|
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. |
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
On February 21 2018 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2018 09:27 Blazinghand wrote:On February 21 2018 05:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2018 03:51 Slydie wrote:On February 20 2018 17:52 PoulsenB wrote:On February 20 2018 16:10 chouithegewy wrote:On February 20 2018 07:14 Zambrah wrote:
It disturbs me how prison like schools would be with armed guards. college campuses already have police. doesn't feel to authoritarian. but yea lol having police on campus is very different from actual teachers packing heat Disarming the police is perfectly viable, except for in certain situations where it is obviously necessary. Cops in the US do a TON of unnecessary shooting, and are very rarely caught for it. More guns is not the problem. One solution could be making the gunstores partly responsible for how their guns are used by their customers. I think this would be an awful idea tbh, unless the gun store workers neglected to follow the proper protocols, like not doing a background check. If everything comes up as a green light for a buyer though, the gun store should not be held even partially responsible. Yeah, as the case is now, gun stores are required legally to do the correct checks and not allow for straw purchases. Making them liable for the usage of guns by their customers, even if these gun stores followed the law and did everything right, is a nonsense idea. If you want to make guns less accessible, then make them less accessible using the law. If you want the requirements to be stricter, then pass laws making the requirements stricter. Passing laws making stores liable even when following existing law is definitely not the way to go about this. Disarming the police would be great, but as things are now, disarming the police entirely would not be a good idea. If this were Japan and criminals didn't have guns, I'd be fine if the police didn't have guns. Since this is America, and tons of people have guns, if I call the police I want them to have the ability to deal with a gun situation. Of course, this could just mean we need to have extensive gun control first or something, but I think removing police guns first would be like, really really bad. I think it would make sense not to make them liable in the traditional sense, but to make them require to carry a type of insurance that pairs with the purchasers insurance that helps put more of the social cost (externalities) of gun ownership on gun sellers/owners. I would expect manufacturers to be included as well. Not a preferred solution of mine, but one within our current social framework that makes sense from there.
I feel like cash transfers to victims paid out of insurance is not really going to help gun violence at all. Could you explain what this system would do?
|
On February 21 2018 11:57 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2018 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 21 2018 09:27 Blazinghand wrote:On February 21 2018 05:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2018 03:51 Slydie wrote:On February 20 2018 17:52 PoulsenB wrote:On February 20 2018 16:10 chouithegewy wrote:On February 20 2018 07:14 Zambrah wrote:
It disturbs me how prison like schools would be with armed guards. college campuses already have police. doesn't feel to authoritarian. but yea lol having police on campus is very different from actual teachers packing heat Disarming the police is perfectly viable, except for in certain situations where it is obviously necessary. Cops in the US do a TON of unnecessary shooting, and are very rarely caught for it. More guns is not the problem. One solution could be making the gunstores partly responsible for how their guns are used by their customers. I think this would be an awful idea tbh, unless the gun store workers neglected to follow the proper protocols, like not doing a background check. If everything comes up as a green light for a buyer though, the gun store should not be held even partially responsible. Yeah, as the case is now, gun stores are required legally to do the correct checks and not allow for straw purchases. Making them liable for the usage of guns by their customers, even if these gun stores followed the law and did everything right, is a nonsense idea. If you want to make guns less accessible, then make them less accessible using the law. If you want the requirements to be stricter, then pass laws making the requirements stricter. Passing laws making stores liable even when following existing law is definitely not the way to go about this. Disarming the police would be great, but as things are now, disarming the police entirely would not be a good idea. If this were Japan and criminals didn't have guns, I'd be fine if the police didn't have guns. Since this is America, and tons of people have guns, if I call the police I want them to have the ability to deal with a gun situation. Of course, this could just mean we need to have extensive gun control first or something, but I think removing police guns first would be like, really really bad. I think it would make sense not to make them liable in the traditional sense, but to make them require to carry a type of insurance that pairs with the purchasers insurance that helps put more of the social cost (externalities) of gun ownership on gun sellers/owners. I would expect manufacturers to be included as well. Not a preferred solution of mine, but one within our current social framework that makes sense from there. I feel like cash transfers to victims paid out of insurance is not really going to help gun violence at all. Could you explain what this system would do?
