More guns...less gun homicides. Go figure. [Archive] - Page 2

Latrinsorm

12-04-2015, 08:50 PM

I love firearms. I have many, and I'm a lifetime NRA member. I have two things to say about this or any other "gun law" thread. 1) No one (of any note) is trying to take away guns. This includes the piece of shit in the White House. 2) Since item #1 is the truth, the discussion is about profiling people to determine who can/cannot have a legal firearm. And we all know the government doesn't profile, so instead of profiling, the intent currently is to make owning and firing a legal firearm so expensive as to discourage anyone from purchasing a legal firearm. Which means poor people who want a firearm, will get one (illegally) and rich people who want one, will buy one and life will go on. Either way, nothing really changes.As Thondalar and I have agreed, the gun murder rate has been cut in half since the introduction of the Brady Act while legal gun ownership has "skyrocketed". The lesson is that gun control works, which is to say it restricts the illegal use of guns without restricting the legal use of guns. The gun suicide rate has barely dropped at all, which tells us we need more legislation of a different kind. I don't know what specifically it should be, but the lesson of the OP is definitely not "nothing changes".
It still comes down to the.... who the fuck gives anyone the right to say someone can't commit suicide? It's been decriminalized. I mean, seriously people. Are these NOT the same people arguing FOR decriminalizing drugs because it's a person's right to do to their body what they want? It's ok to smoke weed.. but oh god no, you can't own a gun and kill yourself, that's wrong.Hi! :)
Yes, there is some good info sprinkled in there. That being said... I would ALWAYS rather have a gun in a situation like that then not have a gun. Not saying I could take out an armed death squad trying to kill everyone in a room, but I know I would do everything I could to ensure that if they did kill me, I took some of them with me.How sure are you that you can accurately identify someone trying to kill you? You remember that story about the moronic theater that decided to stage a violent incursion shortly after the mass murder in Colorado. How sure are you that you would have correctly identified that as theatre in the theater, and not an actual threat?
No because in the case of the No Fly List, there is absolutely no right to fly on an airplane. To be honest I'm not exactly sure what being on the terrorist watch list entails but I imagine they are tracked and shit. Nothing necessarily illegal about that to my knowledge. I'm pretty sure a cop can legally follow you around in public all day even without a warrant or any sort of permission from a judge.Police don't need a warrant to follow you around in public under any circumstances. They're allowed to look right at you all they want, or "surveil" if you will.

Thondalar

12-05-2015, 03:38 AM

As Thondalar and I have agreed, the gun murder rate has been cut in half since the introduction of the Brady Act while legal gun ownership has "skyrocketed". The lesson is that gun control works, which is to say it restricts the illegal use of guns without restricting the legal use of guns. The gun suicide rate has barely dropped at all, which tells us we need more legislation of a different kind. I don't know what specifically it should be, but the lesson of the OP is definitely not "nothing changes".

Eh. I guess you really have to qualify "works"...if your measure is "reducing gun homicides", we can certainly draw a correlation between certain gun legislation and a reduction in homicides, as we can see here. We can also look at the skyrocketing numbers of gun homicides in the early 80's, despite the fact that the gun control act of 1968 passed 12+ years prior. The Brady Bill did "improve" on this particular piece of legislation by requiring background checks, and placing "common sense" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment by denying that particular right to certain members of our Society, as named in the body of the legislation:

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The issue, really, is the 2nd amendment. As much as people would like to try to twist things around, and say "oh, they didn't really mean it like this", or "oh, that doesn't really matter any more"...it is still there. Until you remove the 2nd amendment, you aren't going to remove guns, and you aren't going to remove gun homicides or suicides...EVEN THEN YOU WON'T, but after the 2nd civil war ended, depending on who wins, you might...lol. I can't even finish that line of thought. Get a fucking clue.

If you look at the Bill of Rights...only the 2nd is a single sentence. It can't possibly be any more clear as to their meaning and intent. I lot of gruff is given over the "well regulated militia" part. Look up the word "militia". The meaning hasn't changed much since 1776. It is an armed force of non-military citizens, just like it was back then.

People like to refer back to US v. Cruikshank in 1876, where the Supreme Court held that "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." They love to omit the follow-up..."The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." Yet, our most sweeping Federal gun laws come from...Congress and the National Government. Go figure.

There is a bright side! District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago...if those are just random words to you, and you care about guns (one way or the other), look them up.

edit: Sorry, I mean...I get what they were really trying to say, but...the Constitution quite clearly states "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" and they come up with "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution"...I mean, obviously, if you possess any amount of intelligence beyond your average household appliance, you can get what they meant after reading the entire summation, but...damn...fuck lawyers. Providing half-truths and sound bytes since 1876.

Thondalar

12-05-2015, 03:49 AM

People kill people and until you remove their motivations for doing so it will continue to happen regardless of what they use.

But, the point of the exercise is to limit the killing potential of these people and their guns. Even though most of these killings are suicides, and it only takes 1 bullet to accomplish that. Even though hundreds of millions of us can safely and properly exercise our rights, lets fuck all of them because a small fraction are idiots.

Latrinsorm

12-05-2015, 03:11 PM

Eh. I guess you really have to qualify "works"...if your measure is "reducing gun homicides", we can certainly draw a correlation between certain gun legislation and a reduction in homicides, as we can see here. We can also look at the skyrocketing numbers of gun homicides in the early 80's, despite the fact that the gun control act of 1968 passed 12+ years prior. The Brady Bill did "improve" on this particular piece of legislation by requiring background checks, and placing "common sense" restrictions on the 2nd Amendment by denying that particular right to certain members of our Society, as named in the body of the legislation:The Gun Control Act only addressed half the problem by forcing gun sellers to be licensed. It said you couldn't sell to X people but without any way of verifying X that part of the law was toothless, and one could quite fairly argue that the technology of the time would have made true background checks prohibitive anyway. As always, private business made no attempt to fill this void, and it was up to the federal government (via the Brady Act) to mandate, develop, fund, implement, and maintain a background check system that was both reasonably thorough and reasonably rapid.
The issue, really, is the 2nd amendment. As much as people would like to try to twist things around, and say "oh, they didn't really mean it like this", or "oh, that doesn't really matter any more"...it is still there. Until you remove the 2nd amendment, you aren't going to remove guns, and you aren't going to remove gun homicides or suicides...EVEN THEN YOU WON'T, but after the 2nd civil war ended, depending on who wins, you might...lol. I can't even finish that line of thought. Get a fucking clue. etc.Er... is this addressed towards me, or are you expounding? It doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I was talking about.
But, the point of the exercise is to limit the killing potential of these people and their guns. Even though most of these killings are suicides, and it only takes 1 bullet to accomplish that. Even though hundreds of millions of us can safely and properly exercise our rights, lets fuck all of them because a small fraction are idiots.You don't think it's reasonable for you to trade an hour's wait so that someone else doesn't get murdered? That seems a fair deal to me. At the most brutish level of time = time, a murder victim who would have lived another fifty years is worth 50 years * 365 days per year * 24 hours per day = 438,000 hours waited by gun owners. At the sourced decrease of 3.5 gun murders per 100,000 people, that's 3.5 * 300,000,000 / 100,000 = 10,500 gun murders * 438,000 = 4.6 billion hours waited per year. Even if every man woman and child in America bought 10 guns a year and had to wait an hour every time, we'd still be way ahead of the game.

Methais

12-05-2015, 03:25 PM

The Gun Control Act only addressed half the problem by forcing gun sellers to be licensed. It said you couldn't sell to X people but without any way of verifying X that part of the law was toothless, and one could quite fairly argue that the technology of the time would have made true background checks prohibitive anyway. As always, private business made no attempt to fill this void, and it was up to the federal government (via the Brady Act) to mandate, develop, fund, implement, and maintain a background check system that was both reasonably thorough and reasonably rapid.Er... is this addressed towards me, or are you expounding? It doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I was talking about.You don't think it's reasonable for you to trade an hour's wait so that someone else doesn't get murdered? That seems a fair deal to me. At the most brutish level of time = time, a murder victim who would have lived another fifty years is worth 50 years * 365 days per year * 24 hours per day = 438,000 hours waited by gun owners. At the sourced decrease of 3.5 gun murders per 100,000 people, that's 3.5 * 300,000,000 / 100,000 = 10,500 gun murders * 438,000 = 4.6 billion hours waited per year. Even if every man woman and child in America bought 10 guns a year and had to wait an hour every time, we'd still be way ahead of the game.

Shut up Latrin.

Warriorbird

12-05-2015, 07:41 PM

Most of these gun control measures are "please the masses" bullshit.

The gun lobby got laws passed against most anything that's actually effective.

Simultaneously the NRA fails to protect the average gun owner from riotously expensive ammo because it helps their corporate masters.

Corrupt all around.

Thondalar

12-06-2015, 03:31 PM

The Gun Control Act only addressed half the problem by forcing gun sellers to be licensed. It said you couldn't sell to X people but without any way of verifying X that part of the law was toothless, and one could quite fairly argue that the technology of the time would have made true background checks prohibitive anyway. As always, private business made no attempt to fill this void, and it was up to the federal government (via the Brady Act) to mandate, develop, fund, implement, and maintain a background check system that was both reasonably thorough and reasonably rapid.

Aaaand...it's already done. So why are we still talking about gun control?

Er... is this addressed towards me, or are you expounding? It doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I was talking about.

I figured you'd be used to my inebriated soliloquies by now.

You don't think it's reasonable for you to trade an hour's wait so that someone else doesn't get murdered? That seems a fair deal to me. At the most brutish level of time = time, a murder victim who would have lived another fifty years is worth 50 years * 365 days per year * 24 hours per day = 438,000 hours waited by gun owners. At the sourced decrease of 3.5 gun murders per 100,000 people, that's 3.5 * 300,000,000 / 100,000 = 10,500 gun murders * 438,000 = 4.6 billion hours waited per year. Even if every man woman and child in America bought 10 guns a year and had to wait an hour every time, we'd still be way ahead of the game.

This is already something that is in place. Why are we still talking about gun control?

Thondalar

12-06-2015, 03:44 PM

Also, on the topic of gun violence studies, heard this on NPR today:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/03/458361236/researchers-take-on-great-problem-in-data-with-study-of-gunshot-wounds

Pretty interesting.

I don't understand why only data from some government agency would be considered valid. The doctors who did this study in New Jersey weren't associated with the CDC, and yet, they seem to have completed their study just fine. I have referenced multiple studies throughout this thread, from organizations like Pew Research Center and Harvard University. People who claim it isn't being studied just don't like the results of the studies that are being done, and I guess they're hoping the CDC is run by the same people running the IRS.

Latrinsorm

12-06-2015, 05:57 PM

Aaaand...it's already done. So why are we still talking about gun control? I figured you'd be used to my inebriated soliloquies by now. This is already something that is in place. Why are we still talking about gun control?I mean, you started the thread, you tell me. :D

For my part, while the Brady Act has proven quite successful at reducing gun homicides, it has proven far less successful at reducing mass homicides and gun suicides. The solution to the former is obvious, as the graph posted earlier in this thread demonstrated. The solution to the latter is not obvious, at least to me. We have proven that gun control legislation can have a massive impact on gun use, I think it is worthwhile to talk about what specific kind of gun control could solve this third problem without unduly infringing on responsible gun use, as the other two forms of legislation.

~Rocktar~

12-07-2015, 12:01 AM

Simultaneously the NRA fails to protect the average gun owner from riotously expensive ammo because it helps their corporate masters.

Actually it's simple supply and demand. Demand has gone up substantially and supply has not kept up. Add some federal tax increase and bingo, high ammo prices. It is showing signs of decreasing as some manufacuters have brought on more supply lines.

Warriorbird

12-07-2015, 09:30 AM

Actually it's simple supply and demand. Demand has gone up substantially and supply has not kept up. Add some federal tax increase and bingo, high ammo prices. It is showing signs of decreasing as some manufacuters have brought on more supply lines.

Oh those blameless manufacturers! Just like those poor poor insurance companies! And all those "federal tax increases!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9313_United_States_ammunition_shortage

Fallen

12-07-2015, 11:01 AM

Methais

12-07-2015, 12:22 PM

~Rocktar~

12-08-2015, 12:46 AM

Oh those blameless manufacturers! Just like those poor poor insurance companies! And all those "federal tax increases!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9313_United_States_ammunition_shortage

Ummm, the article you posted is clearly saying supply and demand. Supply isn't keeping up with demand because people are buying all they can. So, how again was I wrong in what I said? That's right, I was not. Please stop being a raving douche.

Thondalar

12-12-2015, 04:20 AM

Ammo is still quite readily available...just not always in the caliber, type, and grain weight you might want. Also, I do believe that there are some valid concerns from citizens when it comes to ammunition...the extremists are running into a brick wall when it comes to actual gun legislation, so they're making plans to hit the ammo instead. While they can't ban it outright, they can do sneaky little things like have the EPA regulate lead ammo as an environmental hazard. Plenty of other sorts of ammo exist on the market already, but lead is by far the cheapest.

Alternately, you could do what I do and just load your own. This takes a bit more getting in to, but it is quite a bit cheaper in the long run. Bullets, brass, powder, and primers for 5,000 rounds of .223 cost me about $800 total, and that's brand new brass I'll get a few uses out of. That's about 16 cents per round (not even counting usable brass after the first load)...about half the cost of your average bulk 55 grain cheapo range ammo.

(pricing based on what I consider "reputable" ammo...you can buy some cheap eastern-European surplus crap for about 22 cents a round, but I wouldn't suggest it. I've had some friends say it works just fine, but I'll pass.)

Thondalar

12-12-2015, 04:33 AM

I mean, you started the thread, you tell me. :D

I posted it because I read the referenced article, and it seemed to me like something to consider during recently renewed calls for more gun control. If nothing else this thread proves that, like many of the "issues" facing us today, most Americans are unwavering in their tribal mentality.

For my part, while the Brady Act has proven quite successful at reducing gun homicides, it has proven far less successful at reducing mass homicides and gun suicides.

I think the first is more correlation than causation, the second is a societal anomaly that will never be completely stopped (nobody used a gun at the Boston Marathon, for example), and the third isn't something that any legislation could prevent, barring outright banning and confiscation of all guns...and even then it wouldn't, completely.

The truth of the matter is bad things happen. The world isn't all rainbows and sunshine. The vast majority of the laws in place came about because we were afraid of something bad happening. Quit being afraid.

Warriorbird

12-12-2015, 07:50 AM

Please continue to think that companies don't profit when they profit guys. You're the bedrocks of American conservatism and all companies need you to make money.

The NRA totally isn't lobbyists! Really!

Please stop being a raving douche. -Rocktar

Anybody saying this related to the politics folder ought to do some self examination. There's some hard truths about the gun industry that you're stuffing your fingers in your ears and BELIEVING about.

Fallen

12-12-2015, 08:18 AM

Typically when one provides a link in an argument, even during a political argument, the link has some sort of data supporting their argument.

Warriorbird

12-12-2015, 09:20 AM

Typically when one provides a link in an argument, even during a political argument, the link has some sort of data supporting their argument.

An infant... as in an actual child, could discover how well the firearms companies (as well as insurance companies) have done under Obama. What I linked simply refuted the proposition that there were all sort of "mysterious unexplained tax increases that caused the shortage!" like their email forwards tell them there are.

Fallen

12-12-2015, 09:46 AM

An infant... as in an actual child, could discover how well the firearms companies (as well as insurance companies) have done under Obama.

I don't believe anyone was debating the fact that the gun companies were making a lot of money, but kudos to your figurative infant child all the same.

What I linked simply refuted the proposition that there were all sort of "mysterious unexplained tax increases that caused the shortage!" like their email forwards tell them there are.

Rocktar's statement, "Actually it's simple supply and demand. Demand has gone up substantially and supply has not kept up. Add some federal tax increase and bingo, high ammo prices. It is showing signs of decreasing as some manufacuters have brought on more supply lines."

Your response:

Oh those blameless manufacturers! Just like those poor poor insurance companies! And all those "federal tax increases!" (emphasis mine)

Your link refuting his statement was the wikipedia article. It certainly didn't argue against the supply/demand aspect of his point, which was the part I questioned.

So that leaves taxes. As far as I can tell, there have been no increased taxes on ammunition. If that argument was clearly spelled out and debunked in that wiki article, I missed it. You are right in your second point of taxes all the same.

Moving on from there, we come back to your original argument that the NRA and ammunition companies are responsible for the increase.

Simultaneously the NRA fails to protect the average gun owner from riotously expensive ammo because it helps their corporate masters.

Corrupt all around.

