the line the media has developed re: their perspectives too.
Just remember, when gun grabbers tell you their goal is not to grab your guns, they are lying to you.
Unless, of course, this voice that no one can identify (even in the article) was actually a random bystander that was making fun of the senators.
And, to be fair, there is indeed a minority of gun owners that want to have guns and do whatever they want with them and don't want any regulations who I've come into contact with a fair bit, though they don't use this site very much. The "that's the line they've developed" could actually mean that that's the line the media has developed re: their perspectives too.
I don't get why you said "do whatever they want with them." What do they do with them? Why would anyone want more regulations on their property? I would think a majority of gun owners don't want more regulations.
I think this was posted earlier in the thread, but there has already been a case where gun confiscation has occured in the United States. It may not be mass confiscation, but this is what people are afraid of.
This example proves the opposite of what you meant. The city instigated the confiscation, and the govt. courts are what resulted in the guns being given back. So....good point.
Just remember, when gun grabbers tell you their goal is not to grab your guns, they are lying to you.
Unless, of course, this voice that no one can identify (even in the article) was actually a random bystander that was making fun of the senators.
And, to be fair, there is indeed a minority of gun owners that want to have guns and do whatever they want with them and don't want any regulations who I've come into contact with a fair bit, though they don't use this site very much. The "that's the line they've developed" could actually mean that that's the line the media has developed re: their perspectives too.
I don't get why you said "do whatever they want with them." What do they do with them? Why would anyone want more regulations on their property? I would think a majority of gun owners don't want more regulations.
There are people that literally want no regulations whatsoever, the ability to open carry everywhere, the removal of all requirements for owning and carrying guns, removal of civilian licensing for tanks, etc. There aren't many, policy shouldn't be made around their preferences, and I'm not pigeonholing anyone as one, but they exist and I suspect the Senators hear from them far more than most of us (they're the angry letter writing type).
I think this was posted earlier in the thread, but there has already been a case where gun confiscation has occured in the United States. It may not be mass confiscation, but this is what people are afraid of.
This example proves the opposite of what you meant. The city instigated the confiscation, and the govt. courts are what resulted in the guns being given back. So....good point.
Just remember, when gun grabbers tell you their goal is not to grab your guns, they are lying to you.
This sums up the recent fight over gun control legislation perfectly.
From the article: "We're outraged by this," Bach said. "These are the words of gun ban extremists and unfortunately they have the ear of the senate president right now. The bill package that is coming up Monday in the full senate needs to be held."
So let's get this straight then: Nevermind what is actually in the legislation -- we should ignore that. Nevermind having an actual debate over requiring all gun sales be registered -- that's just a ruse. The important thing, the thing that matters, is someone heard a voice in a staff meeting use the word "confiscate" three whole times in a row, so obviously whatever is actually written in the legislation is a lie and doesn't matter. Legislation doesn't matter, laws don't matter, facts don't matter, all those things are lies. The news is lying to you, the reporters are lying to you, even the legislation itself is lying to you. Rather, what is important and true is what I heard some random voice on a tape say.
This sort of retardation is what is actually going to kill this country. It isn't petty politics, or corruption, or dishonesty. We've just gone full-blown retarded. I think it comes from people like DeepElemBlues who resent being wrong all the time, and instead of trying to make some sort of fight, to either make a better argument or realign themselves, they instead become completely resentful. Garbage articles like this one is basically an escape for them to say, "Fuck your reality, I'll do what I want." Modern media was supposed to proliferate information, and make us all more aware of the world. But it's instead proliferating garbage for people to wrap themselves up in.
Instead of having to agree with the fact that their political opponents' proposed gun-control legislation was simply a very minimal, reasonable addition to already existing gun-registration laws, they'll focus on what someone heard a voice say in an audio-recording of a staffer meeting. This kind of pathetic desire towards ignorance would be fine if the people who practice it would keep it to themselves, but they post it on video-game forums, so that I see it, as if I will read it and think, "HUZZAH! Everything I thought I knew was wrong! This article about a random voice in an audio-recording has opened my eyes to the hidden, plotting, maniacal evils of mandatory gun-registries!!!"
Just remember, when gun grabbers tell you their goal is not to grab your guns, they are lying to you.
Just remember, every time a gun nut tells you about gun grabbers, they are lying to you to make you paranoid. z
Or we could not make moronic generalized statements about the dangers of ghosts.
Just beacuse your paranoid doesn't mean people arn't trying to come kill you.
Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true.
For example: People who own guns are all violent sociopaths waiting for the chance to shoot up a school. Everyone who owns a gun is planning to shoot someone.
All you've done is further described this gun grabbing monster. According to D.E.B. it's a lying creature that grabs guns. According to you it also plans on killing people. None of which has any place in this discussion. Saying that it has happened doesn't really lend credence to that fact. You have to establish that it's likely. Note that the number of nations which have implemented registration and NOT confiscated all civilian arms outnumbers the nations that did. I mean I guess the government might suddenly decide that they want to kill everyone with guns. I also guess the government might want to give each one of them $100,000 a year. Both are equally likely and equally unimportant in this discussion.
From the article: "We're outraged by this," Bach said. "These are the words of gun ban extremists and unfortunately they have the ear of the senate president right now. The bill package that is coming up Monday in the full senate needs to be held."
So let's get this straight then: Nevermind what is actually in the legislation -- we should ignore that. Nevermind having an actual debate over requiring all gun sales be registered -- that's just a ruse. The important thing, the thing that matters, is someone heard a voice in a staff meeting use the word "confiscate" three whole times in a row, so obviously whatever is actually written in the legislation is a lie and doesn't matter. Legislation doesn't matter, laws don't matter, facts don't matter, all those things are lies. The news is lying to you, the reporters are lying to you, even the legislation itself is lying to you. Rather, what is important and true is what I heard some random voice on a tape say.
This sort of retardation is what is actually going to kill this country. It isn't petty politics, or corruption, or dishonesty. We've just gone full-blown retarded. I think it comes from people like DeepElemBlues who resent being wrong all the time, and instead of trying to make some sort of fight, to either make a better argument or realign themselves, they instead become completely resentful. Garbage articles like this one is basically an escape for them to say, "Fuck your reality, I'll do what I want." Modern media was supposed to proliferate information, and make us all more aware of the world. But it's instead proliferating garbage for people to wrap themselves up in.
Instead of having to agree with the fact that their political opponents' proposed gun-control legislation was simply a very minimal, reasonable addition to already existing gun-registration laws, they'll focus on what someone heard a voice say in an audio-recording of a staffer meeting. This kind of pathetic desire towards ignorance would be fine if the people who practice it would keep it to themselves, but they post it on video-game forums, so that I see it, as if I will read it and think, "HUZZAH! Everything I thought I knew was wrong! This article about a random voice in an audio-recording has opened my eyes to the hidden, plotting, maniacal evils of mandatory gun-registries!!!"
Full-blown retarded.
Fascinating that you want this legislation to be judged in a vacuum, we can't judge gun grabbers on their attitudes or statements we must just judge them and their legislation strictly by what's on the paper. And you're so angry about it for some reason
Holy shit. Pot Kettle Black
If you want to troll me I would be happy to do it in PM
All you've done is further described this gun grabbing monster. According to D.E.B. it's a lying creature that grabs guns. According to you it also plans on killing people. None of which has any place in this discussion. Saying that it has happened doesn't really lend credence to that fact. You have to establish that it's likely. Note that the number of nations which have implemented registration and NOT confiscated all civilian arms outnumbers the nations that did. I mean I guess the government might suddenly decide that they want to kill everyone with guns. I also guess the government might want to give each one of them $100,000 a year. Both are equally likely and equally unimportant in this discussion.
I am sorry but statements from legislators that they want to confiscate guns including a statement from a United States Senator, Dianne Feinstein, certainly are relevant to a political debate about guns.
"You have to establish that it's likely" entirely not true. Words have meaning. What public officials say on the record has meaning.
Even if that existence irritates you. Sorry.
What if Wayne LaPierre said tomorrow, "I think we have the right to own tanks." Would you apply the "it has to be likely" standard to him? Don't kid yourself.
Just remember, when gun grabbers tell you their goal is not to grab your guns, they are lying to you.
This sums up the recent fight over gun control legislation perfectly.
From the article: "We're outraged by this," Bach said. "These are the words of gun ban extremists and unfortunately they have the ear of the senate president right now. The bill package that is coming up Monday in the full senate needs to be held."
So let's get this straight then: Nevermind what is actually in the legislation -- we should ignore that. Nevermind having an actual debate over requiring all gun sales be registered -- that's just a ruse. The important thing, the thing that matters, is someone heard a voice in a staff meeting use the word "confiscate" three whole times in a row, so obviously whatever is actually written in the legislation is a lie and doesn't matter. Legislation doesn't matter, laws don't matter, facts don't matter, all those things are lies. The news is lying to you, the reporters are lying to you, even the legislation itself is lying to you. Rather, what is important and true is what I heard some random voice on a tape say.