I mean I'd leave the nitty gritty to people who understand it a better than myself, but my ideas/contribution would be something to supplement our shit tier mental health system (particularly for impoverished people), some could go toward treating victims of gun violence and providing services for their families. Some safety classes/continuing education for gun owners and people who may encounter guns (most Americans), research and development of safer storage, maintenance and use of guns. research into the gun violence. A gun buyback program to reduce the number of overall guns (starting with the most dangerous/least practically used) in popular circulation
Those are just a handful but I'm not inflexible on what makes the most sense, given our circumstances.
|
On February 20 2018 16:10 chouithegewy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 07:14 Zambrah wrote:
It disturbs me how prison like schools would be with armed guards. college campuses already have police. doesn't feel to authoritarian. but yea lol
College campuses are pretty different from high schools though, if you had armed guards in a high school building, its gonna feel like more of a prison compared to a spread out college campus with multiple buildings.
Hell, MY old high school was literally designed by a prison designer, and the principal was a former drill sergeant, so they were already half way there, lol.
I'd rather we just live in a world where children aren't likely to be shot up all the time. 
|
You know it's bad when you have to go to GQ to get an informed media article on guns:
1. Banning assault weapons would do almost nothing
After every high-profile shooting, Democrats like Hillary Clinton call for a ban on “assault weapons,” the military-style rifles that have been dubbed the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
There’s a problem with this popular liberal idea: banning these guns would not do much to save American lives. Only 3.6 percent of America’s gun murders are committed with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data. The majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. Even the Democratic staffers who wrote the now-expired 1994 federal assault weapon ban knew it was a largely symbolic policy.
There’s some evidence that banning high-capacity ammunition magazines might—over the very long term—reduce gun injuries. But a ban on the guns themselves “does nothing,” a former Obama administration official said last year. Though the White House endorsed a renewed ban after Sandy Hook, “we did the bare minimum,” the official said. “We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.”
The real effect of Democrats’ decades-long war on “assault weapons,” some advocates speculate, is that it’s simply made military-style guns more popular.
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
To a non-gun owner, this might sound like a lot. But you have to think of guns as tools: a few different rifles for hunting different kinds of game, plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self-protection, and some antique guns inherited from your grandfather. It adds up fast.
As one gun rights activist put it, “Why do you need more than one pair of shoes? The truth is, you don’t, but do you want more than one pair of shoes? If you’re going hiking, you don’t want to use that one pair of high heels.”
3. Only a tiny fraction of America’s guns are used in crimes
American civilians own between 265 million and 400 million guns. That’s at least one gun for every American adult. (There’s no official national count. Gun rights advocates are fiercely private about gun ownership and fear that if the government can track guns, it will be able to confiscate them.) Gun control advocates often note that America’s gun murder rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, and that this drives an overall murder rate than is 7 times higher than other rich countries.
But the vast majority of America’s gun owners—and their guns—aren’t involved in this violence. About 100,000 Americans are killed or violently injured with guns each year—a number that includes gun suicides. The total number of crimes involving guns is higher: as many as 500,000 a year, according to Justice Department estimates.
Roughly speaking, that means that fewer than 1% of American guns are used in recorded crime or violence each year. Most of America’s hundreds of millions of guns are sitting in gun safes, being used for target practice or hunting, and causing no harm at all.
4. Gun crime dropped even as Americans bought more firearms
After the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, pollsters asked if Americans thought gun crime was increasing or decreasing. 56% said gun crime had gone up over the past two decades. Only 12% knew the truth: gun murders had dropped by nearly 50% since the early 1990s. Over the same time period, Americans bought an estimated 70 million more guns.
This trend isn’t proof that more guns equal less crime—many factors drove a spike in gun violence in the early 1990s, and a drop afterwards. But it does show that the relationship between America’s high gun ownership rates and its high gun murder rates is more complex than a simple correlation.
GQ
|
Not really sure why I needed GQ to tell me 17 dead children was bad.
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
It is generally the case that long guns are not a problem and handguns are a huge problem. Sadly, the level of gun education and gun stats knowledge among my fellow gun control advocates is rather low so most efforts are focused on banning long guns. I do my best to try to educate them.
On February 21 2018 13:04 Plansix wrote:
Not really sure why I needed GQ to tell me 17 dead children was bad.