I'd say that President Obama, with his repeated and very plainly worded desires to restrict gun ownership would have very much liked to have passed laws reducing the amount of guns and ammunition available to the American public. A sentiment echoed by many others in his party within both houses of congress. If there had not been the pushback from the NRA, the gun/ammo companies, and the GOP, he would have gotten his wish. The American public is for more restrictions on gun ownership, in some cases poling close to 90% on the issue. I don't think it's outrageous to believe that the President of the United States of America has some sway in what happens within the bounds of his own country. Especially when for a time his party had a significant portion of both houses of congress. Along comes Sandy Hook, and it looks like the stage is set for sweeping gun reform legislation.

Were the fears of the "pro gun" camp justified during that time? Absolutely. To state it was all just fear mongering by greedy corporations is simply ignoring the obvious.

You're right about there being a lack of a tax increase, which would have very likely been one of the measures the Democrats might use to help dissuade gun/ammo ownership. I do think you're wrong in vilifying the NRA and the pro-gun powers that be for being overly reactionary in their response to President Obama's continued leadership. In every fucking speech the guy gives he calls for more gun legislation. Granted, these speeches follow a continual barrage of mass shootings. How can they not seek to keep their base active in pushing back? Especially considering there will be times when the GOP may fall so low in congress as to not be able to block legislation along party lines. That means swaying pro-gun Democrats to vote against their own party's leadership.

My question to you, Do you think Hillary will be any less forceful (for better or worse depending on your position) on pushing for gun control legislation than Obama?

Silvean

12-12-2015, 12:05 PM

Coincidentally, I ran across the term ignoratio elenchi in a book I was reading yesterday. Made me think of this forum.

Fallen

12-12-2015, 12:12 PM

Way to contribute to the discussion, S.

Thondalar

12-12-2015, 01:07 PM

The NRA totally isn't lobbyists! Really!

Of course they are, and I shudder to think what America would be like today without them.

There's some hard truths about the gun industry that you're stuffing your fingers in your ears and BELIEVING about.

"Hard truths?" Lol. Besides your ammo conspiracy, what else are we ignoring?

Warriorbird

12-12-2015, 01:38 PM

"Hard truths?" Lol. Besides your ammo conspiracy, what else are we ignoring?

...and you don't believe they're making more money from you. Okay buddy.

Warriorbird

12-12-2015, 01:43 PM

I don't believe anyone was debating the fact that the gun companies were making a lot of money, but kudos to your figurative infant child all the same.

Rocktar's statement, "Actually it's simple supply and demand. Demand has gone up substantially and supply has not kept up. Add some federal tax increase and bingo, high ammo prices. It is showing signs of decreasing as some manufacuters have brought on more supply lines."

Your response:

Your link refuting his statement was the wikipedia article. It certainly didn't argue against the supply/demand aspect of his point, which was the part I questioned.

So that leaves taxes. As far as I can tell, there have been no increased taxes on ammunition. If that argument was clearly spelled out and debunked in that wiki article, I missed it. You are right in your second point of taxes all the same.

Moving on from there, we come back to your original argument that the NRA and ammunition companies are responsible for the increase.

I'd say that President Obama, with his repeated and very plainly worded desires to restrict gun ownership would have very much liked to have passed laws reducing the amount of guns and ammunition available to the American public. A sentiment echoed by many others in his party within both houses of congress. If there had not been the pushback from the NRA, the gun/ammo companies, and the GOP, he would have gotten his wish. The American public is for more restrictions on gun ownership, in some cases poling close to 90% on the issue. I don't think it's outrageous to believe that the President of the United States of America has some sway in what happens within the bounds of his own country. Especially when for a time his party had a significant portion of both houses of congress. Along comes Sandy Hook, and it looks like the stage is set for sweeping gun reform legislation.

Were the fears of the "pro gun" camp justified during that time? Absolutely. To state it was all just fear mongering by greedy corporations is simply ignoring the obvious.

You're right about there being a lack of a tax increase, which would have very likely been one of the measures the Democrats might use to help dissuade gun/ammo ownership. I do think you're wrong in vilifying the NRA and the pro-gun powers that be for being overly reactionary in their response to President Obama's continued leadership. In every fucking speech the guy gives he calls for more gun legislation. Granted, these speeches follow a continual barrage of mass shootings. How can they not seek to keep their base active in pushing back? Especially considering there will be times when the GOP may fall so low in congress as to not be able to block legislation along party lines. That means swaying pro-gun Democrats to vote against their own party's leadership.

My question to you, Do you think Hillary will be any less forceful (for better or worse depending on your position) on pushing for gun control legislation than Obama?

I'd reference the NRA's creating a law to block one of the few effective and historically proven means of gun control (because it would reduce gun fetishism) to point to them being far from the innocent advocacy group you show them as.

Obama could wish all he wanted... he also wouldn't have been in the White House without Virginia and North Carolina. He obviously knew it was never going to happen.

The NRA and firearms companies quite obviously stoked fears to get what they wanted in turn. I don't think that somebody as seemingly rational as you would argue against that. Obama's ideals (without any potential of being furthered) made tremendous amounts of money for them all.

I think Hillary will, in turn, claim high minded hate of gun companies for votes (and because Sanders is comparatively anti gun control, as he backed the NRA's play with that bill) but you'll find nothing major will happen. There's no way in hell she'll win Congress.

Fallen

12-12-2015, 02:00 PM

The NRA and firearms companies quite obviously stoked fears to get what they wanted in turn. I don't think that somebody as seemingly rational as you would argue against that. Obama's ideals (without any potential of being furthered) made tremendous amounts of money for them all.

I'm definitely not arguing against your point, I'm agreeing with it in its entirety. What I don't agree with is the conclusion that gun control wont ever take place on a legislative level. I think it is a question of when, rather than if. Do you see these mass shootings slowing down? I don't. Whether or not gun legislation will address the problem, they'll get their chance to try it out. Assuming things stay largely the way they are with the presidential race (which is admittedly a big if with Trump as the current front-runner), that means 4 more years of a democrat controlled white house. That amount of time could also change the makeup of the Supreme Court. I also think the SC passing on ruling on the Assault weapon issue somewhat opens the gate to state-led efforts at gun control legislation.

I think everything done by the NRA et al is a stalling tactic at best.

Warriorbird

12-12-2015, 02:02 PM

I'm definitely not arguing against your point, I'm agreeing with it in its entirety. What I don't agree with is the conclusion that gun control wont ever take place on a legislative level. I think it is a question of if, rather than when. Do you see these mass shootings slowing down? I don't. Whether or not gun legislation will address the problem, they'll get their chance to try it out. Assuming things stay largely the way they are with the presidential race (which is admittedly a big if with Trump as the current front-runner), that means 4 more years of a democrat controlled white house. That amount of time could also change the makeup of the Supreme Court. I also think the SC passing on ruling on the Assault weapon issue somewhat opens the gate to state-led efforts at gun control legislation.

I think everything done by the NRA et al is a stalling tactic at best.

I do think any efforts will be state lead and state limited, thankfully. This current court at the least has smashed gun control at every opportunity.

I don't see mass shootings slowing down. I'd like to see a more focused look at mental health, but that's as unlikely as meaningful gun control.

Fallen

12-12-2015, 02:46 PM

I do think any efforts will be state lead and state limited, thankfully. This current court at the least has smashed gun control at every opportunity.

I don't see mass shootings slowing down. I'd like to see a more focused look at mental health, but that's as unlikely as meaningful gun control.

I was writing up a larger thing on mass shootings, but figured i'd get nitpicked to death regardless of how encompassing I tried to make my points. Basically, it boils down to looking at all the facets which could reduce religious/ideological motivated mass shootings in the US, and discussing what could theoretically help, what would realistically help, and on what type of timescale.

Long story short, I don't think on a realistic level gun control measures could be passed which would curb mass shootings of a religious/ideological nature. Other measures would prove more effective, but ultimately start to infringe on our so-called right to privacy, or involve military intervention which would help in the short term, but lead to more violence in the long term.

Thondalar

12-12-2015, 02:48 PM

...and you don't believe they're making more money from you. Okay buddy.

Of course they are. So what? They're a business, not a charity. I'm really struggling to find any sort of point here.

Thondalar

12-12-2015, 02:52 PM

Mass shootings are a media invention. Talk about scare tactics. You have a better chance of dying in a plane crash than dying from a mass shooting, yet we want some sort of sweeping gun control legislation because of them? It's ridiculous. We already have unconstitutional gun control. Maybe it's time we stop blaming inanimate objects for our societal failures?

Fallen

12-12-2015, 02:58 PM

Latrinsorm

12-12-2015, 04:35 PM

I posted it because I read the referenced article, and it seemed to me like something to consider during recently renewed calls for more gun control. If nothing else this thread proves that, like many of the "issues" facing us today, most Americans are unwavering in their tribal mentality.Do you believe the article you read says anything about mass murder?
I think the first is more correlation than causation,Let me stop you here. Why is it that when it's "gun sales have increased since 1993 and murders have gone down" you see causation, but when it's "gun control has increased since 1993 and murders have gone down" it's merely correlation?
The truth of the matter is bad things happen. The world isn't all rainbows and sunshine. The vast majority of the laws in place came about because we were afraid of something bad happening. Quit being afraid.Ah, is this like your fear of government repression and/or foreign invasion? You'd give up all your guns if you would just quit being afraid. Bawwwwk bawk bawk bawk bawk! :)
Coincidentally, I ran across the term ignoratio elenchi in a book I was reading yesterday. Made me think of this forum.You can go right back to Brazil with that kind of funny language, mister, you and that Anderson Silvea fella.
Long story short, I don't think on a realistic level gun control measures could be passed which would curb mass shootings of a religious/ideological nature. Other measures would prove more effective, but ultimately start to infringe on our so-called right to privacy, or involve military intervention which would help in the short term, but lead to more violence in the long term.These religions and ideologies aren't new, though. What other reason can we give for mass shootings being less frequent while the Assault Weapon Ban was in effect? Unless you consider that an example of an unrealistic measure, in which case nevermind.

Thondalar

12-13-2015, 02:38 AM

Couldn't you make the same reductionist argument with the entire issue of domestic terrorism?

Of course. The difference here is, one thing is protected by our Constitution, in no unclear terms. Like it or not, US Citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. Period. Cruikshank upheld that Congress has no right to make any laws restricting that...although we have since passed laws by Congress restricting that.

All I'm saying is, people...well, people are stupid. I'd be willing to bet my paycheck that if you polled 100,000 average Americans, less than 1% would be able to tell you what National gun laws are already in place, and what they do. But they want more! SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!!!1111

Thondalar

12-13-2015, 02:50 AM

Do you believe the article you read says anything about mass murder?

I don't believe it needs to. Such things are an anomaly...they aren't normal. We have hundreds of millions of gun owners in the US that don't do bad things with their guns, but we're going to focus on the few that do. It's insane.

Let me stop you here. Why is it that when it's "gun sales have increased since 1993 and murders have gone down" you see causation, but when it's "gun control has increased since 1993 and murders have gone down" it's merely correlation?

Pretty simple. The idea we've been force-fed is that more guns equals more gun homicides. The data disproves that. Despite the Brady Bill being in place, more people in the US own guns now than they did before 1993. We know three things. 1) Brady Bill passed. 2) More people own guns. 3) Less people have been killed by guns.

We could say that 3) is because of 1), or we could say that 3) is because of 2). Obviously, I'm more likely to conclude what I want from that data, and obviously you're likely to do the same.

Ah, is this like your fear of government repression and/or foreign invasion? You'd give up all your guns if you would just quit being afraid.

You're quoting someone else here, but I'll chime in, just on this part...you act like government repression and/or foreign invasion has never happened before. You act like there isn't a long, visible, uncontested history of Nations disarming their citizens and then bad things happen. You act like the 2nd Amendment popped out of someone's head with no historical context, no reason for existing....some random forefather liked his guns so boom, there it is. It's disgusting, and if you're half the intellectual you claim to be, you should have at least a 5th-grade grasp of history.

Thondalar

12-13-2015, 02:52 AM

These religions and ideologies aren't new, though. What other reason can we give for mass shootings being less frequent while the Assault Weapon Ban was in effect? Unless you consider that an example of an unrealistic measure, in which case nevermind.

Interesting you bring that up. Can you name a single "mass shooting" attributed to religious zealotry before 1993? I'll take just one.

Thondalar

12-13-2015, 03:11 AM

I would also like to point out that, since 1993, the number of citizens with licensed concealed carry permits in the US has more than doubled...

If you want to talk about a lack of study in this field, why haven't any government organizations come forth with a study about how many rapes/homicides are prevented by concealed carry citizens? Where is that study? My monthly issue of American Rifleman has a section dedicated to armed citizens preventing crime...I know it happens. The stories they post are easily referenced by local newspapers/TV news...it actually happens. It isn't some myth worked up by the gun lobby.

Jarvan

12-13-2015, 09:07 AM

Libertarian takedown of the "campus rape" talking point.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/02/20/guns-wont-stop-campus-rape-say-people-mi

(though he, like me, thinks concealed carry is fine)

Really don't think what he was referring to was campus "rape" where shit happens at a party. More likely he meant where a woman is alone and a stranger attacks her and rapes her.

Campus rape is a whole other story, and frankly a shitty one.

Gun Control Advocates never want to hear about people with guns using them to protect themselves or save their children. They act like it doesn't happen. There is no national statistic, because the government doesn't want to collect that data, and if a shot isn't fired, it's likely not reported. I won't say that use of a gun by civilians saves more or the same lives as the 13,000 lives taken by gun violence each year, but I bet it's fairly close.

SexualPredator

12-13-2015, 09:15 AM

Really don't think what he was referring to was campus "rape" where shit happens at a party. More likely he meant where a woman is alone and a stranger attacks her and rapes her.

Campus rape is a whole other story, and frankly a shitty one.

Really...tell us more...

Jarvan

12-13-2015, 09:50 AM

Really...tell us more...

Well troll... it's shitty that rape happens.

Of course, it's even shittier when rape doesn't happen and the guy's life gets ruined anyway because the campus has a "your fucking guilty and there is nothing you can do about it" policy.

Now fuck off.

Latrinsorm

12-13-2015, 02:14 PM

I don't believe it needs to. Such things are an anomaly...they aren't normal. We have hundreds of millions of gun owners in the US that don't do bad things with their guns, but we're going to focus on the few that do. It's insane.Here's what's baffling about this statement. I didn't bring up mass murder in this thread, you did. If this is a retraction on your part, it is an odd one.
Pretty simple. The idea we've been force-fed is that more guns equals more gun homicides.Force fed by whom? Surely not I.
The data disproves that. Despite the Brady Bill being in place, more people in the US own guns now than they did before 1993. We know three things. 1) Brady Bill passed. 2) More people own guns. 3) Less people have been killed by guns. We could say that 3) is because of 1), or we could say that 3) is because of 2). Obviously, I'm more likely to conclude what I want from that data, and obviously you're likely to do the same.Surely we can agree that the Brady Act does not remove guns from the population, rather it prevents further guns from being added to the population. Surely we can further agree that the Brady Act's prevention is not at random, but is based on (to use Tgo01's favorite phrase) a common sense array of background checks. You appear to have lumped all gun control advocates into a "more guns = more crime" mindset. I can't speak to an overall %, but clearly neither I nor the Brady Act fall into that camp. I think this is why we have had such a difficult time communicating about this.
You're quoting someone else here, but I'll chime in, just on this part...you act like government repression and/or foreign invasion has never happened before. You act like there isn't a long, visible, uncontested history of Nations disarming their citizens and then bad things happen. You act like the 2nd Amendment popped out of someone's head with no historical context, no reason for existing....some random forefather liked his guns so boom, there it is. It's disgusting, and if you're half the intellectual you claim to be, you should have at least a 5th-grade grasp of history.The truth of the matter is bad things happen. The world isn't all rainbows and sunshine. The vast majority of the laws in place came about because we were afraid of something bad happening. Quit being afraid.

If you honestly can't see how this applies exactly as well to any form of "we should not let X happen", whether X is foreign invasion, government repression, suicide epidemic, or mass shootings, then you have lost yourself in your bias. I am well aware of the times America has been quite successfully invaded, and of the times our government has quite successfully repressed its citizens. I am also well aware of the death toll caused by unregulated private gun ownership. I can say that I don't want any of those to happen without being "afraid". People don't necessarily disagree with you because you're rational and they're emotional. It is possible for someone to rationally come to a conclusion that completely disagrees with yours.
Interesting you bring that up. Can you name a single "mass shooting" attributed to religious zealotry before 1993? I'll take just one.Here you are. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre)
If you want to talk about a lack of study in this field, why haven't any government organizations come forth with a study about how many rapes/homicides are prevented by concealed carry citizens? Where is that study? My monthly issue of American Rifleman has a section dedicated to armed citizens preventing crime...I know it happens. The stories they post are easily referenced by local newspapers/TV news...it actually happens. It isn't some myth worked up by the gun lobby.The government does keep track of those statistics, and you have even cited them in the past. When I pointed out that your citation was arithmetically incorrect and the stats did not turn out to support your case, you abruptly changed your mind and said that they didn't mean anything. Ha! Ha! We had a right laugh.