This sort of retardation is what is actually going to kill this country. It isn't petty politics, or corruption, or dishonesty. We've just gone full-blown retarded. I think it comes from people like DeepElemBlues who resent being wrong all the time, and instead of trying to make some sort of fight, to either make a better argument or realign themselves, they instead become completely resentful. Garbage articles like this one is basically an escape for them to say, "Fuck your reality, I'll do what I want." Modern media was supposed to proliferate information, and make us all more aware of the world. But it's instead proliferating garbage for people to wrap themselves up in.
Instead of having to agree with the fact that their political opponents' proposed gun-control legislation was simply a very minimal, reasonable addition to already existing gun-registration laws, they'll focus on what someone heard a voice say in an audio-recording of a staffer meeting. This kind of pathetic desire towards ignorance would be fine if the people who practice it would keep it to themselves, but they post it on video-game forums, so that I see it, as if I will read it and think, "HUZZAH! Everything I thought I knew was wrong! This article about a random voice in an audio-recording has opened my eyes to the hidden, plotting, maniacal evils of mandatory gun-registries!!!"
Full-blown retarded.
Fascinating that you want this legislation to be judged in a vacuum, we can't judge gun grabbers on their attitudes or statements we must just judge them and their legislation strictly by what's on the paper. And you're so angry about it for some reason
All you've done is further described this gun grabbing monster. According to D.E.B. it's a lying creature that grabs guns. According to you it also plans on killing people. None of which has any place in this discussion. Saying that it has happened doesn't really lend credence to that fact. You have to establish that it's likely. Note that the number of nations which have implemented registration and NOT confiscated all civilian arms outnumbers the nations that did. I mean I guess the government might suddenly decide that they want to kill everyone with guns. I also guess the government might want to give each one of them $100,000 a year. Both are equally likely and equally unimportant in this discussion.
I am sorry but statements from legislators that they want to confiscate guns including a statement from a United States Senator, Dianne Feinstein, certainly are relevant to a political debate about guns.
"You have to establish that it's likely" entirely not true. Words have meaning. What public officials say on the record has meaning.
Even if that existence irritates you. Sorry.
What if Wayne LaPierre said tomorrow, "I think we have the right to own tanks." Would you apply the "it has to be likely" standard to him? Don't kid yourself.
Oh yes, let's look at the Idras of politics! Dianne Feinstein, somebody who has literally made a lifelong career out of being anti gun should be praised as much as Wayne LaPierre for being a sensationalist media whore. You still haven't given any substantial evidence for a gun grabbing monster being likely. You've only proved that it's possible. Just like it's possible that the government is going to mail every citizen a handgun.
For instance, did you know that we have 100 senators at the moment?
Mass shootings, defined as those involving the deaths of at least four individuals through firearm homicide, represent a very small proportion of all firearm deaths in the United States. Since 2005, there have been an average of 55 individuals per year who have died in mass shootings, more often than not with guns acquired legally, whereas in 2010 more than 31,000 Americans died by gunfire (11,078 firearm homicides, 19,392 firearm suicides, and 606 unintentional firearm deaths).1,2 Thus, mass shootings account for only one in more than 500 of the firearm homicides and suicides that occur in the United States every year. Mass shootings and other firearm homicides do have one thing in common—both are much more common in the United States than in any other high-income country in the world. Fifteen of the most recent 25 mass shootings recorded2
In 2010, among American youth 24 years and younger, 44% of the 4,874 who took their lives by suicide died using a gun, and 73% of the 5,635 homicides in this age group were by firearms.1 For 15- to 24-year-olds in the United States compared with adolescents and young adults in other high- income countries, the rates of firearm suicide, firearm homicide, and unintentional firearm death were about 9, 43, and 12 times more likely in the United States.3 For U.S. children 5 to 14 years of age compared with children in other high-income countries, rates of firearm suicide, firearm homicide, and unintentional firearm death were increased 9-, 12-, and 10-fold.3
An analysis of nearly 400 firearm deaths that occurred in the home showed that for every self-defense homicide in the home, there were nearly five times as many domestic criminal homicides and 37 suicides.4 A companion study examined all gunshot injuries in the home (non- fatal and fatal) in which the involved firearm had been kept in the home. Home guns were four times more likely to be involved in an accident, seven times more likely to be used in a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used in an attempted or completed suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.5 In a comparison of states with higher rates to states with lower rates of firearm ownership, children 5 to 14 years old were over four times more likely to die by firearms, despite similar rates of non- firearm deaths.6