On the other hand, since that mass killing, 100s of people have died from gun violence. The vast majority of them from handguns, not long guns, since hand guns are generally superior for crime purposes. We need to also spend legislative and political effort on handguns, even if they look innocuous.
|
On February 21 2018 12:45 Danglars wrote:You know it's bad when you have to go to GQ to get an informed media article on guns: Show nested quote +
1. Banning assault weapons would do almost nothing
After every high-profile shooting, Democrats like Hillary Clinton call for a ban on “assault weapons,” the military-style rifles that have been dubbed the weapon of choice for mass shooters.
There’s a problem with this popular liberal idea: banning these guns would not do much to save American lives. Only 3.6 percent of America’s gun murders are committed with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data. The majority of gun murders are committed with handguns. Even the Democratic staffers who wrote the now-expired 1994 federal assault weapon ban knew it was a largely symbolic policy.
There’s some evidence that banning high-capacity ammunition magazines might—over the very long term—reduce gun injuries. But a ban on the guns themselves “does nothing,” a former Obama administration official said last year. Though the White House endorsed a renewed ban after Sandy Hook, “we did the bare minimum,” the official said. “We would have pushed a lot harder if we had believed in it.”
The real effect of Democrats’ decades-long war on “assault weapons,” some advocates speculate, is that it’s simply made military-style guns more popular.
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
To a non-gun owner, this might sound like a lot. But you have to think of guns as tools: a few different rifles for hunting different kinds of game, plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self-protection, and some antique guns inherited from your grandfather. It adds up fast.
As one gun rights activist put it, “Why do you need more than one pair of shoes? The truth is, you don’t, but do you want more than one pair of shoes? If you’re going hiking, you don’t want to use that one pair of high heels.”
3. Only a tiny fraction of America’s guns are used in crimes
American civilians own between 265 million and 400 million guns. That’s at least one gun for every American adult. (There’s no official national count. Gun rights advocates are fiercely private about gun ownership and fear that if the government can track guns, it will be able to confiscate them.) Gun control advocates often note that America’s gun murder rate is 25 times higher than other high-income countries, and that this drives an overall murder rate than is 7 times higher than other rich countries.
But the vast majority of America’s gun owners—and their guns—aren’t involved in this violence. About 100,000 Americans are killed or violently injured with guns each year—a number that includes gun suicides. The total number of crimes involving guns is higher: as many as 500,000 a year, according to Justice Department estimates.
Roughly speaking, that means that fewer than 1% of American guns are used in recorded crime or violence each year. Most of America’s hundreds of millions of guns are sitting in gun safes, being used for target practice or hunting, and causing no harm at all.
4. Gun crime dropped even as Americans bought more firearms
After the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, pollsters asked if Americans thought gun crime was increasing or decreasing. 56% said gun crime had gone up over the past two decades. Only 12% knew the truth: gun murders had dropped by nearly 50% since the early 1990s. Over the same time period, Americans bought an estimated 70 million more guns.
This trend isn’t proof that more guns equal less crime—many factors drove a spike in gun violence in the early 1990s, and a drop afterwards. But it does show that the relationship between America’s high gun ownership rates and its high gun murder rates is more complex than a simple correlation.
GQ
"informed" media article. lol
just because it has some stats and it supports your agenda it doesnt make it "informed"
|
It certainly is true that assault-weapon bans aren't a real solution. I, for one, have always argued for extensive gun-control. "Far-left" by American standards, far-right by almost anyone else's, but we gotta do what we can.
First we should open gun-manufacturers to litigation. Currently its forbidden to sue gun-manufacturers. Change that first, to discourage all sorts of military-grade gun-sales, now and in the future.
Furthermore, every gun-purchase should require a reason. You want a pistol for home defense, and a shotgun and rifle for hunting? That's it then, and those guns are all registered and the pistol should never be seen outside the house. If you ever need another gun, you need another valid reason. And if you "lose" a gun, it needs to be reported immediately, and if the reasons are not clear and excusable, you're done buying guns forever. No personal resales, ever. No gun-shows. Every gun-seller is rigorously licensed.