Thondalar

12-14-2015, 10:50 AM

Thondalar

12-14-2015, 11:05 AM

Here's what's baffling about this statement. I didn't bring up mass murder in this thread, you did. If this is a retraction on your part, it is an odd one.

It's not a retraction, it's a stand-alone statement. Do you disagree with it?

Surely we can agree that the Brady Act does not remove guns from the population, rather it prevents further guns from being added to the population.

Except we have more guns since the Brady Act passed.

Surely we can further agree that the Brady Act's prevention is not at random, but is based on (to use Tgo01's favorite phrase) a common sense array of background checks.

I do agree, and I'm totally alright with this. My point was never about removing or ending Brady, despite its unconstitutionality. Keeping Brady is my "meeting you in the middle". You want gun control? Here's your gun control.

You appear to have lumped all gun control advocates into a "more guns = more crime" mindset. I can't speak to an overall %, but clearly neither I nor the Brady Act fall into that camp. I think this is why we have had such a difficult time communicating about this.

If you don't think more guns = more crime, then why would you want more gun control?

If you honestly can't see how this applies exactly as well to any form of "we should not let X happen", whether X is foreign invasion, government repression, suicide epidemic, or mass shootings, then you have lost yourself in your bias. I am well aware of the times America has been quite successfully invaded, and of the times our government has quite successfully repressed its citizens. I am also well aware of the death toll caused by unregulated private gun ownership. I can say that I don't want any of those to happen without being "afraid". People don't necessarily disagree with you because you're rational and they're emotional. It is possible for someone to rationally come to a conclusion that completely disagrees with yours.

It's about personal defense. I firmly believe I have a right to it, you firmly believe I don't. I doubt that is something we're going to be able to agree on. For the record, I'm talking about human history, not just US history. It's easy to say "look! Nobody ever invaded us, we've never had a dictator kill us off by the millions..." We've also been armed since our founding.

Here you are. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre)

Pretty sure I specified "religious zealotry".

The government does keep track of those statistics, and you have even cited them in the past. When I pointed out that your citation was arithmetically incorrect and the stats did not turn out to support your case, you abruptly changed your mind and said that they didn't mean anything. Ha! Ha! We had a right laugh.

I'm sorry, I must have missed this part. Got a link or something?

Latrinsorm

12-14-2015, 06:54 PM

It's not a retraction, it's a stand-alone statement. Do you disagree with it?I disagree with it, yes. We have agreed that it is possible to design gun control so that it interferes with the gun use of only those people we want it to. If it was possible to do so with Brady, it stands to reason that it is also possible to do so with some other legislation that will be as effective against mass murder as Brady was against single murder.
If you don't think more guns = more crime, then why would you want more gun control?Because gun control is not about less guns, gun control is about who can get them.
It's about personal defense. I firmly believe I have a right to it, you firmly believe I don't. I doubt that is something we're going to be able to agree on. For the record, I'm talking about human history, not just US history. It's easy to say "look! Nobody ever invaded us, we've never had a dictator kill us off by the millions..." We've also been armed since our founding.That's not at all what it's about, and it's a shame you can't see this. You firmly believe that your position is rational and any disagreement is emotional, so you call the disagreement "fear" and literally can't comprehend how someone could call yours the same. (As an aside, we have been invaded at least three times, unless you want to count the Civil War as a dictator killing us off by the hundreds of thousands. Either way works for me.)
Pretty sure I specified "religious zealotry".The Ku Klux Klan is religious by any definition, and those who commit murder in its name are zealots by any definition.
I'm sorry, I must have missed this part. Got a link or something?I do!
You: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1664879#post1664879) According to Department of Justice statistics, almost 200,000 women stopped sexual assaults last year because they were armed.
Taernath: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1664887#post1664887) Do you have a direct DOJ source for the 200k sexual assaults prevented by a gun?
You: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665040#post1665040) National Crime Victimization Survey.
You: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665042#post1665042) Not to mention the data from that Mother Jones article is just plain false...not surprising, considering the source.
Me: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665515#post1665515) If we go to DS4 in your link and download the tab-delimited version (14 MB), we find that the data we're looking for is under the heading VG10F4 - Types of Self-Protection Respondent, and more specifically fields V4144 (attacked offender with gun) and V4147 (threatened offender with gun) combined with V4166 (did self-protection actions help). ... Therefore only about 6,000 sexual assault victims successfully defend themselves with a gun.
You: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665604#post1665604) None of this means anything.

You vehemently criticized anyone who disagreed with your data, then when it turned out you were reading it incorrectly you dismissed it out of hand.

Thondalar

12-14-2015, 07:39 PM

I disagree with it, yes. We have agreed that it is possible to design gun control so that it interferes with the gun use of only those people we want it to. If it was possible to do so with Brady, it stands to reason that it is also possible to do so with some other legislation that will be as effective against mass murder as Brady was against single murder.

This only works if you believe the Brady Act is the only reason homicides went down. I've already given you an alternate theory, not to mention the fact that unless we've somehow been transported to Hollywood, and precogs actually exist, you can't tell what someone is going to do with their guns until they do it, and you're not allowed to punish law-abiding citizens until they break the law. I'm terribly sorry, but that's just how it works. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Because gun control is not about less guns, gun control is about who can get them.

And we already have legislation in place that determines who can get them.

That's not at all what it's about, and it's a shame you can't see this. You firmly believe that your position is rational and any disagreement is emotional, so you call the disagreement "fear" and literally can't comprehend how someone could call yours the same.

I understand your reference perfectly well. I'm afraid of the very real possibility that we could be invaded and/or be controlled by a lunatic dictator at some future point in time. General people are afraid of the very real possibility that they may, at some point, be the victim and/or know the victim of a shooting event. The difference is, I believe both of these can be solved by more people being armed.

(As an aside, we have been invaded at least three times, unless you want to count the Civil War as a dictator killing us off by the hundreds of thousands. Either way works for me.)

Seriously? You're so pedantic it's pathetic. Sure, we were briefly "invaded" during the war of 1812, and I suppose technically invaded at Pearl Harbor, but come on man. You're really reaching here. I really don't count Pancho Villa raiding New Mexico as an invasion. The Civil War was just that...a Civil War. Nobody invaded anyone, people already here fought each other over who should be in charge.

The Ku Klux Klan is religious by any definition, and those who commit murder in its name are zealots by any definition.

So...your stance is that a mixed group of Klansmen, Neo-Nazis, and Atheist Communists shooting at black protesters at a Civil Rights protest was primarily because of religion? Come on, man. This it typical Latrin though, not sure why I'm surprised..."Fact A automatically means fact B, directly and unconditionally causal...just...just disregard anything else related, these are FACTS!"

I do!
You: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1664879#post1664879) According to Department of Justice statistics, almost 200,000 women stopped sexual assaults last year because they were armed.
Taernath: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1664887#post1664887) Do you have a direct DOJ source for the 200k sexual assaults prevented by a gun?
You: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665040#post1665040) National Crime Victimization Survey.
You: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665042#post1665042) Not to mention the data from that Mother Jones article is just plain false...not surprising, considering the source.
Me: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665515#post1665515) If we go to DS4 in your link and download the tab-delimited version (14 MB), we find that the data we're looking for is under the heading VG10F4 - Types of Self-Protection Respondent, and more specifically fields V4144 (attacked offender with gun) and V4147 (threatened offender with gun) combined with V4166 (did self-protection actions help). ... Therefore only about 6,000 sexual assault victims successfully defend themselves with a gun.
You: (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?88708-quot-but-if-they-mean-to-have-a-war-let-it-begin-here-quot&p=1665604#post1665604) None of this means anything.

Nice editing job. I'd invite anyone that gives a damn to follow those links, and the entire discussion between them.

You vehemently criticized anyone who disagreed with your data, then when it turned out you were reading it incorrectly you dismissed it out of hand.

I didn't dismiss it at all. My point was that nobody is keeping track of defensive use of guns other than random victim surveys whose accuracy is questionable at best, and I stick to that.

Methais

12-15-2015, 12:30 PM

This only works if you believe the Brady Act is the only reason homicides went down. I've already given you an alternate theory, not to mention the fact that unless we've somehow been transported to Hollywood, and precogs actually exist, you can't tell what someone is going to do with their guns until they do it, and you're not allowed to punish law-abiding citizens until they break the law. I'm terribly sorry, but that's just how it works. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

And we already have legislation in place that determines who can get them.

I understand your reference perfectly well. I'm afraid of the very real possibility that we could be invaded and/or be controlled by a lunatic dictator at some future point in time. General people are afraid of the very real possibility that they may, at some point, be the victim and/or know the victim of a shooting event. The difference is, I believe both of these can be solved by more people being armed.

Seriously? You're so pedantic it's pathetic. Sure, we were briefly "invaded" during the war of 1812, and I suppose technically invaded at Pearl Harbor, but come on man. You're really reaching here. I really don't count Pancho Villa raiding New Mexico as an invasion. The Civil War was just that...a Civil War. Nobody invaded anyone, people already here fought each other over who should be in charge.

So...your stance is that a mixed group of Klansmen, Neo-Nazis, and Atheist Communists shooting at black protesters at a Civil Rights protest was primarily because of religion? Come on, man. This it typical Latrin though, not sure why I'm surprised..."Fact A automatically means fact B, directly and unconditionally causal...just...just disregard anything else related, these are FACTS!"

Nice editing job. I'd invite anyone that gives a damn to follow those links, and the entire discussion between them.

I didn't dismiss it at all. My point was that nobody is keeping track of defensive use of guns other than random victim surveys whose accuracy is questionable at best, and I stick to that.

People who respond seriously to Latrin...you are the last of a dying breed.

Methais

12-15-2015, 03:04 PM

This was obviously made by some racist white guy.
https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12348150_10153812736703188_3294273066737550579_n.j pg?oh=c41599d26497604011edd15618202fb6&oe=571B02F6

GS4Pirate

12-15-2015, 03:14 PM

Fucking global warm...I mean cooli...err climate chan....umm the weather patterns change.....fuck you, racist!

Thondalar

12-17-2015, 05:02 AM

Damn, even the Washington Post gets it. Sort of. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/10/marco-rubios-claim-that-no-recent-mass-shootings-would-have-been-prevented-by-gun-laws/)

Fallen

12-18-2015, 11:15 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/dec/14/gun-control-laws-congress-shooting-deaths-nra-lobby-campaign-donations?CMP=twt_gu#04-04

Very cool interactive map showing gun statistics by district, along with the elected officials and their stances/influences.

I can't vouch for the lack of bias in the source, but still interesting all the same.

time4fun

12-18-2015, 11:31 AM

Wrathbringer

12-18-2015, 11:41 AM

Jarvan

12-18-2015, 11:53 AM

Anyone else find it ironic that the thread entitled "More guns, less gun homicides" is being supported by a bunch of people from the US- a country that has the 4th highest number of gun related homicides and the highest number of gun related deaths of any country in the world?

So much delusion.

Anyone else find it funny that someone only wants to ban one thing that causes aprox 15,000 deaths a year, but doesn't want to ban something that causes 33,000 deaths a year?

So much Delusion.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/dec/14/gun-control-laws-congress-shooting-deaths-nra-lobby-campaign-donations?CMP=twt_gu#04-04

Very cool interactive map showing gun statistics by district, along with the elected officials and their stances/influences.

I can't vouch for the lack of bias in the source, but still interesting all the same.

They need to redo that map with just Gun Homicides. "Gun Deaths" is meaningless if it includes suicides.

Methais

12-18-2015, 11:57 AM

Thondalar

12-18-2015, 12:10 PM

Taernath

12-18-2015, 12:14 PM

Maybe the thread should be called "Less gun free zones, less homicides"

But I thought gun free zones didn't have an effect on whether or not someone shoots a place up.

Maybe we should have gun required zones. "You must be at least .22 to enter."

Thondalar

12-18-2015, 12:23 PM

They need to redo that map with just Gun Homicides. "Gun Deaths" is meaningless if it includes suicides.

I'm actually cool with that map. If you want to see who has the most gun deaths in their area, I'll tl;dr it for you:

Barbara Boxer (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 1,076
Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 1,076
Bill Nelson (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 719
Dick Durbin (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 641
Sherrod Brown (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 511
Claire McCaskill (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 451
Bob Casey (Democrat, recently more anti-gun, B+ from the NRA??) 446
Chuck Schumer (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 439
Ben Cardin (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 367
Barbara Mikulski (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 367
Gary Peters (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 318
Debbie Stabenow (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 318
Tim Kaine (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 283

These are just Senators, who cover a rather large area...breaking it down by reps shows an even darker picture, which I don't have time to go through right now. Maybe when I get home later.

I also love how that map has a scale from 0-40. The top end is 1,076, but they only go to 40 on the color scale? Lol.

It also shows that the VAST majority of gun deaths occur in urban areas with generally high rates of crime and violence to begin with.

Thondalar

12-18-2015, 12:50 PM

At least ten times as many people were killed last year by knives, blunt objects, and fists/feet rather than "assault weapons" (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstanc es_by_weapon_2014.xls)

Fallen

12-18-2015, 01:12 PM

That map doesn't include suicides

Jarvan

12-18-2015, 03:19 PM

I'm actually cool with that map. If you want to see who has the most gun deaths in their area, I'll tl;dr it for you:

Barbara Boxer (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 1,076
Dianne Feinstein (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 1,076
Bill Nelson (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 719
Dick Durbin (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 641
Sherrod Brown (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 511
Claire McCaskill (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 451
Bob Casey (Democrat, recently more anti-gun, B+ from the NRA??) 446
Chuck Schumer (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 439
Ben Cardin (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 367
Barbara Mikulski (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 367
Gary Peters (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 318
Debbie Stabenow (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 318
Tim Kaine (Democrat, staunch anti-gun, F from the NRA) 283

These are just Senators, who cover a rather large area...breaking it down by reps shows an even darker picture, which I don't have time to go through right now. Maybe when I get home later.

I also love how that map has a scale from 0-40. The top end is 1,076, but they only go to 40 on the color scale? Lol.

It also shows that the VAST majority of gun deaths occur in urban areas with generally high rates of crime and violence to begin with.

Yeah... my point is... you need to eliminate the suicides at least if not the accidental deaths to get to the gun violence deaths. Gun violence is the important number. For all we know CA's numbers could be 1000 suicides, 76 homicides. (Not true, just saying).

Latrinsorm

12-18-2015, 07:29 PM

This only works if you believe the Brady Act is the only reason homicides went down.This is not what I believe, and I do not need to to say what I said.
I've already given you an alternate theory, not to mention the fact that unless we've somehow been transported to Hollywood, and precogs actually exist, you can't tell what someone is going to do with their guns until they do it, and you're not allowed to punish law-abiding citizens until they break the law. I'm terribly sorry, but that's just how it works. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.Of course we are. Police are allowed to look at you before you break the law, the FDA is allowed to barge into your factory and check out your foodstuffs because they feel like it, the SEC is allowed to barge into your financial firm and poke around. People are not convicted until they are proven guilty, but they are absolutely investigated, even if you (justifiably!) call it being punished.
And we already have legislation in place that determines who can get them.And I want more of that. A DUI law that triggers at .12 BAC is the same principle as a DUI law that triggers at .08, but I want the latter and not the former because the latter is demonstrably better.
I understand your reference perfectly well. I'm afraid of the very real possibility that we could be invaded and/or be controlled by a lunatic dictator at some future point in time. General people are afraid of the very real possibility that they may, at some point, be the victim and/or know the victim of a shooting event. The difference is, I believe both of these can be solved by more people being armed.The truth of the matter is bad things happen. The world isn't all rainbows and sunshine. Quit being afraid. ... I don't know man, it still seems to apply pretty much as well to you as it applies to me.
Seriously? You're so pedantic it's pathetic. Sure, we were briefly "invaded" during the war of 1812, and I suppose technically invaded at Pearl Harbor, but come on man. You're really reaching here. I really don't count Pancho Villa raiding New Mexico as an invasion. The Civil War was just that...a Civil War. Nobody invaded anyone, people already here fought each other over who should be in charge.A foreign power sent their military into our country and burned down our capital, killing 15,000 Americans in the process, a higher % of Americans than died in World War I, Vietnam, and Korea... put together. You dispute whether that constitutes an invasion and call ME pedantic? Okayy...
So...your stance is that a mixed group of Klansmen, Neo-Nazis, and Atheist Communists shooting at black protesters at a Civil Rights protest was primarily because of religion? Come on, man. This it typical Latrin though, not sure why I'm surprised..."Fact A automatically means fact B, directly and unconditionally causal...just...just disregard anything else related, these are FACTS!"That's not my stance, and that's not what you asked for. Am I surprised that you blame me for your inability to keep track of your own points? No. Do I expect you to acknowledge this after looking at the rest of your post? No. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Tgo01

12-18-2015, 07:39 PM

the US- a country that has the 4th highest number of gun related homicides and the highest number of gun related deaths of any country in the world?