Gun control in Australia:
In addition, changes in gun availability and storage have been associated with decreases in homicide and suicide. After a firearm massacre in Australia in 1996 in which 35 people died, the Australian government passed legislation to remove semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and rifles from civilian possession, bought back nearly 650,000 of these weapons, and required that firearm sales occur only through licensed arms dealers, with police approval. In the 18 years before this legislation, there were 13 mass shootings in Australia and none in the 10.5 years thereafter.7 There was already evidence of a decrease in firearm homicides and suicides, but the rate of decrease doubled after the legislation, with no evidence of method substitution. Although researchers with funding from gun-ownership advocates have challenged these findings, subsequent analyses have generally supported the initial conclusions about the effects of the legislation.8
Suicide:
Suicide in younger adolescents is a particularly impulsive act, and having a loaded gun in the home may be the main factor that differentiates suicide decedents younger than 16 years from youth in the community.13,14 Practice guidelines in primary care recommend assessing for the presence and method of storage of firearms, and at least three intervention studies have demonstrated that a 1-minute intervention as part of well-child care, along with an offer of free trigger locks, can substantially improve the safety of firearm storage.15–17
Unacceptably low funding for gun death & injury research:
Given how much more we need to know about preventing firearm- related violence, it is unconscionable that the Centers for Disease Control has been severely limited in its ability to fund firearm research for the past 15 years, despite the well-established connection between firearm availability and child and adolescent mortality.20
Mental health hurdles:
Because many of the perpetrators of mass killings and other homicides show indications of mental health disorders (and ultimately are very likely to commit suicide), some have called for the need to improve access and quality of mental health services as a primary focus for prevention of these violent acts. In this regard, a common profile of perpetrators of school shootings includes a recent threat of violence, suicidal ideation or behavior, and having been bullied by a peer.21,22 Such hindsight, however, does not equate to increased foresight. To put the issue of prediction in statistical perspective, around 25% of individuals in the United States have a mental disorder, whereas 15 mass shootings have occurred in the United States since 1982!Predicting precisely who will commit these types of violent rampages, let alone when, is simply not an achievable goal. Instead, involving those individuals in clinical care who are troubled enough to take irrational action is the most logical approach. Engaging people with mental disorders in treat- ment provides them with the chance for a better life and allows clinicians an increased awareness of changes in their lives that might frustrate them to the point of hurting others and themselves. Although the prediction of imminent violence, given the frequency of these indicators and the rarity of school shootings, is impossible, experts recommend that there be a mechanism for the reporting of violent threats and a process in place for rapid assessment and triage.23,24
Although some characteristics (e.g., hostility, substance abuse) have been found to differentiate those psychotic patients who engage in homicidal acts from those who do not, precise prediction of violence in individuals, with or without a mental disorder, is statistically impossible.23,30 High-risk individuals with mental health problems fluctuate in their likelihood of being involved in violence, depending on factors such as increased alcohol or drug use, and identifying these periods of increased risk can be done only by engaging these individuals in treatment or keeping them in contact with family and friends.23,29–31 Therefore, although access to good-quality treatment in high-risk individuals may lower the rate of homicide, our ability to precisely identify which individuals are at imminent risk is limited. In our view, it is unrealistic to place complete emphasis on mental health care without also attending to the strong association between the very high availability of firearms in the United States and the similarly high American homicide rates.32
I'm glad you are making posts with actual opinions and words that are your own instead of just mass quoteing and mass posting of pictures falldown. Its not like you didn't even take the time to edit out the citation numbers at the end of the sentences. Its completely intelectualy honest to post statistics with no context or other expressed understanding of said statistics. Its not like Australia is a country of 23 million people and the Us is country of 330 million people right?
We won't advance on this problem if gun control advocates simply tolerate and advance ignorance. Gun violence has been dropping for a long long time now and nothings changed in the world of gun control. But you ask people on the street this and they think that its gone up, it must be if people keep on insisting that we need more gun control.
I mean really would it have been THAT hard for you to copy past the footnotes down as well on your quotes? You probably should also put the web link on top.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/y4W7DCO.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/g3CjxN2.png)