Those are actually common-sense regulations that would be called tyrannical by the criminal NRA, but actually allows every law-abiding citizen to "protect" themselves, hunt, etc., and would save lives and crimp the black-market. The NRA does not want to crimp the black-market. The NRA and the "legal" gun-manufacturers are the black-markets' sole-provider, and the laws they oppose are usually specifically opposed to keep that black-market open.
You, and that GQ article say it's not unreasonable for people to own 17 guns? It's no wonder you seem clueless as to where the black-market's gun-supply comes from. Even the gun-nuts don't want that many guns. "I own 20 this month, 10 next month." That's the problem. It's a second-hand industry, and that's what makes it impossible for law-enforcement to track.
I accept that a certain portion of Americans are going to always believe that guns are for "protection" and allow them that much. No one has ever been able to argue that a gun is better protection than actual protection, but... like, I say, we need to make significant progress where we can. I would even encourage tax write-offs for bullet-proof-vest purchases made by these gun-owners, if it helped install a bit of common-sense in the long-term.
The problem is rampant gun-manufacturing and marketing and distribution. And all the glorification and stupidity that comes with the industry. The Florida shooting is not an example of the AR-15's danger as much as the Vegas shooting. The Vegas shooting would not have been possible without military-grade rifles -- bulletspeed, accuracy, and distance to hit people who couldn't possibly be a threat to you.
Bump-stocks are not enough of a ban, there is just no good reason for anyone not in the military or special-task law-enforcement to own a rifle like an AR-15, with or without the bump-stock. And everyone knows it. Bump-stocks are a simple mechanism that anyone can build -- it's the rifle they attach them to that's too deadly. It's a toy for idiots, except it's actually an extremely lethal weapon. We should put a rigid ban on the types of rifles sold, in that they are to be used strictly for hunting. You want to hunt? Buy a Remington -- you can't "bump stock" a Remington. You want "protection"? Buy an alarm system, but if you must, buy a pistol. And that's it. These aren't toys.
We'll never get there until the NRA is completely denounced by the Democrats, and Republicans are far removed from majority. The difficulty of the task is exactly why it's important, and shows the stranglehold gun-manufacturers have on us.
|
On February 21 2018 12:45 Danglars wrote:
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
To a non-gun owner, this might sound like a lot. But you have to think of guns as tools: a few different rifles for hunting different kinds of game, plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self-protection, and some antique guns inherited from your grandfather. It adds up fast.
This has to be satire right?
"..plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self protection..."
What the fuck... Is this the John Woo self defense starter kit?
|
On February 21 2018 18:25 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2018 12:45 Danglars wrote:
2. Owning 17 guns really isn’t that extreme
Just 3% of American adults own half the country’s guns, a new Harvard/Northeastern study estimated—and they own an average of 17 guns each.
To a non-gun owner, this might sound like a lot. But you have to think of guns as tools: a few different rifles for hunting different kinds of game, plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self-protection, and some antique guns inherited from your grandfather. It adds up fast.
This has to be satire right? "..plus a shotgun, a handgun or two for self protection..." What the fuck... Is this the John Woo self defense starter kit?
Not really.
17 is a bit much but it's also because they tend to be stable/appreciating assets (more practical than gold imo).
1. .22 plinker for rodents/crows
2. small bore shotgun for slightly bigger stuff (.410)
3. pump action 12 gauge shotgun clays/ducks
4. Bolt action medium caiber for stuff like smaller deer/ mountain goat
5. Bolt action large caliber for big game like moose/bear
6. An open carry pistol (this will typically be larger and more versatile)
7. A conceal carry pistol sacrificing some size, mag, and stability for portability, this may be worn on the ankle or under a loose shirt.
8. Sport/hobby gun (could be pistol, rifle, shotgun)
You upgrade each of those 1 time in your life and you're at 16 guns.
Like was said, if you think of it like a tool it makes more sense. You don't call a mechanic crazy for having a garage full of tools. When you call a hunter like that crazy it's not really fair. However, if you have 10 pistols and every popular assault rifle modded out that's a different story.
|
Virginia tech shooter, Columbine massacre, Sandy Hook, that gay nightclub, the cinema massacre, the Vegas shooter and now Florida ...
these were all perpetrated using handguns, rite? Or am I missing something?
the GQ article is a fucking joke. It's relativist word salad of epic proportions. It's so much bullshit you can't even start fathoming the spin of the narrative. Owning 17 guns isn't "extreme"? LOL!!! I don't even own that many T-shirts.