Didn't I already thoroughly own you earlier in this thread when you pulled this bullshit statistic straight outta your asshole?

Brazil has more gun related deaths than the US, something like 50% more deaths.

If you want me to keep making you look like an idiot then by all means keep repeating this bullshit statistic you probably heard from watching a left leaning pundit while they were ranting and raving about gun control.

Tgo01

12-18-2015, 08:09 PM

Didn't I already thoroughly own you earlier in this thread when you pulled this bullshit statistic straight outta your asshole?

Brazil has more gun related deaths than the US, something like 50% more deaths.

If you want me to keep making you look like an idiot then by all means keep repeating this bullshit statistic you probably heard from watching a left leaning pundit while they were ranting and raving about gun control.

In fact if you looked at the number of gun deaths per capita (like a normal person would do since it's stupid to compare a country the size of the US to a country the size of Monaco) the US doesn't even break the top 10 for gun related deaths. Much like you should stop screaming racist every time you disagree with someone you should stop spreading misinformation/flat out lies just to further your own agenda.

Stop it. Stop it right now.

caelric

12-18-2015, 08:18 PM

You must spread some Reputation around before you giving it to TG01 again.

Huh. Bummer.

Warriorbird

12-18-2015, 08:44 PM

In fact if you looked at the number of gun deaths per capita (like a normal person would do since it's stupid to compare a country the size of the US to a country the size of Monaco) the US doesn't even break the top 10 for gun related deaths. Much like you should stop screaming racist every time you disagree with someone you should stop spreading misinformation/flat out lies just to further your own agenda.

Stop it. Stop it right now.

This is a good way to do it. Mind you that list has some pretty horrible places "ahead" of us on it.

Added note:

Whiny anonymous 4channer who's probably Wrathbringer... that's a site for teens and Gavin McInnes style hipsters. Which one of those two do you fall under?

Thondalar

12-21-2015, 08:26 PM

This is not what I believe, and I do not need to to say what I said.

You said what you said. You cited the Brady Act as the only reason gun homicides went down...in the same breath, you said this was because access to guns went down because of the Brady Act. Irrefutable data proves that gun ownership increased after the Brady Act was passed, and continues to increase every year since...meanwhile, gun homicides continue to decrease, and the highest occurrences of gun homicides continue to take place in areas where State gun laws are already more strict than Federal gun laws, like California.

Of course we are. Police are allowed to look at you before you break the law, the FDA is allowed to barge into your factory and check out your foodstuffs because they feel like it, the SEC is allowed to barge into your financial firm and poke around. People are not convicted until they are proven guilty, but they are absolutely investigated, even if you (justifiably!) call it being punished.

I don't ever recall saying law enforcement isn't allowed to investigate. That's leaps and bounds different from making a law based on restricting a written Constitutional Right just because someone might do something bad. Again, I offer you to apply the same logic to any other enumerated Right...we flip the fuck out that a voter ID system might cause an undue burden on lower-income citizens, but we have no problems making the 2nd amendment monetarily inaccessible to the same? It doesn't make sense.

And I want more of that. A DUI law that triggers at .12 BAC is the same principle as a DUI law that triggers at .08, but I want the latter and not the former because the latter is demonstrably better.

Apples to Oranges. We have data that proves the suggested laws to "fix" these things won't, in fact, "fix" anything. We can prove, empirically, that a .08 BAC impairs the abilities of normal citizens to operate machinery...we cannot prove, and in fact have disproved, that laws banning certain types of guns reduces gun deaths.

The truth of the matter is bad things happen. The world isn't all rainbows and sunshine. Quit being afraid. ... I don't know man, it still seems to apply pretty much as well to you as it applies to me.

The huge difference you're missing here is, my fear doesn't change anyone's life. My fear doesn't create new laws. My fear is already handled.

A foreign power sent their military into our country and burned down our capital, killing 15,000 Americans in the process, a higher % of Americans than died in World War I, Vietnam, and Korea... put together. You dispute whether that constitutes an invasion and call ME pedantic? Okayy...

...and this happened during the very recent formative years of our existence. The entire world was at war at that point...although we didn't call it a "World War" back then, because our "World" was not as connected as it is now. Hell, this happened before we were 50 States. This is typical you, though..."I have data that says this, and I'm going to completely ignore context...furthermore, I'm going to completely ignore the very valid point the other person is making, and just charge along with this talking point, because, by God(science), it's technically the TRUTH".

In 1814 Missouri and Illinois were still "territories". WE declared war on England...and yes, they did attack us, invaded New York, which failed...after Napoleon's defeat in 1814, they had more resources to throw at us, and did, in fact, eventually "sack" Washington DC...however, their victory was short-lived, and we ended up winning, of course. While northern militias performed pretty poorly, it was still what we had, and was good enough to win with.

I would also note that this was not an invasion to conquer, it was a unilateral military engagement created by the Napoleonic Wars. I get that you're a "science" guy, and you only care about the "data", but...I mean, really...you're an intelligent fellow. You have to have some sort of consideration for applied data.

That's not my stance, and that's not what you asked for. Am I surprised that you blame me for your inability to keep track of your own points? No. Do I expect you to acknowledge this after looking at the rest of your post? No. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

So...Here's how this breaks down.

Interesting you bring that up. Can you name a single "mass shooting" attributed to religious zealotry before 1993? I'll take just one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_massacre

(paraphrase) So, the "Greensboro Massacre" was based on religion, and not racism?

That's not my stance, and that's not what you asked for.

C'mon, man.

Thondalar

12-21-2015, 08:30 PM

Yeah... my point is... you need to eliminate the suicides at least if not the accidental deaths to get to the gun violence deaths. Gun violence is the important number. For all we know CA's numbers could be 1000 suicides, 76 homicides. (Not true, just saying).

Honestly, I was setting that up for something even more epic, but nobody fell for it. :( Cheers, I suppose.

Thondalar

12-21-2015, 08:36 PM

This is a good way to do it. Mind you that list has some pretty horrible places "ahead" of us on it.

Added note:

Whiny anonymous 4channer who's probably Wrathbringer... that's a site for teens and Gavin McInnes style hipsters. Which one of those two do you fall under?

Gavin McInnes is a pretty weird dude...but I have to admit, I find myself agreeing with him maybe 40% of the time.

Thondalar

12-21-2015, 08:50 PM

I'll go ahead and blow past all the partisan bullshit I was attempting to stir up...what that map really shows is what we all should kinda already know...the VAST majority of gun homicides occur at our Southern border. California is a predominately Democratic State, and is number 1 in gun deaths...but number 2 is Texas, a predominately Republican State. The States in between...New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona...they flip-flop quite often between Dem and Repub, though mostly Repub overall...still much higher than the national average for gun homicides. That has nothing to do with government, as we can prove by the fact that California already has State gun laws that blow way past ANYTHING being suggested now in the House or Senate, and has for some time, and they STILL lead the nation in gun deaths. Maybe...maybe...just maybe...it isn't the laws? Is there a slight possibility that criminals don't really care about laws?

You want to reduce gun homicides? Legalize drugs. All of them. Decriminalize every single "drug". That will do WAY more than any gun legislation, and it will reduce the tax burden on all of us. It will put thousands of police and corrections officers out of business, but hey, they can go to trade school for a few months, and maybe end up being a positive contributor to society.

Thondalar

12-21-2015, 10:01 PM

People who respond seriously to Latrin...you are the last of a dying breed.

Honestly, I rather enjoy logging in to see his posts.

While most likely anchored in troll (not necessarily intentional), he is still somewhat believable, generally, and leaps and bounds ahead of that gay retarded black woman Back, and his random sunshines and rainbows bullshit...he (Back) is probably the bottom end, because nothing he ever posts has any anchor in reality of any kind...it's all fantasy. Latrin generally comes up with something coherent, although his dependence on partial data is troubling, considering his claim of being a scientist. Fact is, it's better than most. I'll take blind adherence over ignorant daydream every time.

Methais

12-21-2015, 10:05 PM

Arguing with Latrin is like participating in the BME pain olympics.

Thondalar

12-21-2015, 10:12 PM

Arguing with Latrin is like participating in the BME pain olympics.

Ok, so, I googled BME pain olympics because I had no idea what that was, and luckily I got an idea of what it was without actually seeing it...although now I'm kinda curious....

Regardless, arguing with Latrin is nothing like that. Arguing with Latrin is more like a shooting gallery. He's going to put up a TON of targets, you just get to sit back and pick which ones you want to shoot at.

Methais

12-21-2015, 10:41 PM

Ok, so, I googled BME pain olympics because I had no idea what that was, and luckily I got an idea of what it was without actually seeing it...although now I'm kinda curious....

Regardless, arguing with Latrin is nothing like that. Arguing with Latrin is more like a shooting gallery. He's going to put up a TON of targets, you just get to sit back and pick which ones you want to shoot at.

And then every time you shoot, he moves the target and insists that you missed because he was right about everything the whole time.

Warriorbird

12-22-2015, 07:48 AM

You want to reduce gun homicides? Legalize drugs. All of them. Decriminalize every single "drug". That will do WAY more than any gun legislation, and it will reduce the tax burden on all of us. It will put thousands of police and corrections officers out of business, but hey, they can go to trade school for a few months, and maybe end up being a positive contributor to society.

A portion of all of this we completely agree on. Merry Christmas!

Latrinsorm

12-23-2015, 08:03 PM

You said what you said. You cited the Brady Act as the only reason gun homicides went downNot true. Let's start with just this part. Only citing one cause is not the same as citing a cause as the only. If I say I have a black car (or "assault vehicle"), I am not saying there is literally no other adjective that could apply to my car, I'm just saying my car is black.
I don't ever recall saying law enforcement isn't allowed to investigate. That's leaps and bounds different from making a law based on restricting a written Constitutional Right just because someone might do something bad. Again, I offer you to apply the same logic to any other enumerated Right...we flip the fuck out that a voter ID system might cause an undue burden on lower-income citizens, but we have no problems making the 2nd amendment monetarily inaccessible to the same? It doesn't make sense.Constitutional Amendments are phrased very differently, and if you take that seriously then it is absolutely coherent for the 15th Amendment to be violated in ways that do not violate the 2nd, the 2nd in ways that do not violate the 1st, and so on. Heck, parts of the 1st can be violated in ways that other parts aren't. The Lemon Test doesn't apply to freedom of speech, that's how we can have slander laws.
Apples to Oranges. We have data that proves the suggested laws to "fix" these things won't, in fact, "fix" anything. We can prove, empirically, that a .08 BAC impairs the abilities of normal citizens to operate machinery...we cannot prove, and in fact have disproved, that laws banning certain types of guns reduces gun deaths.How did we disprove that the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 reduced gun deaths? We have already agreed that gun deaths went down from 1994 to 2004.
The huge difference you're missing here is, my fear doesn't change anyone's life. My fear doesn't create new laws. My fear is already handled.I would say the difference between adding and subtracting laws is "semantic" rather than "huge", but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
...and this happened during the very recent formative years of our existence. The entire world was at war at that point...although we didn't call it a "World War" back then, because our "World" was not as connected as it is now. Hell, this happened before we were 50 States. This is typical you, though..."I have data that says this, and I'm going to completely ignore context...furthermore, I'm going to completely ignore the very valid point the other person is making, and just charge along with this talking point, because, by God(science), it's technically the TRUTH". In 1814 Missouri and Illinois were still "territories". WE declared war on England...and yes, they did attack us, invaded New York, which failed...after Napoleon's defeat in 1814, they had more resources to throw at us, and did, in fact, eventually "sack" Washington DC...however, their victory was short-lived, and we ended up winning, of course. While northern militias performed pretty poorly, it was still what we had, and was good enough to win with. I would also note that this was not an invasion to conquer, it was a unilateral military engagement created by the Napoleonic Wars. I get that you're a "science" guy, and you only care about the "data", but...I mean, really...you're an intelligent fellow. You have to have some sort of consideration for applied data.All I said was we were invaded. I have no idea why this is such a contentious point for you.
So...Here's how this breaks down. C'mon, man.Your paraphrase is inapt. What I said was the Greensboro Massacre is attributable to religion. You countered that it is not primarily attributable to religion, and I agreed. Attributable and primarily attributable are not interchangeable.
California is a predominately Democratic State, and is number 1 in gun deaths...but number 2 is Texas, a predominately Republican State.California and Texas have the most gun homicides because California and Texas have the most population. In terms of gun homicide rate the highest two states are Louisiana and Missouri... both shall issue states.
Honestly, I rather enjoy logging in to see his posts.:D

Back

12-25-2015, 03:17 PM

My first post in this thread...

Australia.

And another thing I'd like to add. Lets throw our guns to the sun so we can all be safe.

Jeril

12-25-2015, 03:30 PM

My first post in this thread...

Australia.

And another thing I'd like to add. Lets throw our guns to the sun so we can all be safe.

LOL

Back

12-25-2015, 03:44 PM

LOL

Lets register all those who disagree. Formal registration. So we know who has deadly weapons.

Back

12-25-2015, 04:20 PM

LOL

You really think this is something to lol at?

Dude.

Jeril

12-25-2015, 04:23 PM

Lets register all those who disagree. Formal registration. So we know who has deadly weapons.

Drunk already?

Jeril

12-25-2015, 04:24 PM

You really think this is something to lol at?

Dude.

LOL LOL

Back

12-25-2015, 04:25 PM

My concern is people's lives.

Your concern?

Jeril

12-25-2015, 04:31 PM

My concern is people's lives.

Your concern?

If that is really your concern, you should be more concerned with removing peoples desire to do violence then removing any tools for doing so because the number of tools is far too great and varied. But, please, by all means, continue to think simply when the world is anything but.

Back

12-25-2015, 04:32 PM

If that is really your concern, you should be more concerned with removing peoples desire to do violence then removing any tools for doing so because the number of tools is far too great and varied. But, please, by all means, continue to think simply when the world is anything but.

I feel you, brother.

This guy is an idiot.

Back

12-25-2015, 04:37 PM

Less guns = Less death.

Yup!

Methais

12-25-2015, 05:06 PM

Less Back = less stupid.

gtfo

Back

12-25-2015, 05:20 PM

Less Back = less stupid.

gtfo

Is that really your stance? Because if telling people they are stupid is your platform you have nothing to stand on.

Back

12-25-2015, 05:20 PM

Your ass smelling gif signature is not sexy. It's repulsive.

Methais

12-25-2015, 05:23 PM

Is that really your stance? Because if telling people they are stupid is your platform you have nothing to stand on.

You being stupid as fuck is everybody's stance. It's far from unique to me.

Your ass smelling gif signature is not sexy. It's repulsive.

I'm sorry that hot lesbians are repulsive to you, but it's really not my fault that you're gay.

Back

12-25-2015, 05:27 PM

Seems I must spread some rep around!

Butt, really, I would not sniff that after some Taco Bell or Chipotle!

Methais

12-25-2015, 05:57 PM

Because everyone knows that porn stars always hit up Taco Bell on the way to a fuckfest.

Back

12-25-2015, 06:03 PM

Because everyone knows that porn stars always hit up Taco Bell on the way to a fuckfest.

Normal people have normal sex. You have an obsession with anus. An anus is for excretion. Your obsession with that is not my concern.

caelric

12-25-2015, 09:51 PM

You really think this is something to lol at?

Dude.

No, we all think you and your life are something to LOL at. Kind of like when you drive by an accident on the road, and nervously laugh, glad that it isn't you.

Silvean

12-26-2015, 12:31 AM

An anus is for excretion.

There's so much more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kl4hJ4j48s

Back

12-26-2015, 12:35 AM

There's so much more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kl4hJ4j48s

Well, if you are going to be so charming about it...

