OT: Politics

[pbjosh]

Wouldn't the point be that it will be harder to inflict mass carnage on the level that one can do with guns? Thus reduce the amount of deaths.

Hence an earlier reference to Timothy McVeigh. He killed far more with fertilizer and diesel. Or the recent batch of truck attacks in Europe and now the US.

You take away one tool, another will be found.

Not to mention that successful suicide rate would drop, as shown in some statistics.

Yeah, I mentioned that also. I think that would be a side benefit, if not the intended benefit. After a portion of time though I suspect a different options would become normal and the first gasp.

Weird side note, I and working with a guy from the UT Forensics Lab (Body Farm) and we are working a paintball gun that produces the proper splatter to recreate a gunshot wound to the head. I am never committing suicide that way. Huge mess.

In any case I suspect that Jack is right on the assumption that you guys have let the amount of guns to spiral so far out of control that it would probably take decades to see results even if you were to ban all firearms.

Actually, that was my point. The cat is already out of the bag. As for 'letting it spiral out of control' I disagree. As mentioned several times, the problem is not because we have firearms, since our rates for homicide and firearm misuse would dramatically fall if the gang/drug issue was controlled. If you go out of the 5% areas that have high crime and related cultural problems, the rest of the US enjoys the same very low level of gun crime as Europe, or Australia. It just is a small portion of the US that causes this problem.

I live in a very low murder rate area - there is very low crime. Almost nothing like Chicago. People are not afraid of gun violence, because it is far lower than as Gunchester was 1990s, and even now. And that was gang related crime also in Gunchester.

Same factor - drugs and gangs and guns fuel most of the crime. Even if guns are illegal systemically.

[pbjosh]

this is like arguing that the army would be equally effective without guns, as with guns.

and you'd have ot be a fucking idiot to think that less people will die when you make weapons less lethal.

Nobody talked about making weapons less lethal. No points, strawman fallacy. Try to stay on topic.

Now, for the Army quote:

You remove firearms from only the honest people here in this equation, in the beginning. As I showed above, that results in a small increase in deaths, then a return to normal. Your point is invalidated already in this thread, and all you have is an assumption that is DOA.

[cockerpunk]

Nobody talked about making weapons less lethal. No points, strawman fallacy. Try to stay on topic.

Now, for the Army quote:

You remove firearms from only the honest people here in this equation, in the beginning. As I showed above, that results in a small increase in deaths, then a return to normal. Your point is invalidated already in this thread, and all you have is an assumption that is DOA.

you just said that if you take the guns away, everyone will kill each other at the same rate.

that is categorically, and moronically not true. if you reduce the lethality of the weapons in a society, less people will die.

the argument that only criminals will have guns if you take guns away is silly. why have any laws then? what is the point of laws? that isn't an argument against gun control, its an argument against the rule of law. why have ANY law if criminals just break them?

[pbjosh]

Growing up I had my grandfather teach me gun safety and how to shoot at a young age. I had a hard time shooting my first deer, and fully believe it helped me learn the value of life. We learned how to shoot and gun safety in Boy Scouts also. When I was in High School, and hunting season rolled around 90% of all the trucks had a rifle or two in the back window. I'm only 35 so it really wasn't that long ago. We never had a problem at our school, and everyone I knew respected firearms and the value of life. What I feel is part of the problem, is the younger generations lack of person to person interactions, and getting their firearm knowledge form video games, media, internet.

My experience was very similar, and even more extreme at a point. We actually had a Black-powder Rifle Class in 8th grade. You built a rifle, took firearm training, and shot the rifle, being scored in all three areas. And I am 43.

When everybody knows the culture, and respects the value of life, knowing just how immediate a firearm can take it, you respect it in a way that most people do not comprehend. That, and growing up with the local native community (the Kenaitze Tribe) gave me an outlook that is unique.

It doesn't have to be though. There is not something really remarkable about it. Gun Culture is normal, and was through most of America's history.

[pbjosh]

you just said that if you take the guns away, everyone will kill each other at the same rate.

that is categorically, and moronically not true.

I already showed where, against your often clueless opinion, that is very much exactly the opposite (quoted again):

The National Rifle Association (NRA) would have you believe that guns stop murders. The gun control lobby would have you believe that gun control reduces murders. They are both wrong. Gun bans have always had the same effect once implemented: none. They do not create a (sustained) period of increased murders, nor do they reduce the rate of homicides. The gun control crowd is currently stomping their feet and screaming “No, it reduces violence! I’ve seen the statistics.” What you probably saw were studies that point to reduced instances of “gun murders,” not murder. The pro-gun crowd is screaming that gun bans cause crime. At least this is grounded in reality. Typically, there is a spike in murders immediately after a ban, but it is short lived.