Try killing 50+ people with a handgun and see how that works. Or a butter knife, even better.
With this type of rhetoric I'm really wondering why the US doesn't just arm their military with cars, forks, baseball bats and molotovs and save a couple billion dollars annually. I mean, guns don't even kill people.
|
Blazinghand
United States25560 Posts
On February 21 2018 19:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Virginia tech shooter, Columbine massacre, Sandy Hook, that gay nightclub, the cinema massacre, the Vegas shooter and now Florida ...
these were all perpetrated using handguns, rite? Or am I missing something?
the GQ article is a fucking joke. It's relativist word salad of epic proportions. It's so much bullshit you can't even start fathoming the spin of the narrative. Owning 17 guns isn't "extreme"? LOL!!! I don't even own that many T-shirts.
Try killing 50+ people with a handgun and see how that works. Or a butter knife, even better.
With this type of rhetoric I'm really wondering why the US doesn't just arm their military with cars, forks, baseball bats and molotovs and save a couple billion dollars annually. I mean, guns don't even kill people.
The vast majority of people killed by guns in USA are killed by handguns. "In 2010, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were committed using a firearm.[7] In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
A cursory perusal of Wikipedia's list of mass shootings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_used
Shows 8 with semi-automatic rifles, 8 with handguns, and the rest with multiple weapons or shotgun / handgun.
Any reasonable gun control policy must include restrictions at LEAST as hard on handguns, and if you want to actually stop the tens of thousands of deaths that come from sources other than mass shootings, imo restrictions on handguns must be STRICTER than those on long guns.
This is obvious to anyone who checks the facts.
|
I guess this point has been raised in this thread before but I think that the gun control debate comes down to individualism vs collectivism.
I have no doubt in my mind that outlawing guns and providing gun amnesty programs with ample rewards while aggressively prosecuting anyone caught with an illegal weapon would reduce murder rates/school shootings etc by a whole lot (over a long time), simply because it will be much harder to get a gun. (Collectivist perspective)
However, no statistics matter when someone is pointing a gun at you while you are completely defenseless and the police is nowhere to be seen. (Individualist perspective)
So for each individual, the optimal outcome in the short term is to allow everyone to have guns for self-defense, but for society as a whole in the long term, it's probably more beneficial to outlaw guns.
On February 20 2018 12:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
I say disarm (or abolish) the police then you'll have cops, and therefore the right, calling to disarm the populace. It's always worried me how many idiots want the cops to be the only ones legally carrying weapons. I thought everybody was up in arms about these racist bodies terrorizing young black men and the like? It never made sense.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it a major part of the democratic/"american leftist" policy to actually crack down on corrupt police departments aswell? But according to many republicans trying to reform the police force = hating the law and police.
|
On February 21 2018 20:04 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2018 19:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Virginia tech shooter, Columbine massacre, Sandy Hook, that gay nightclub, the cinema massacre, the Vegas shooter and now Florida ...
these were all perpetrated using handguns, rite? Or am I missing something?
the GQ article is a fucking joke. It's relativist word salad of epic proportions. It's so much bullshit you can't even start fathoming the spin of the narrative. Owning 17 guns isn't "extreme"? LOL!!! I don't even own that many T-shirts.
Try killing 50+ people with a handgun and see how that works. Or a butter knife, even better.
With this type of rhetoric I'm really wondering why the US doesn't just arm their military with cars, forks, baseball bats and molotovs and save a couple billion dollars annually. I mean, guns don't even kill people. The vast majority of people killed by guns in USA are killed by handguns. "In 2010, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were committed using a firearm.[7] In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesA cursory perusal of Wikipedia's list of mass shootings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_usedShows 8 with semi-automatic rifles, 8 with handguns, and the rest with multiple weapons or shotgun / handgun. Any reasonable gun control policy must include restrictions at LEAST as hard on handguns, and if you want to actually stop the tens of thousands of deaths that come from sources other than mass shootings, imo restrictions on handguns must be STRICTER than those on long guns. This is obvious to anyone who checks the facts.