Methais

12-26-2015, 03:42 AM

Normal people have normal sex. You have an obsession with anus. An anus is for excretion. Your obsession with that is not my concern.

Why do you hate homosexuals you bigot?

Back's true homophobic colors are showing! Remember this moment next time he preaches about tolerance!

Jeril

12-26-2015, 06:47 PM

Normal people have normal sex. You have an obsession with anus. An anus is for excretion. Your obsession with that is not my concern.

This kind of makes me wonder how many "normal" people are into anal.

Back

12-26-2015, 06:52 PM

Yeah I kinda went off the rails yesterday. Bad form. I sent Methias a message. But still that does not absolve bad behaviour. All I can say is...

https://youtu.be/m4Snl7a-lDE

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 12:39 AM

A portion of all of this we completely agree on. Merry Christmas!

And that's how progress is made. Instead of getting bent out of shape about what we disagree on, focus on what we agree on and build from there.

That's all I've ever said.

Merry Christmas!

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 12:45 AM

And then every time you shoot, he moves the target and insists that you missed because he was right about everything the whole time.

I actually invite that. It gives me more ammo to prove him wrong.

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 01:32 AM

Not true. Let's start with just this part. Only citing one cause is not the same as citing a cause as the only. If I say I have a black car (or "assault vehicle"), I am not saying there is literally no other adjective that could apply to my car, I'm just saying my car is black.

While this line of logic would generally be true, this is not what you did. You specifically cited the Brady Act as a direct causation in at least two posts.

Constitutional Amendments are phrased very differently, and if you take that seriously then it is absolutely coherent for the 15th Amendment to be violated in ways that do not violate the 2nd, the 2nd in ways that do not violate the 1st, and so on. Heck, parts of the 1st can be violated in ways that other parts aren't. The Lemon Test doesn't apply to freedom of speech, that's how we can have slander laws.

All of this is easily bundled up into the "your rights end where mine begin" maxim. Free Speech ends when your speech causes damage to me, be it slander or "fire!" in a theater. None of this has anything to do with voting or guns. I can't imagine a greater apple to my orange.

How did we disprove that the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 reduced gun deaths? We have already agreed that gun deaths went down from 1994 to 2004.

Man, you're really off your game here. We can very easily prove it because "assault weapons" are classified as rifles for CDC statistics. While the macro stat of "gun deaths" went DOWN, the micro stat of "gun deaths by rifle" remained the same, statistically. What the fuck kind of scientist are you? Hopefully not one in charge of anything important.

I would say the difference between adding and subtracting laws is "semantic" rather than "huge", but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Nah, I'll expound...you ALMOST got away with this one...I get why you're trying to back out now. Our right to keep and bear arms prevents the greater catastrophe...in exchange, we accept the lesser, individual catastrophes of an armed society.

Basically, it's the price of freedom. On the one hand, you have millions dying across the globe...Great Leap Forward, Khmer Rouge, Rwanda massacre, too many more to list...on the other hand, you have a civilization where common citizens are armed, and, because of that, a small fraction of their populace is killed by those same arms every year...but you have zero genocides.

Fact is, there is no perfect system. I've touched on this before...people, in general, are pretty shitty. I'm actually shocked we don't have MORE gun-related fatalities in our gigantic Nation of 300 million+.

All I said was we were invaded. I have no idea why this is such a contentious point for you.

I'm sure you don't, because you look at data without context. "We were invaded 200+ years ago after an ongoing dispute with England and that means we've been invaded during the modern time that you're talking about now that you say we can't be invaded during because we're armed..."

C'mon, man.

Your paraphrase is inapt. What I said was the Greensboro Massacre is attributable to religion. You countered that it is not primarily attributable to religion, and I agreed. Attributable and primarily attributable are not interchangeable.

So you're agreeing that your citation did not meet my original parameters for citation. Care to come up with another?

California and Texas have the most gun homicides because California and Texas have the most population. In terms of gun homicide rate the highest two states are Louisiana and Missouri... both shall issue states.

Vermont is a completely unrestricted state with practically zero deaths. 39 of our 50 are "shall issue". Could it be something else?

My point here is simply that gun laws don't work in and of themselves. We have California, strictest State laws in the Nation...still has massive gun violence/deaths. San Bernardino, still fresh in our minds...everything that happened there was legal, even by California standards, which already goes way past anything suggested in legislature as Federal law.

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 01:36 AM

My first post in this thread...

Australia.

And another thing I'd like to add. Lets throw our guns to the sun so we can all be safe.

Australia is an island.

People there still have guns.

People there still get killed.

Over 3,000 people were killed in the US last year by knives, blunt objects, and hands/feet.

Removing guns won't make you safe. Humans found a way to kill billions of people before guns were invented.

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 01:39 AM

This kind of makes me wonder how many "normal" people are into anal.

stay on topic. I will NOT have my thread derailed by anal.

Edit: again...

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 01:41 AM

Why do you hate homosexuals you bigot?

Back's true homophobic colors are showing! Remember this moment next time he preaches about tolerance!

Really, bro? You haven't figured it out by now? Dems get a free pass when they say racist/bigoted stuff...but when a Republican does it...holy fuck they're a gay-hating racist.

Besides, Back is a retarded gay black woman, so he's good.

Edit: unless he says something they don't agree with, then he'll be an Uncle (Aunt?) Tom (Tina?) because black people aren't allowed to be conservative.

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 01:50 AM

Less guns = Less death.

Yup!

I've proven this isn't true. Do you have something to add to this thread other than idiocy?

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 01:54 AM

Who would have thought a thread about guns NOT killing people would result in Back showing his true gay-hater colors.

Totally unexpected for me, anyway. I always thought he loved gays.

Jeril

12-27-2015, 02:12 AM

stay on topic. I will NOT have my thread derailed by anal.

Edit: again...

But this could be important information!

Back

12-27-2015, 05:21 AM

I've proven this isn't true. Do you have something to add to this thread other than idiocy?

I thought idiocy was what this whole thread was about. You have proved that more guns equals more safety? You?

My hat is off to you, sir. As ridiculous as I can be I think you beat me at my own game.

Methais

12-27-2015, 10:51 AM

Yeah I kinda went off the rails yesterday. Bad form. I sent Methias a message. But still that does not absolve bad behaviour. All I can say is...

https://youtu.be/m4Snl7a-lDE

Just admit to your inner homophobia and what a hypocrite you've been over the whole gay issue and it'll all be good.

Or at least vow to never preach equality again, since we already know how you really feel.

I'm 99.9999% sure I've seen you post multiple times about how "normal" dudes assbanging each other was in one of your utopian rainbow world rants, and how anyone that thought otherwise was a bigot.

It's always amusing when some crazy liberal's hypocrisy and bigotry accidentally comes out.

Wrathbringer

12-27-2015, 10:53 AM

I'm 99.9999% sure I've seen you post multiple times about how "normal" dudes assbanging each other was in one of your utopian rainbow world rants...

LOL

Thondalar

12-27-2015, 11:12 AM

I thought idiocy was what this whole thread was about. You have proved that more guns equals more safety? You?

You don't read much, do you?

~Rocktar~

12-27-2015, 12:20 PM

You don't read much, do you?

Reading isn't the issue, comprehension on the other hand is indeed seriously and dramatically lacking.

Back

12-27-2015, 01:13 PM

I figured politics was as good a place to put this as anywhere.

I'm a regular subscriber to a "magazine" called Gun Tests...I put this in quotes because it isn't some glossy, over-produced rag full of advertisements but a paragon of what a consumer-advocate publication should be. They test guns, ammunition, and accessories in a scientific manner, and simply print their results with zero bias. The only bit of politics and/or "op-ed" sort of writing found in this publication is at the very beginning, in the "Downrange" section, where the Editor-in-Chief has a page to kinda "do his own thing", as it were.

In my latest issue, Todd Woodard (Editor-in-chief) pointed out that "a recent Gallup poll...showed 58% in the U.S. have a favorable opinion of the NRA". This, by itself, didn't really impress me...to be honest, I would hope that figure would be a bit higher, and I was a little disappointed to read that. But later, he continued:

"According to the Gallup article on the poll, 'This includes the highest recording of [Very Favorable] opinions (26%) since Gallup began asking this question in 1989."

He continues..."Also, according to a recent Pew Research Center Study, the annual rate of firearm-related homicides in America declined by nearly 50 percent between 1993 and 2013. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of death certificate data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7 per 100,000 Americans in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2013. During this same time, gun sales of all types have skyrocketed, as have the number of concealed carry permit holders, which now number more than 12.8 million permit holders in 2015, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center."

He finishes with..."Clearly, the Pew data show that during a doubling (or more) in the ownership of privately held guns, firearms-related homicides plunged. More guns don't equal more crime, it seems."

Threat of mutual destruction works on both the macro- and micro- levels.

I can read. There is nothing conclusive in this post. A gun advocate is implying something. It is theoretical at best and speculation on a normal level. I've heard a theory that suggests crime is down because abortion is legal. Saying that more guns equals less gun deaths flies in the face of simple reason. Maybe you want to go back to the days of the wild west where everyone had a gun in their holster. No thanks, brother.

Methais

12-27-2015, 02:25 PM

I can read. There is nothing conclusive in this post. A gun advocate is implying something. It is theoretical at best and speculation on a normal level. I've heard a theory that suggests crime is down because abortion is legal. Saying that more guns equals less gun deaths flies in the face of simple reason. Maybe you want to go back to the days of the wild west where everyone had a gun in their holster. No thanks, brother.

How many mass shootings took place in the old west like the ones that happen today?

How would gun death numbers look if you took inner city black on black shootings out of the equation, as those are the majority of gun related deaths, most of which involve illegally obtained firearms?

Why do mass shooters typically target gun free zones?

Why do you hate the gays?

caelric

12-27-2015, 03:02 PM

How many mass shootings took place in the old west like the ones that happen today?

How would gun death numbers look if you took inner city black on black shootings out of the equation, as those are the majority of gun related deaths, most of which involve illegally obtained firearms?

Why do mass shooters typically target gun free zones?

Why do you hate the gays?

Racist!

On a serious note, you can't bring up that in an actual study, as you would get accused of racism, and bias, and your paper would be rejected.

Methais

12-27-2015, 03:41 PM

Racist!

On a serious note, you can't bring up that in an actual study, as you would get accused of racism, and bias, and your paper would be rejected.

That's ok, I'd just say it was the numbers' fault and that numbers are the real racists.

Jeril

12-27-2015, 06:06 PM

I can read. There is nothing conclusive in this post. A gun advocate is implying something. It is theoretical at best and speculation on a normal level. I've heard a theory that suggests crime is down because abortion is legal. Saying that more guns equals less gun deaths flies in the face of simple reason. Maybe you want to go back to the days of the wild west where everyone had a gun in their holster. No thanks, brother.

Days of the wild west were an issue because we didn't have any good established law enforcement, not because nearly everyone had a gun.

Latrinsorm

12-27-2015, 07:34 PM

I'm sorry that hot lesbians are repulsive to you, but it's really not my fault that you're gay.Given your other butt-related posts I always assumed the top figure was a man. Have you verified with the source material?
How would gun death numbers look if you took inner city black on black shootings out of the equation, as those are the majority of gun related deaths, most of which involve illegally obtained firearms?In fact, a plurality of gun homicides are white on white (44% in 2013) (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex _of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls). No racial combination of perpetrator-victim produces a majority, let alone one further restricted by location.
Why do mass shooters typically target gun free zones?They don't.
While this line of logic would generally be true, this is not what you did. You specifically cited the Brady Act as a direct causation in at least two posts.I did indeed! But that is still not the same as saying it is the ONLY cause.
All of this is easily bundled up into the "your rights end where mine begin" maxim. Free Speech ends when your speech causes damage to me, be it slander or "fire!" in a theater. None of this has anything to do with voting or guns. I can't imagine a greater apple to my orange.My free speech ends when a person can reasonably foresee that my speech will cause damage to you. I can be arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theater even if nobody is hurt, or for inciting a riot even when no damage occurs, etc. This is an important distinction because we can reasonably foresee a level of risk by giving guns to certain people in the same way. (Note that in both scenarios the level of risk is arbitrarily defined.) That such restrictions may apply disproportionately along racial lines is immaterial because neither the 1st nor 2nd Amendment says their freedoms must be applied equally across those lines the way the 15th does. You could suggest the Founders implied or otherwise believed that black people should have equal access to guns, of course, but I would laugh so hard I would probably hurt myself and so it would be very illegal for you to exercise your speech in that way.
Man, you're really off your game here. We can very easily prove it because "assault weapons" are classified as rifles for CDC statistics. While the macro stat of "gun deaths" went DOWN, the micro stat of "gun deaths by rifle" remained the same, statistically. What the fuck kind of scientist are you? Hopefully not one in charge of anything important.You don't think cadmium selenide quantum dots are important??? neither does anyone else :( Anyway, I can't seem to find any mention of gun homicides by type of gun in your original study or anywhere else by the CDC, care to link it? I am especially interested to see where the CDC claims to classify the TEC-9 or Street Sweeper as rifles. I have found some FBI stats but I don't think they're the ones you were talking about.
Nah, I'll expound...you ALMOST got away with this one...I get why you're trying to back out now. Our right to keep and bear arms prevents the greater catastrophe...in exchange, we accept the lesser, individual catastrophes of an armed society. Basically, it's the price of freedom. On the one hand, you have millions dying across the globe...Great Leap Forward, Khmer Rouge, Rwanda massacre, too many more to list...on the other hand, you have a civilization where common citizens are armed, and, because of that, a small fraction of their populace is killed by those same arms every year...but you have zero genocides. Fact is, there is no perfect system. I've touched on this before...people, in general, are pretty shitty. I'm actually shocked we don't have MORE gun-related fatalities in our gigantic Nation of 300 million+. ... I'm sure you don't, because you look at data without context. "We were invaded 200+ years ago after an ongoing dispute with England and that means we've been invaded during the modern time that you're talking about now that you say we can't be invaded during because we're armed..." C'mon, man. Here's what's baffling about this juxtaposition. We have in fact had genocides on American soil, and we have in fact been invaded on American soil, and at both times the civilian armament was roughly on par with the government armament. Surely we can agree that the last point is no longer the case? Between the reintroduction of armored cavalry, the invention of the air force, NBC weapons, etc., a private militia would have absolutely no hope of defending against the People's Liberation Army (for example) in the hypothetical scenario where our public forces were somehow wiped out. The only time in our history when you COULD make an a priori case for civilian arms being a deterrent to governments foreign and domestic, they were a posteriori super effective in doing exactly what you say they couldn't. And you lecture me about context! It's baffling.
So you're agreeing that your citation did not meet my original parameters for citation. Care to come up with another?I'm agreeing that you have forgotten what your original parameters were. :D
My point here is simply that gun laws don't work in and of themselves. We have California, strictest State laws in the Nation...still has massive gun violence/deaths. San Bernardino, still fresh in our minds...everything that happened there was legal, even by California standards, which already goes way past anything suggested in legislature as Federal law.California does not have massive gun violence per capita. It should bother you that you have no problem using per capita statistics when it is a question of the United States versus Country X, but refuse to use them when it is a question of California versus State Y.

Back

12-28-2015, 12:43 AM

Days of the wild west were an issue because we didn't have any good established law enforcement, not because nearly everyone had a gun.

So if everyone having a gun, as if owning a gun or having a concealed carry license somehow miraculously made you impervious to bad judgement or accidents, did not stop crime back in the wild west why then was good established law enforcement even needed?

If everyone having a gun made life better for everyone then how did we miss the boat on the utopian wild west mindset?

That is a rhetorical question by the way. I already know the answer. Because the wild west sucked.

Warriorbird

12-28-2015, 12:44 AM

Handguns kill by far the most people like usual. This doesn't seem to make gun control or gun rights people happy.

Jeril

12-28-2015, 01:11 AM

time4fun

12-28-2015, 01:41 AM

So if everyone having a gun, as if owning a gun or having a concealed carry license somehow miraculously made you impervious to bad judgement or accidents, did not stop crime back in the wild west why then was good established law enforcement even needed?

If everyone having a gun made life better for everyone then how did we miss the boat on the utopian wild west mindset?

That is a rhetorical question by the way. I already know the answer. Because the wild west sucked.

This conversation is funny.

Actually, your major cities in the Wild West (like Tombstone) generally had more restrictive gun control laws than we have today. In many cases, people entering these cities would be required to drop off their guns at the local Sheriff's office while they were visiting. And openly carrying a gun was usually illegal (except for law enforcement)

People forget that for much of our country's history, the Supreme Court held that interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean that people had a fundamental right to own a gun and carry it in public was ridiculous. "The Right To Bear Arms" should actually be read "....the right to bear arms" because it's part of the second half of a sentence. The Supreme Court used to believe that the first part of the sentence was vital context for interpretation.

So this whole "Everyone has a constitutional right to have a gun and carry it around wherever they want" notion is actually relatively new.

Back

12-28-2015, 01:58 AM

This conversation is funny.

Actually, your major cities in the Wild West (like Tombstone) generally had more restrictive gun control laws than we have today. In many cases, people entering these cities would be required to drop off their guns at the local Sheriff's office while they were visiting. And openly carrying a gun was usually illegal (except for law enforcement)

People forget that for much of our country's history, the Supreme Court held that interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean that people had a fundamental right to own a gun and carry it in public was ridiculous. "The Right To Bear Arms" should actually be read "....the right to bear arms" because it's part of the second half of a sentence. The Supreme Court used to believe that the first part of the sentence was vital context for interpretation.

So this whole "Everyone has a constitutional right to have a gun and carry it around wherever they want" notion is actually relatively new.

Yeah I watch too many movies. Thanks for the education on the reality of the wild west, Ebeneezer.

When I hear politicians say "Well if everyone had a gun they could stop mass shootings" which implies that people who die in mass shootings deserved it because they did not own a gun I really have to question their governing abilities.

Jarvan

12-28-2015, 02:55 AM

This conversation is funny.

Actually, your major cities in the Wild West (like Tombstone) generally had more restrictive gun control laws than we have today. In many cases, people entering these cities would be required to drop off their guns at the local Sheriff's office while they were visiting. And openly carrying a gun was usually illegal (except for law enforcement)

People forget that for much of our country's history, the Supreme Court held that interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean that people had a fundamental right to own a gun and carry it in public was ridiculous. "The Right To Bear Arms" should actually be read "....the right to bear arms" because it's part of the second half of a sentence. The Supreme Court used to believe that the first part of the sentence was vital context for interpretation.

So this whole "Everyone has a constitutional right to have a gun and carry it around wherever they want" notion is actually relatively new.

Oddly enough, So is the right for women to have an abortion. Funny isn't it. Course... we COULD go back to a previous interpretation and make it so people can't own guns.... long as you want to reverse OTHER rulings that i am sure you are all for.

Didn't think so.

Back

12-28-2015, 03:09 AM

Oddly enough, So is the right for women to have an abortion. Funny isn't it. Course... we COULD go back to a previous interpretation and make it so people can't own guns.... long as you want to reverse OTHER rulings that i am sure you are all for.

Didn't think so.

What does abortion have to do with this thread?

Besides the fact that this whole entire thread should have been aborted long ago?

Jarvan

12-28-2015, 03:32 AM

What does abortion have to do with this thread?

Besides the fact that this whole entire thread should have been aborted long ago?

Well.. Time4fun loves to point out that we should do something about guns since they take the lives of 33000 people a year.

Course the abortion Industry takes the lives of hundreds of thousands of babies a year. No problems there.

Back

12-28-2015, 03:42 AM

Well.. Time4fun loves to point out that we should do something about guns since they take the lives of 33000 people a year.

Course the abortion Industry takes the lives of hundreds of thousands of babies a year. No problems there.

Sorry I do not see the connection. Unless you are referring to people with guns who shoot up abortion clinics.

Methais

12-28-2015, 07:51 AM

I'm all for abortion. Most people that get abortions are liberals, so why would we want them reproducing?

Given your other butt-related posts I always assumed the top figure was a man. Have you verified with the source material?In fact, a plurality of gun homicides are white on white (44% in 2013) (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex _of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls). No racial combination of perpetrator-victim produces a majority, let alone one further restricted by location.They don't.I did indeed! But that is still not the same as saying it is the ONLY cause.My free speech ends when a person can reasonably foresee that my speech will cause damage to you. I can be arrested for shouting fire in a crowded theater even if nobody is hurt, or for inciting a riot even when no damage occurs, etc. This is an important distinction because we can reasonably foresee a level of risk by giving guns to certain people in the same way. (Note that in both scenarios the level of risk is arbitrarily defined.) That such restrictions may apply disproportionately along racial lines is immaterial because neither the 1st nor 2nd Amendment says their freedoms must be applied equally across those lines the way the 15th does. You could suggest the Founders implied or otherwise believed that black people should have equal access to guns, of course, but I would laugh so hard I would probably hurt myself and so it would be very illegal for you to exercise your speech in that way.You don't think cadmium selenide quantum dots are important??? neither does anyone else :( Anyway, I can't seem to find any mention of gun homicides by type of gun in your original study or anywhere else by the CDC, care to link it? I am especially interested to see where the CDC claims to classify the TEC-9 or Street Sweeper as rifles. I have found some FBI stats but I don't think they're the ones you were talking about.Here's what's baffling about this juxtaposition. We have in fact had genocides on American soil, and we have in fact been invaded on American soil, and at both times the civilian armament was roughly on par with the government armament. Surely we can agree that the last point is no longer the case? Between the reintroduction of armored cavalry, the invention of the air force, NBC weapons, etc., a private militia would have absolutely no hope of defending against the People's Liberation Army (for example) in the hypothetical scenario where our public forces were somehow wiped out. The only time in our history when you COULD make an a priori case for civilian arms being a deterrent to governments foreign and domestic, they were a posteriori super effective in doing exactly what you say they couldn't. And you lecture me about context! It's baffling.I'm agreeing that you have forgotten what your original parameters were. :DCalifornia does not have massive gun violence per capita. It should bother you that you have no problem using per capita statistics when it is a question of the United States versus Country X, but refuse to use them when it is a question of California versus State Y.

Just thought you should know that nobody besides Thondalar reads your posts.

Parkbandit

12-28-2015, 10:19 AM

When I hear politicians say "Well if everyone had a gun they could stop mass shootings" which implies that people who die in mass shootings deserved it because they did not own a gun I really have to question their governing abilities.

It only "implies" that in your twisted mind. No one is saying that anyone who dies in a mass shooting deserved it.

I can't wait until tomorrow... the logic gets even more idiotic!

Methais

12-28-2015, 11:40 AM

Back deserves anal sex against his will by large African-American males.

Tisket

12-28-2015, 12:04 PM

What does abortion have to do with this thread?

Dunno, but you brought it up:

I've heard a theory that suggests crime is down because abortion is legal.

Wrathbringer

12-28-2015, 02:16 PM

I'm all for abortion. Most people that get abortions are black, so why would we want them reproducing?

fixed

Parkbandit

12-28-2015, 02:35 PM

I'm all for abortion. Most people that get abortions are liberals, so why would we want them reproducing?

Ditto.

Just thought you should know that nobody besides Thondalar reads your posts.

You sure he does?

Methais

12-28-2015, 07:12 PM

Ditto.

You sure he does?

Yes, I think we had a discussion about it a few pages back. Not only that, but he responds to Latrin seriously.

I'm just as puzzled as you are.

Thondalar

12-28-2015, 07:47 PM

I can read. There is nothing conclusive in this post. A gun advocate is implying something.

I wasn't aware Gallup, Pew, Harvard, and the Washington Post were "gun advocates".

It is theoretical at best and speculation on a normal level.

Well, not really. Gun ownership is up, gun deaths are down. While we can't automatically assume that gun deaths went down because of increased gun ownership, we CAN disprove that greater gun ownership results in greater gun deaths, because that's exactly what the data tells us. I hate to wax Latrin on you here, but...you have an idea in your head that seems logical to you, but the data disproves it. You can choose to reject reality and replace it with your own, but that's on you.

I've heard a theory that suggests crime is down because abortion is legal.

I've heard the same theory, and I'm inclined to agree, based strictly on certain socioeconomic ideals that we can all understand. Women seeking abortion GENERALLY fall into one of three categories, of which one to all three may apply...1)young, not ready emotionally or economically, 2) victim of rape, or 3) Oops!

In all of these situations, especially 1 and 2, I would dare offer that the child in question would most likely grow up in (American) poverty, would most likely be abused physically or emotionally at some point, and would most likely turn to a gang association or otherwise "easy way out", aka criminal activity. It isn't by coincidence that the vast majority of criminals come from low-income upbringings.

Saying that more guns equals less gun deaths flies in the face of simple reason.

It flies in the face of your reason, but makes perfect sense in mine. An armed society is a polite society, as the old saying goes. The data backs this up.

Maybe you want to go back to the days of the wild west where everyone had a gun in their holster. No thanks, brother.

Actually, I'd love that. See, here's the thing...law enforcement in the old west was a different beast. We didn't have cameras on every street corner, we didn't have modern forensics. The only thing that is the same between then and now is that we don't, and quite honestly can't, have a cop on every corner. The way LEO's are shooting up innocent citizens these days, I'm actually very happy about that last part. But I digress.

We don't have duels anymore. If a guy walked into a crowded bar and shot another guy in the back of the head in front of everyone, he would most likely get caught these days. You can't be a known outlaw in the modern age...again, with very few exceptions. The VAST majority of gun homicides happen between criminals shooting each other, or criminals shooting unarmed citizens. Sorry, but I choose to be armed. I want the ability to shoot back, if I'm ever in that situation.

Warriorbird

12-28-2015, 08:31 PM

An armed society is a polite society, as the old saying goes. The data backs this up.

Sometimes. There's more to it than that of course. Armed "cultures of honor" can increase violence.

For my own part I think there ought to be further investigation into the effect of firearms on suicide, just who handguns are issued to, and mental illness in America.

We can agree that attempting to limit rifle magazine size and rifle ownership are pretty idiotic though.

drauz

12-28-2015, 10:08 PM

Well, not really. Gun ownership is up, gun deaths are down. While we can't automatically assume that gun deaths went down because of increased gun ownership, we CAN disprove that greater gun ownership results in greater gun deaths, because that's exactly what the data tells us. I hate to wax Latrin on you here, but...you have an idea in your head that seems logical to you, but the data disproves it. You can choose to reject reality and replace it with your own, but that's on you.

That is what the data says if you look at absolutely nothing else. You can't say the same thing if you add in possible other factors, such as the Brady Act.

Since the Wild West was brought up, I'll use that as an example. Gun ownership was huge during those times, but there was still a threat of criminals all around. Laws were enforced and the crime went down.

Jarvan

12-29-2015, 06:28 AM

Sometimes. There's more to it than that of course. Armed "cultures of honor" can increase violence.

For my own part I think there ought to be further investigation into the effect of firearms on suicide, just who handguns are issued to, and mental illness in America.

We can agree that attempting to limit rifle magazine size and rifle ownership are pretty idiotic though.

I think we should offer the choice of Gun rental or cyanide pill for those that want to commit suicide. I mean.. it's their body, let them due what they want to it. Right?

Latrinsorm

12-30-2015, 07:44 PM

The VAST majority of gun homicides happen between criminals shooting each other, or criminals shooting unarmed citizens. Sorry, but I choose to be armed. I want the ability to shoot back, if I'm ever in that situation.Surely someone who commits unjustifiable homicide is by definition a criminal? And as I asked Jarvan earlier (possibly in another thread), how confident are you that you can tell? How confident are you that you will be the one defending yourself and not the one becoming the criminal?

caelric

12-30-2015, 10:17 PM

Well, as the saying goes, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

In a serious response, albeit not one you would agree with(who am I really kidding, none of us are going to be magically convinced by the other sides arguments), I would rather have the choice to carry a gun, and then have to make that determination. And I'm pretty confident that when I walk into a convenience store and see some individual pointing a gun at the clerk, that I can tell that the clerk is not the robber. Or when I come home, and walk through the front door with the shattered window next to it, and see a ski=masked/hooded individual walking around my house that he's the home invader/burglar. Or when I am walking down the street in a bad section of town, and three individuals jump out and point a gun at me and say 'give me all your money' that they probably are not law abiding folk.

Or, as actually happened to me, I am awakened in my apartment at night by the sound of the sliding glass window being forced open, and I grab the 9mm pistol in my nightstand and I walk out and see two dark skinned teenagers coming into my apartment wearing all black clothing including hoodies (and this was well before hoodies became nationally known, probably about 20ish years ago, and I point my gun at them and tell them to get out, and they take off running, that again, they were probably not there to just say hi. Of course, your take-away from this is that I am a racist because I accurately described them as dark-skinned. You'd be wrong, but that hasn't stopped most of your arguments.

drauz

12-31-2015, 01:10 AM

GS4Pirate

12-31-2015, 05:30 AM

Methais

12-31-2015, 08:38 AM

I think we should offer the choice of Gun rental or cyanide pill for those that want to commit suicide. I mean.. it's their body, let them due what they want to it. Right?

Anyone with a car that will turn on has an easy and painless suicide device at their disposal.

More people should just stick a potato in their tailpipe and put themselves to sleep instead of blasting themselves in the face. That just makes a big mess for someone else to have to clean up.

Dude just go with the liberal defense system, just piss yourself.

What happens when a chick gets raped by some dude with a piss fetish?

GS4Pirate

12-31-2015, 10:06 AM

Anyone with a car that will turn on has an easy and painless suicide device at their disposal.

More people should just stick a potato in their tailpipe and put themselves to sleep instead of blasting themselves in the face. That just makes a big mess for someone else to have to clean up.

What happens when a chick gets raped by some dude with a piss fetish?

Shart yourself?

Fallen

12-31-2015, 04:47 PM

U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to announce executive actions expanding background checks on gun sales, media outlets reported on Thursday, citing people familiar with White House proposals and planning.

The changes, which could come as soon as next week, would include requiring more small-scale gun sellers to be licensed and to conduct a background check whenever selling a weapon, Politico reported.

Additional measures would impose tighter rules for reporting guns that are lost or stolen on their way to a buyer, the political news website said.

Planning for the action is not complete and the announcement could be delayed, CNN reported. But gun control advocates told the cable news channel they are expecting the actions to be announced ahead of Obama's annual State of the Union address, scheduled for Jan. 12.

Full story: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-obama-guns-idUSKBN0UE14520151231

Fallen

01-01-2016, 11:37 AM

Treating this as the generic gun news thread.

Licensed Texas gun owners can now carry a holstered pistol in public under an open-carry law that began midnight Friday. Under the new law, nearly one million people in Texas who have passed safety courses and have concealed handgun permits will be allowed to open carry, (http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local/2016/01/01/texas-ushers-era-open-carry/78172676/) a first in the state since 1871. Texas is now the most populous of more than 40 states that allow some form of open carry.

The law stipulates handguns must be carried in belt or shoulder holsters and police officers can ask to see a license to carry. Open carry is not allowed at schools, secured areas of airports, court rooms, hospital and governmental meetings and other locations. Already three grocery stores -- H-E-B, Safeway and Whole Foods -- have opted out of the law, saying only concealed weapons are allowed in the stores. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/26/texas-open-carry-handgun-law/77925292/)

Any of you fuckers from Texas?

Latrinsorm

01-01-2016, 05:49 PM

Or when I come home, and walk through the front door with the shattered window next to it, and see a ski=masked/hooded individual walking around my house that he's the home invader/burglar.This reminded me of something crb posted, possibly in another thread. Are you sure he is not a misdirected SWAT officer? If he turns out to be, will you accept life in prison and/or the death penalty depending on your state?

I have at this moment given up on Thondalar producing his rifle statistics, so here is what the FBI has to say. Please note that especially in past years, the FBI would release reports with preliminary information, so if you look up for example the 1993 Crime in the US report it will have slightly different values for 1993 than the 1994 etc. reports will. I have used the revised values for all years for reasons I hope go without saying.

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
total 23,180 22,084 20,232 16,967 15,837 14,209 13,011 13,230 14,061 14,263 14,465 14,210 14,965 15,087 14,916 14,224 13,752 13,164 12,795 12,888 12,253
fi'arms 16,136 15,463 13,790 11,453 10,729 9,220 8,480 8,661 8,890 9,528 9,659 9,385 10,158 10,225 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,874 8,653 8,897 8,454
rifles 757 724 654 561 638 546 400 411 386 488 392 403 445 438 453 380 351 367 332 298 285

0.0469 0.0468 0.0474 0.0490 0.0595 0.0592 0.0472 0.0475 0.0434 0.0512 0.0406 0.0429 0.0438 0.0428 0.0447 0.0399 0.0382 0.0414 0.0384 0.0335 0.0337

The rows are year, total murders, murders by firearms in general, murders by rifle in particular, and percentage of firearm murders caused by rifles. Not only have rifle murders in fact gone down, they have gone down faster than the gun murder rate in general. I don't think this says anything about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban because as stated earlier various assault weapons are counted as rifles, handguns, and shotguns. As always, I feel that having facts is better than rhetoric.

caelric

01-01-2016, 06:13 PM

This reminded me of something crb posted, possibly in another thread. Are you sure he is not a misdirected SWAT officer? If he turns out to be, will you accept life in prison and/or the death penalty depending on your state?