I agree. Handguns are a bigger issue in the realm of "stemming overall gun violence", although the term "handgun" doesn't elicit as emotional a response to the layman as "assault weapon". This often times undercuts certain otherwise-legitimate arguments for gun control, which is unfortunate, but it's also important to note that if someone is looking for a higher body count, they're probably going to choose a gun that fires more bullets faster. We all need to make sure we have our statistics straight, as well as understand the vocabulary involved in categorizing guns, bullets, accessories, etc.
Off-topic: + Show Spoiler +Speaking of vocabulary, "cursory perusal" is quite an interesting oxymoron lol.
|
Leporello made a quality post imo. Regardless, these are two different issues. One is the gangbanging, criminal and emotional homicide issue (the issue of handguns), the other is deranged people mass-murdering civilians to get on the notoriety leaderboard of media attention.
To me this issue comes down to high-tech military weaponry that is obscenely easy to obtain (a primary reason), the lack of psychological screening and appropriate measures in grade school kids already, and the media's disgusting fawning over the perps.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On February 21 2018 20:04 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2018 19:18 Kickboxer wrote:
Virginia tech shooter, Columbine massacre, Sandy Hook, that gay nightclub, the cinema massacre, the Vegas shooter and now Florida ...
these were all perpetrated using handguns, rite? Or am I missing something?
the GQ article is a fucking joke. It's relativist word salad of epic proportions. It's so much bullshit you can't even start fathoming the spin of the narrative. Owning 17 guns isn't "extreme"? LOL!!! I don't even own that many T-shirts.
Try killing 50+ people with a handgun and see how that works. Or a butter knife, even better.
With this type of rhetoric I'm really wondering why the US doesn't just arm their military with cars, forks, baseball bats and molotovs and save a couple billion dollars annually. I mean, guns don't even kill people. The vast majority of people killed by guns in USA are killed by handguns. "In 2010, 67% of all homicides in the U.S. were committed using a firearm.[7] In 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_StatesA cursory perusal of Wikipedia's list of mass shootings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Weapons_usedShows 8 with semi-automatic rifles, 8 with handguns, and the rest with multiple weapons or shotgun / handgun. Any reasonable gun control policy must include restrictions at LEAST as hard on handguns, and if you want to actually stop the tens of thousands of deaths that come from sources other than mass shootings, imo restrictions on handguns must be STRICTER than those on long guns. This is obvious to anyone who checks the facts.
i would be very interested to see what % of people killed by handguns were killed by legally held handguns. i believe the majority of handgun killings are gang violence related. so tell me, what sort of restrictions would you levy on handguns that would prevent gang members from getting their hands on them.
|
All the illegal guns started out as legal. It's a market flooding issue not a legality issue.
There are no manufacturers of illegal guns, just a secondary black market fed by the arms lobby.
|
On February 21 2018 20:12 Daimai wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 12:41 Danglars wrote:On February 20 2018 12:07 GreenHorizons wrote:
I say disarm (or abolish) the police then you'll have cops, and therefore the right, calling to disarm the populace. It's always worried me how many idiots want the cops to be the only ones legally carrying weapons. I thought everybody was up in arms about these racist bodies terrorizing young black men and the like? It never made sense. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it a major part of the democratic/"american leftist" policy to actually crack down on corrupt police departments aswell? But according to many republicans trying to reform the police force = hating the law and police.
Unfortunately you are wrong about that. They talk a big game, but some of the worst departments in the country are in long held Democratic strongholds.
|
That's probably why he said "american leftist" and your comment says nothing about the troubling dynamic through which urban police departments fill their ranks with conservatives drawn from the surrounding rural area. This is especially the case in Seattle and Chicago, both of which employ many police who come from outside the city.
|
On February 21 2018 20:47 farvacola wrote:
That's probably why he said "american leftist" and your comment says nothing about the troubling dynamic through which urban police departments fill their ranks with conservatives drawn from the surrounding rural area. This is especially the case in Seattle and Chicago, both of which employ many police who come from outside the city.
That's why I didn't say he was wrong about that part.
Conservative officers don't explain Chicago, especially with people like Rahm helping them out. Granted places like Chicago have generations of corruption undermining any real reform, it's also Corruption of the (D) variety.
I won't argue that police departments don't have recruitment strategies that target people that shouldn't be cops, or that they don't tend to lean right, but I will point out that they answer to Democrats often enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