Nice cherry picking of one thing to bolster your argument. But I'll play your game. Many states (most often the fly-over/conservative/libertarian states you liberals like to dismiss) have home=castle style laws, and will not even charge you if you shot an intruder in your house, even if he is a mis-directed SWAT officer. Even in flaming liberal states, I am confident in my ability to choose a lawyer that will get me off should a mis-directed SWAT officer be in my house and I shoot him. Far more likely, though, is that it will not be one single SWAT officer with no lights, and no identifying marks. Instead, it will be multiple SWAT officers with tactical lights, flash bangs, and other such as well as shouted commands, and plenty of indiication they are a police unit, and if faced with overwhelming force such as that, I know better than to try and fight them all off by myself, even if I think it is a criminal home invasion. I know I am not Willis/Statham/Stallone/Schwarzeneger and the better part of valor is often knowing when not to fight.

So, in short answer to your implied idiotic question, I doubt I will ever find myself in the situation above, whereas I have found myself in the situation with an actual home robbery, and my use of my lawfully obtained pistol possibly saved my life and certainly saved my possessions.

I have at this moment given up on Thondalar producing his rifle statistics, so here is what the FBI has to say. Please note that especially in past years, the FBI would release reports with preliminary information, so if you look up for example the 1993 Crime in the US report it will have slightly different values for 1993 than the 1994 etc. reports will. I have used the revised values for all years for reasons I hope go without saying.

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
total 23,180 22,084 20,232 16,967 15,837 14,209 13,011 13,230 14,061 14,263 14,465 14,210 14,965 15,087 14,916 14,224 13,752 13,164 12,795 12,888 12,253
fi'arms 16,136 15,463 13,790 11,453 10,729 9,220 8,480 8,661 8,890 9,528 9,659 9,385 10,158 10,225 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,874 8,653 8,897 8,454
rifles 757 724 654 561 638 546 400 411 386 488 392 403 445 438 453 380 351 367 332 298 285

0.0469 0.0468 0.0474 0.0490 0.0595 0.0592 0.0472 0.0475 0.0434 0.0512 0.0406 0.0429 0.0438 0.0428 0.0447 0.0399 0.0382 0.0414 0.0384 0.0335 0.0337

The rows are year, total murders, murders by firearms in general, murders by rifle in particular, and percentage of firearm murders caused by rifles. Not only have rifle murders in fact gone down, they have gone down faster than the gun murder rate in general. I don't think this says anything about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban because as stated earlier various assault weapons are counted as rifles, handguns, and shotguns. As always, I feel that having facts is better than rhetoric.

So, what you're saying is that gun deaths went down, even though legal gun ownership has gone up? Hmm. Interesting.

Warriorbird

01-02-2016, 10:29 PM

This reminded me of something crb posted, possibly in another thread. Are you sure he is not a misdirected SWAT officer? If he turns out to be, will you accept life in prison and/or the death penalty depending on your state?

I have at this moment given up on Thondalar producing his rifle statistics, so here is what the FBI has to say. Please note that especially in past years, the FBI would release reports with preliminary information, so if you look up for example the 1993 Crime in the US report it will have slightly different values for 1993 than the 1994 etc. reports will. I have used the revised values for all years for reasons I hope go without saying.

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
total 23,180 22,084 20,232 16,967 15,837 14,209 13,011 13,230 14,061 14,263 14,465 14,210 14,965 15,087 14,916 14,224 13,752 13,164 12,795 12,888 12,253
fi'arms 16,136 15,463 13,790 11,453 10,729 9,220 8,480 8,661 8,890 9,528 9,659 9,385 10,158 10,225 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,874 8,653 8,897 8,454
rifles 757 724 654 561 638 546 400 411 386 488 392 403 445 438 453 380 351 367 332 298 285

0.0469 0.0468 0.0474 0.0490 0.0595 0.0592 0.0472 0.0475 0.0434 0.0512 0.0406 0.0429 0.0438 0.0428 0.0447 0.0399 0.0382 0.0414 0.0384 0.0335 0.0337

The rows are year, total murders, murders by firearms in general, murders by rifle in particular, and percentage of firearm murders caused by rifles. Not only have rifle murders in fact gone down, they have gone down faster than the gun murder rate in general. I don't think this says anything about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban because as stated earlier various assault weapons are counted as rifles, handguns, and shotguns. As always, I feel that having facts is better than rhetoric.

You disingenuously ignored/removed the fact that handguns result in most gun killings. This is as standard for gun takers as it is for gun fetishists.

Pretty typical for you too. The breakdowns are easy to find and you don't even have to carefully distort the research.

Methais

01-02-2016, 11:32 PM

You disingenuously ignored/removed the fact that handguns result in most gun killings. This is as standard for gun takers as it is for gun fetishists.

Pretty typical for you too. The breakdowns are easy to find and you don't even have to carefully distort the research.

It's because he's a faggot.

Not a homosexual. Just a faggot.

Back

01-03-2016, 12:01 AM

It's because he's a faggot.

Not a homosexual. Just a faggot.

Very compelling argument. Except all you are doing is bullying. You have no real argument so you resort to insults.

Seran

01-03-2016, 03:37 AM

The data that the Pew article pulls from is incomplete. The National Violent Death Reporting System only pulls information from a total of 17 states and doesn't include California, New York, Illinois or Texas, all states with massive number of gun related homicides each year.

Methais

01-03-2016, 12:21 PM

Very compelling argument. Except all you are doing is bullying. You have no real argument so you resort to insults.

Actually I didn't even read his post. Because who still reads Latrin posts besides Thondalar?

And you can't talk about bullying to anyone until you address your extremist homophobic statements from the other day!

Wrathbringer

01-03-2016, 01:12 PM

~Rocktar~

01-03-2016, 01:27 PM

Very compelling argument. Except all you are doing is bullying. You have no real argument so you resort to insults.

Quoted for pure comedy gold.

Back

01-03-2016, 01:32 PM

Actually I didn't even read his post. Because who still reads Latrin posts besides Thondalar?

And you can't talk about bullying to anyone until you address your extremist homophobic statements from the other day!

There is the thing. Of the few people on this board who have anything of real worth to say you ignore them and call them names. Why don't you read their posts? I know you can read. I know you have comprehension. How is reading this post any more difficult than reading theirs?

Methais

01-03-2016, 04:47 PM

There is the thing. Of the few people on this board who have anything of real worth to say you ignore them and call them names. Why don't you read their posts? I know you can read. I know you have comprehension. How is reading this post any more difficult than reading theirs?

Does this mean you're not going to address your super extremist homophobic bigoted hateful posts?

Warriorbird

01-03-2016, 05:22 PM

Does this mean you're not going to address your super extremist homophobic bigoted hateful posts?

The main thing I'd like to see addressed is his alcoholism. He's got to come to that decision himself though. I'm sure restaurant management work doesn't help.

Latrinsorm

01-03-2016, 05:30 PM

Nice cherry picking of one thing to bolster your argument. But I'll play your game. Many states (most often the fly-over/conservative/libertarian states you liberals like to dismiss) have home=castle style laws, and will not even charge you if you shot an intruder in your house, even if he is a mis-directed SWAT officer. Even in flaming liberal states, I am confident in my ability to choose a lawyer that will get me off should a mis-directed SWAT officer be in my house and I shoot him. Far more likely, though, is that it will not be one single SWAT officer with no lights, and no identifying marks. Instead, it will be multiple SWAT officers with tactical lights, flash bangs, and other such as well as shouted commands, and plenty of indiication they are a police unit, and if faced with overwhelming force such as that, I know better than to try and fight them all off by myself, even if I think it is a criminal home invasion. I know I am not Willis/Statham/Stallone/Schwarzeneger and the better part of valor is often knowing when not to fight. So, in short answer to your implied idiotic question, I doubt I will ever find myself in the situation above, whereas I have found myself in the situation with an actual home robbery, and my use of my lawfully obtained pistol possibly saved my life and certainly saved my possessions.I'll just give you this reference, h/t to crb: http://theantimedia.org/man-shot-killed-police-officer-will-charged/ In the states of Mississippi and Virginia private citizens were charged, tried, and convicted of felonies after the scenario I describe. In Texas, a man is currently on trial for capital murder for the same. Surely we can agree that none of those states qualify as flaming liberal, I hope.
So, what you're saying is that gun deaths went down, even though legal gun ownership has gone up? Hmm. Interesting.Indeed, the evidence shows that gun control prevents bad guys from acquiring guns but does NOT prevent good guys from doing the same. I'm as surprised as you are! :)
You disingenuously ignored/removed the fact that handguns result in most gun killings. This is as standard for gun takers as it is for gun fetishists. Pretty typical for you too. The breakdowns are easy to find and you don't even have to carefully distort the research.Thondalar and I were specifically talking about rifle killings. Citing rifle killings in a discussion about rifle killings cannot possibly be "disingenuous". No need to apologize, just try harder next time, please.

Warriorbird

01-03-2016, 07:44 PM

Thondalar and I were specifically talking about rifle killings. Citing rifle killings in a discussion about rifle killings cannot possibly be "disingenuous". No need to apologize, just try harder next time, please.

You were doing this to make some stupid argument about the importance of rifle banning. This entire discussion is idiotic if you don't acknowledge how small a portion of gun killings are done by rifles. Because you want to take everybody's guns (much like some of the other side want everybody to have 50+) you didn't include it on purpose. Disingenuous.

In the same post you suggest that Virginia isn't liberal when without it Obama wouldn't have been President. Makes a nice inclusion in the "why the take everybody's gun crowd has issues" collection. If the Democrats had seriously clung harder to gun control we would've had a Republican President and Congress during the last 8 years. We really would've been fucked then, as opposed to the weak Democratic Congress/Do Nothing Republican Congress under a Democratic President. Gun ownership would probably be mandatory.

Parkbandit

01-03-2016, 08:28 PM

Because you want to take everybody's guns (much like some of the other side want everybody to have 50+) you didn't include it on purpose. Disingenuous.

What people on the "other side" want everyone to have 50+ guns?

Disingenuous indeed.

Warriorbird

01-03-2016, 08:56 PM

What people on the "other side" want everyone to have 50+ guns?

Disingenuous indeed.

My Michigan cousins before and after their son committed suicide. The theory is you have to have enough to protect against the government and the Muslims in Dearborn.

To clarify: I didn't mean anybody on the PC.

Parkbandit

01-04-2016, 07:45 AM

My Michigan cousins before and after their son committed suicide. The theory is you have to have enough to protect against the government and the Muslims in Dearborn.

To clarify: I didn't mean anybody on the PC.

Did you really just defend your strawman with your "Michigan cousins"?

lol.

Parkbandit

01-04-2016, 07:45 AM

Warriorbird

01-04-2016, 09:35 AM

Did you really just defend your strawman with your "Michigan cousins"?

lol.

Way to be a terrible person. I'm not surprised.

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/obituaries/ryan-wolff/article_f150c431-8778-57c3-8f82-5e18c787ed9c.html

Wrathbringer

01-04-2016, 09:53 AM

Way to be a terrible person. I'm not surprised.

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/obituaries/ryan-wolff/article_f150c431-8778-57c3-8f82-5e18c787ed9c.html

Way to think personal anecdotes are evidence. I'm not surprised.

Methais

01-04-2016, 09:59 AM

Way to be a terrible person. I'm not surprised.

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/obituaries/ryan-wolff/article_f150c431-8778-57c3-8f82-5e18c787ed9c.html

I have a black friend. There's no such thing as racism.

Sorry about your cousin's kid.

Parkbandit

01-04-2016, 10:16 AM

Way to be a terrible person. I'm not surprised.

http://www.heraldpalladium.com/obituaries/ryan-wolff/article_f150c431-8778-57c3-8f82-5e18c787ed9c.html

Dude, stop. Let's go back to the conversation:

WB: Some on the other side want everyone to have 50+ guns!
PB: Strawman and disingenuous.
WB: Nut uh! My cousin said that!
PB: ....

Using crazy relatives to back up your made up claims is silly.

Don't be "that guy".

caelric

01-04-2016, 11:09 AM

Saw this quote/meme, not sure where it came from, but it certainly bears upon this discussion:

If we don't need guns for personal protection because we have the police, then it obviously follows that we don't need fire extinguishers for fire protection, since we have firefighters.

Warriorbird

01-04-2016, 11:11 AM

Dude, stop. Let's go back to the conversation:

WB: Some on the other side want everyone to have 50+ guns!
PB: Strawman and disingenuous.
WB: Nut uh! My cousin said that!
PB: ....

Using crazy relatives to back up your made up claims is silly.

Don't be "that guy".

I'm sorry that you are "that guy". Just because in your world nothing extreme ever happens doesn't mean the same is true of mine. Your blithe absence of caring doesn't mean everybody feels the same. The simple fact is that there are gun rights supporters who make outrageous statements. Because you believe that anybody suggesting such is lying and get called on it doesn't mean you've "proven" anything.

Parkbandit

01-04-2016, 11:34 AM

I'm sorry that you are "that guy". Just because in your world nothing extreme ever happens doesn't mean the same is true of mine.

There are plenty of extremes... but you based what your crazy cousin said as a platform for the right and gun rights. Which is retarded.

Your blithe absence of caring doesn't mean everybody feels the same.

Yes, I realize you put that your cousin committed suicide to garner sympathy in hopes people would overlook your stuipidty. I never addressed it because it wasn't pertinent to the discussion.

Your stupidity remains though.

The simple fact is that there are gun rights supporters who make outrageous statements.

So, you believe that it's a reasonable argument to use anything anyone says to base an argument around an entire segment of people?

That's awesome.

By the way, some on the left believe that if we just open every border and do away with countries, that we would finally have world peace. I know this because my "cousin" told me that once. And she was in a car accident on the same day. And she had to go to the hospital.

Because you believe that anybody suggesting such is lying and get called on it doesn't mean you've "proven" anything.

The only thing proven here is that you're an idiot. Sorry.

GS4Pirate

01-04-2016, 11:42 AM

Using crazy relatives to back up your made up claims is silly.

I have to agree with WB on this. Half the battle of the mental illness discussion is about a patient feeling comfortable with coming forward and letting people know they are having problems. Something like 9-10 million US citizens have some form of mental illness. (rough guess, used 3% figure). That's a huge fucking problem considering the shape of our mental health institutions and is certainly more unsettling to me than gun ownership or racism.

Parkbandit

01-04-2016, 12:15 PM

I have to agree with WB on this. Half the battle of the mental illness discussion is about a patient feeling comfortable with coming forward and letting people know they are having problems. Something like 9-10 million US citizens have some form of mental illness. (rough guess, used 3% figure). That's a huge fucking problem considering the shape of our mental health institutions and is certainly more unsettling to me than gun ownership or racism.

Am I being punked?

Methais

01-04-2016, 12:39 PM

I'm sorry that you are "that guy". Just because in your world nothing extreme ever happens doesn't mean the same is true of mine. Your blithe absence of caring doesn't mean everybody feels the same. The simple fact is that there are gun rights supporters who make outrageous statements. Because you believe that anybody suggesting such is lying and get called on it doesn't mean you've "proven" anything.

If it were the other way around would you would have not called them out saying that anecdotal evidence is pretty much meaningless?

Warriorbird

01-04-2016, 05:45 PM

Way to think personal anecdotes are evidence. I'm not surprised.

Ah, right. Because nobody ever says extreme things in Pleasantville. Gotcha.

If it were the other way around would you would have not called them out saying that anecdotal evidence is pretty much meaningless?

I certainly supported him saying that Cynthia McKinney's statements were extremist and batshit liberal statements. If he had a relative saying McKinney type stuff I'd believe it. He's certainly zealous in his conservative beliefs so I could believe that relatives of his were zealously liberal.

I have to agree with WB on this. Half the battle of the mental illness discussion is about a patient feeling comfortable with coming forward and letting people know they are having problems. Something like 9-10 million US citizens have some form of mental illness. (rough guess, used 3% figure). That's a huge fucking problem considering the shape of our mental health institutions and is certainly more unsettling to me than gun ownership or racism.

I agree with you that mental health is a way bigger issue than gun control. I think my cousin would've still had issues were his family less obsessed with guns, don't get me wrong... but I don't hesitate to think that the sheer level of firearms/firearms devotion in the home made his suicide easier. I wish more that he hadn't been able to purchase guns prior to taking his own life (though he used one that belonged to his father.)

GS4Pirate

01-04-2016, 08:30 PM

Ah, right. Because nobody ever says extreme things in Pleasantville. Gotcha.

I certainly supported him saying that Cynthia McKinney's statements were extremist and batshit liberal statements. If he had a relative saying McKinney type stuff I'd believe it. He's certainly zealous in his conservative beliefs so I could believe that relatives of his were zealously liberal.

I agree with you that mental health is a way bigger issue than gun control. I think my cousin would've still had issues were his family less obsessed with guns, don't get me wrong... but I don't hesitate to think that the sheer level of firearms/firearms devotion in the home made his suicide easier. I wish more that he hadn't been able to purchase guns prior to taking his own life (though he used one that belonged to his father.)

This is where I disagree with your premise, suicide is easy, gun or no gun. I'll use a like example. This past spring, a kid who used to work for me committed suicide, his dad is a police detective and owns all kinds of guns. This kid ran his car into an embankment.

caelric

01-04-2016, 10:47 PM

Gosh, if there were no guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens), then there would be no suicides, because it's patently impossible to kill yourself in other ways, like jumping off a bridge, overdosing on legal, non prescription drugs (or illegal or prescription drugs, for that matter) or running a car in a garage (true, it is getting harder to do this as California's clean air standards are cleaning up exhaust standards), or hanging yourself, or running your car into a lightpole at 100+ mph, or etc....

I, mean, we certainly should infringe on a constitutionally guaranteed right (that specifically calls for not being infringed), because someone decides to use that constitutionally guaranteed right to kill themselves.

Warriorbird

01-04-2016, 11:20 PM

Fallen

01-04-2016, 11:49 PM

Warriorbird

01-04-2016, 11:50 PM

Fallen

01-04-2016, 11:52 PM

I think both need to happen too.

There's not a whole lot of support for either option, but I agree all the same.

Jarvan

01-05-2016, 12:16 AM

It's easy to say, "It's a mental health problem." It's harder to actually try to tackle that problem in a meaningful way. You have to either restrict people's privacy and freedom by having their mental health record more readily available and be able to forcibly institutionalize/treat the mentally ill, or devote a lot more funds (ie raise taxes) towards research, treatment, and housing of the mentally ill. Likely both.

Actually, it's even worse really.

The only way a "Mental Health Clause" for guns would work, is if you REQUIRE people trying to purchase a gun to get evaluated. Then that info would be reported to the FBI directly, and the government in general. Also, it would allow assholes to write in very vague rules as well. What would constitute a mental health issue that would prevent gun ownership? Things where the person couldn't function in everyday life to begin with? Or is it going to be much more broadly based. Dr asks you how you feel, and you say, well my girlfriend left me last year, kinda sad about that. BAM! No gun for you because you are depressed/suicidal. On top of that... are we going to seize guns from people that already have them that meet the laws criteria? Are we going to make every single gun owner get evaluated, then take their gun if they "fail"?

There is something extremely upsetting about allowing Dr determine if you are allowed to have a FUNDAMENTAL right. I mean.. do we allow them to determine if you can have freedom of religion? or Speech? Do you lose your ability to vote if you take meds for clinical depression? You know it's odd... but people with alzheimer's are still allowed to vote. They can help determine what fuck head moron is in office. What sense does THAT make if you want to take away their right to a gun.

The only time I think anyone should be forcibly institutionalized forcibly is if they commit a violent act. Not if they are capable of committing one mind you, actual commit one. Every single one of us on these forums are CAPABLE of committing one. Even Back.

Fallen

01-05-2016, 12:35 AM

GS4Pirate

01-05-2016, 01:30 AM

Am I being punked?

No, I was actually being serious for once. I took a lot of psych classes in college, when the brain ain't working right all kinds of strange shit happens. Abnormal psych was probably one of my favorite classes, it's where I learned to make hallucinogenics from rye bread, thank you Salem witch trials.

Methais

01-05-2016, 07:18 AM

it's where I learned to make hallucinogenics from rye bread

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-53373-peter-griffin-go-on-meme-Imgur-r74t.gif

Jarvan

01-05-2016, 09:38 AM

All good points, J, though having a better understanding of mental health issues, better treatment, and more monitoring of the clearly mentally ill is still a goal worth pursuing. All it takes is a fuckton of money.

Of course... it also depends what we want to call "mental health issue".

Considering it wasn't many years ago being Gay was considered a mental health issue.

My biggest complaint about "Mental Health"... the people that decide what is and is not, are the ones directly profiting from it.

And I disagree with one thing. I do not want treatment. I HATE Treatments. I want fucking CURES.

Wrathbringer

01-05-2016, 10:01 AM

GS4Pirate

01-05-2016, 10:19 AM

I want fucking CURES.

The brain is a really strange organ, every one of them with their own "fingerprint". It has characteristics of a muscle in some ways, yet nothing like a muscle at all. We just don't know much about it. Some mental health issues are genetic others not. Some permanent, some temporary. A perfectly mentally fit person with no history of mental health issues can wake up one morning and be fucked up. If there is a cure, it is waaaaay far out on the horizon.

My favorite case study (I have mentioned it here before) was the case of a man with the extremist of delusions. He was convinced that he had no head, they could stand him in front of a mirror and point out to him that he had a head, but still he insisted he had no head.. What neuron isn't firing correctly for such an extreme example, lol ? (examples like this is why I'm on the fence about LGBT cases, being or not being a mental health issue).

the people that decide what is and is not

And it should be a concern, considering we are still using some of Freud's science. This man believed cocaine was good for you, was a regular user and believed all women had penis envy (ladies?).

Taernath

01-05-2016, 10:43 AM

I, mean, we certainly should infringe on a constitutionally guaranteed right (that specifically calls for not being infringed), because someone decides to use that constitutionally guaranteed right to kill themselves.
Most of the amendments have similar 'shall not be infringed' language, yet over the past 200+ years they have routinely been interpreted as having actual limitations or been further fleshed out through court rulings.

Fallen

01-05-2016, 11:08 AM

Of course... it also depends what we want to call "mental health issue".

Considering it wasn't many years ago being Gay was considered a mental health issue.

My biggest complaint about "Mental Health"... the people that decide what is and is not, are the ones directly profiting from it.

And I disagree with one thing. I do not want treatment. I HATE Treatments. I want fucking CURES.

We can certainly argue about the specifics of the line we wish to create between what is sane versus abnormal, but i'm sure we could also agree that there are those with blatant mental illness who are not in touch with reality. As to the treatment/cure issue, the only thing that will help that is more research. Private sector spends a lot, but they aren't going to be able to afford, or have the incentive to do the base scientific research into the functionality of the brain. There is no immediate profit in it, yet it must be done in order to advance our understanding of the brain and how to repair it.

Where we likely wont agree is that I believe we need to study the mindset of those committing the mass shootings, both religious and non-religious, and see if there are common aspects between them that can be identified, and targeted for screening and/or treatment.

~Rocktar~

01-05-2016, 10:09 PM

Most of the amendments have similar 'shall not be infringed' language, yet over the past 200+ years they have routinely been interpreted as having actual limitations or been further fleshed out through court rulings.

Arguing to the majority is a logical fallacy. Just because other wrongs have been committed does not make it any less wrong.

Taernath

01-05-2016, 10:23 PM

Arguing to the majority is a logical fallacy. Just because other wrongs have been committed does not make it any less wrong.

I never made a claim about of the validity of their rulings, I simply stated a fact.

Methais

01-06-2016, 12:23 AM

Everyone fuck off and watch this

http://youtu.be/QajyNRnyPMs

~Rocktar~

01-06-2016, 01:31 AM

I never made a claim about of the validity of their rulings, I simply stated a fact.

Keep tap dancing.

GS4Pirate

01-06-2016, 05:44 AM

Everyone fuck off and watch this

http://youtu.be/QajyNRnyPMs

Pretty fucking cool, though more Tony Montana would have made it more epic.

Taernath

01-06-2016, 10:36 AM

Keep tap dancing.

Keep writing erotic Gorean fanfiction.

No, seriously, keep on doing it, shit was hilarious.

Methais

01-06-2016, 11:44 AM

If you were there when a mass shooting broke out, would you prefer to have a gun on you? Why or why not?

caelric

01-06-2016, 12:30 PM

I would prefer to have a weapon. It gives you options. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

Wrathbringer

01-06-2016, 12:32 PM

7733

Methais

01-06-2016, 01:04 PM

I think it's hilarious that Obama had to literally resort to tears to try and get this gun control shit going.

What a fucking bitch.

Parkbandit

01-06-2016, 01:31 PM

I think it's hilarious that Obama had to literally resort to tears to try and get this gun control shit going.

What a fucking bitch.

You know what? I honestly don't think they were fake and I don't think he started crying to get anything "going". He already had the EOs going, so it really doesn't help him.

My favorite today was on the Today Show this morning.. saying he's doing this to prevent gun violence.

Really?

Methais

01-06-2016, 01:45 PM

You know what?

What?

I honestly don't think they were fake and I don't think he started crying to get anything "going". He already had the EOs going, so it really doesn't help him.

My favorite today was on the Today Show this morning.. saying he's doing this to prevent gun violence.

Really?

I didn't mean to get it going from a legal sense, I mean to rile up the sheep that will no doubt be screaming IT'S SO BAD IT BROUGHT THE PRESIDENT TO TEARS WE HAVE TO BAN GUNS NOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

But to be fair, Obama does have a huge surplus of estrogen flowing through him, and we all know how that usually goes. I'm just curious where these tears were when Newton actually happened, because I don't recall any back then. But I wasn't glued to the news either so I can't say I saw everything Obama said/did after.

Wrathbringer

01-06-2016, 01:45 PM

You know what? I honestly don't think they were fake and I don't think he started crying to get anything "going". He already had the EOs going, so it really doesn't help him.

My favorite today was on the Today Show this morning.. saying he's doing this to prevent gun violence.

Really?

Surely we can at least agree on the bitch portion of Methais' post.

GS4Pirate

01-06-2016, 01:58 PM

Parkbandit

01-06-2016, 04:15 PM

What?

I didn't mean to get it going from a legal sense, I mean to rile up the sheep that will no doubt be screaming IT'S SO BAD IT BROUGHT THE PRESIDENT TO TEARS WE HAVE TO BAN GUNS NOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

True

But to be fair, Obama does have a huge surplus of estrogen flowing through him, and we all know how that usually goes. I'm just curious where these tears were when Newton actually happened, because I don't recall any back then. But I wasn't glued to the news either so I can't say I saw everything Obama said/did after.

Obama ain't got shit on this guy though!

http://assets.ordienetworks.com/misc/tearsofboehnerPlain.gif

Parkbandit

01-06-2016, 04:17 PM

Surely we can at least agree on the bitch portion of Methais' post.

Oh, absolutely.

http://www.thedailyrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/600b09201e1.jpg

Methais

01-06-2016, 04:25 PM

True

Obama ain't got shit on this guy though!

http://assets.ordienetworks.com/misc/tearsofboehnerPlain.gif

I was never totally convinced that Boehner is a real person.

Taernath

01-06-2016, 05:10 PM

I was never totally convinced that Boehner is a real person.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8QGjy7CcAAZ6q0.jpg
Wake up... missster Methais... Wake up and smell the ashes.

Latrinsorm

01-07-2016, 08:19 PM

You were doing this to make some stupid argument about the importance of rifle banning.I was doing this because Thondalar made a specific, quantitative claim about rifle killings. I asked him to source it, he didn't, so I sourced the information. You are dramatically over complicating this. In the same way that President Bush is not a hater, I am not a conspirator.
This entire discussion is idiotic if you don't acknowledge how small a portion of gun killings are done by rifles. Because you want to take everybody's guns (much like some of the other side want everybody to have 50+) you didn't include it on purpose. Disingenuous.In fact I explicitly included "percentage of firearm murders caused by rifles". Naughty WB. Naughty!
In the same post you suggest that Virginia isn't liberal when without it Obama wouldn't have been President. Makes a nice inclusion in the "why the take everybody's gun crowd has issues" collection. If the Democrats had seriously clung harder to gun control we would've had a Republican President and Congress during the last 8 years. We really would've been fucked then, as opposed to the weak Democratic Congress/Do Nothing Republican Congress under a Democratic President. Gun ownership would probably be mandatory.I never suggested Virginia isn't liberal. I said it isn't flaming liberal, and that's a fact, Jack.
If we don't need guns for personal protection because we have the police, then it obviously follows that we don't need fire extinguishers for fire protection, since we have firefighters.I have never said we don't need guns for personal protection. What I have said is that guns pose a net risk in certain cases because they can be used to cause death in an aggressive or preventative way and it turns out that the former outweighs the latter. You will be tempted to summarize or paraphrase the previous sentence, but you should resist that temptation. As for fire extinguishers, they cannot be used to cause fires, thus the analogy is invalid.
Gosh, if there were no guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens), then there would be no suicides, because it's patently impossible to kill yourself in other ways, like jumping off a bridge, overdosing on legal, non prescription drugs (or illegal or prescription drugs, for that matter) or running a car in a garage (true, it is getting harder to do this as California's clean air standards are cleaning up exhaust standards), or hanging yourself, or running your car into a lightpole at 100+ mph, or etc.... I, mean, we certainly should infringe on a constitutionally guaranteed right (that specifically calls for not being infringed), because someone decides to use that constitutionally guaranteed right to kill themselves.You should try science instead of sarcasm, it's a much more effective way of reaching the truth.
The only way a "Mental Health Clause" for guns would work, is if you REQUIRE people trying to purchase a gun to get evaluated.The Brady Act already has a mental health clause and it works quite well. It does not identify 100% of people who are suffering or will ever suffer from mental disease, but that is obviously a silly way to define "work".

Thondalar

01-07-2016, 08:33 PM

I was doing this because Thondalar made a specific, quantitative claim about rifle killings. I asked him to source it, he didn't, so I sourced the information. You are dramatically over complicating this. In the same way that President Bush is not a hater, I am not a conspirator.

I've totally lost track of this thread because I've been absent from it for over a week, and I really don't feel like starting over, but...I was using the same data that's been sourced several times now, including a few of my previous posts.
At least ten times as many people were killed last year by knives, blunt objects, and fists/feet rather than "assault weapons". (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstanc es_by_weapon_2014.xls) Ring a bell? I mistakenly said 'CDC' because I had them on the brain over this funding nonsense, but I was meaning the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, specifically "Expanded Homicide Data Table 11". Rifles account for a tiny percentage of gun homicides, which is one of the main reasons Congress came to the conclusion that the "Assault Weapons" ban was pointless and idiotic.

It was a classic example of knee-jerk legislation that did nothing but hinder the rights of law abiding citizens for no good reason.

Latrinsorm

01-07-2016, 08:57 PM

I've totally lost track of this thread because I've been absent from it for over a week, and I really don't feel like starting over, but...I was using the same data that's been sourced several times now, including a few of my previous posts. Ring a bell? I mistakenly said 'CDC' because I had them on the brain over this funding nonsense, but I was meaning the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, specifically "Expanded Homicide Data Table 11". Rifles account for a tiny percentage of gun homicides, which is one of the main reasons Congress came to the conclusion that the "Assault Weapons" ban was pointless and idiotic. It was a classic example of knee-jerk legislation that did nothing but hinder the rights of law abiding citizens for no good reason.No hard feelings, allow me to remind you. Your claim was "While the macro stat of "gun deaths" went DOWN, the micro stat of "gun deaths by rifle" remained the same, statistically." (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?99531-More-guns-less-gun-homicides-Go-figure&p=1827158#post1827158) I have cited numbers from the FBI UCRs showing that gun murders by rifle have actually dropped faster than gun murders overall have. This finding is statistically significant at 95% confidence because when we add in quadrature we get...

.0469 - .0406 = .0063
sqrt((2*sqrt(.0469*(1-.0469)*16136)/16136)^2 + (2*sqrt(.0406*(1-.0406)*9659)/9659)^2) = .0052
.0063 ± .0052 > 0
I must reiterate that at no point does the FBI claim that all weapons banned by the Assault Weapons Ban are classified as rifles, and I would also like to take this opportunity to suggest that ascribing reason as a motivating factor for Congress is extraordinarily tenuous, but let's put all that aside. I don't think you looked up the FBI stats and came to the conclusion that rifle murders were pretty much the same. The FBI only gives stats in five year intervals so it's pretty tedious, plus you're intelligent enough to realize that they're nowhere near the same. I think someone TOLD you that's what the stats were, and you believed them, but it turns out they were lying to you. Doesn't that make you seriously re-evaluate how right they are? Why should they lie if the truth is with them?