United Kingdom: The UK enacted its handgun ban in 1996. From 1990 until the ban was enacted, the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After the ban was enacted, homicides trended up until they reached a peak of 18.0 in 2003. Since 2003, which incidentally was about the time the British government flooded the country with 20,000 more cops, the homicide rate has fallen to 11.1 in 2010. In other words, the 15-year experiment in a handgun ban has achieved absolutely nothing.

Ireland: Ireland banned firearms in 1972. Ireland’s homicide rate was fairly static going all the way back to 1945. In that period, it fluctuated between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Immediately after the ban, the murder rate shot up to 1.6 per 100,000 people in 1975. It then dropped back down to 0.4. It has trended up, reaching 1.4 in 2007.

Australia: Australia enacted its gun ban in 1996. Murders have basically run flat, seeing only a small spike after the ban and then returning almost immediately to preban numbers. It is currently trending down, but is within the fluctuations exhibited in other nations.

[cockerpunk]

I already showed where, against your often clueless opinion, that is very much exactly the opposite (quoted again):

denying the basic reality of things is pretty much your MO.

if the lethality of weapons is unimportant to the number of folks killed, then the army should be equally effective with pikes as guns.

[pbjosh]

denying the basic reality of things is pretty much your MO

You didn't read, or maybe you just didn't comprehend my post. At all.

It even put up pictures. And this is why people think you are an asshole, and I just think you are really bad at the internets.

Look at the picture. Simple, no colors, just a line. Notice the bump post firearm ban? That is more people dying. Now, nod, and pretend you heard that.

See the rest of the curve? It keeps on following the path it did before, or returns to normal. Nod again. See, the Ban DIDN'T DO SHIT.

Until you are able to read and understand a simple line drawing, you probably shouldn't internet man. Just, step away from the keyboard, have a decent whiskey, maybe a cigar and think on it.

[cockerpunk]

You didn't read, or maybe you just didn't comprehend my post. At all.

It even put up pictures. And this is why people think you are an asshole, and I just think you are really bad at the internets.

Look at the picture. Simple, no colors, just a line. Notice the bump post firearm ban? That is more people dying. Now, nod, and pretend you heard that.

See the rest of the curve? It keeps on following the path it did before, or returns to normal. Nod again. See, the Ban DIDN'T DO SHIT.

Until you are able to read and understand a simple line drawing, you probably shouldn't internet man. Just, step away from the keyboard, have a decent whiskey, maybe a cigar and think on it.

you are loosing the actual lesson in some uncorrelated and unremarkable findings.

the lesson is simple: you lessen the lethality of weapons in your society, you will have less dead folks.

or do you honestly think that the vegas shooting would have been the same outcome with musket?

[Florypb505]

This is another argument that can't go anywhere if neither side is offering a suggestion to help the situation besides no guns or everyone needs a gun...

I like what irony touched on, the guy that just did this last shooting should never have been able to have a gun in the first place.

Also Josh and a few others have touched on a similar idea, in my mind, on gun safety and learning to respect life and proper gun control.

I should state that I am not a gun owner and really have no desire to own a gun but I would be pretty pissed if my country told me I wasn't allowed to own one. When it is something that I could make for myself if I ever had a need for the protection of one.

I need to add that I went to school and then worked in some of the most dangerous cities in the north east. I was also right outside of the world trade center at the time of the last vehicle attack, so when people tell me they need a gun to feel safe I normally look at them with some confusion. Because I just don't get how I would feel safer if I had a gun and a guy was firing down on a crowd of us from a high place with a rifle being rapid fired, or a guy trying to run me over with a car, or crashing a plane into me, or even coming from behind me when I'm sitting in a place, like a church, and opening fire. I mean it's not like someone is planning on walking up too me and challenging me to a duel or something where I would have a real chance at defending myself with my weapon. Now I feel that if someone is trying to hurt you they are going to try and get you before you realize what is happening and I don't see how anyone would fair any better if everyone had a gun and the person trying to hurt you still was getting the drop on you with their gun.

A little side note about that I also find it kind of strange that the people who argue the most that guns keep them safe are also some of the more religious regions of our country where they believe there is a higher power and a place too go after you die, where all your troubles go away and you live in perfection. But they are afraid of leaving earth to go to that place and need their gun to protect them from it. Satire is pretty strong in this take and I apologize if it really offends anyone.



I think trying to outlaw something instead of trying to educate people on it is never the way to go, and as a person who considers himself liberal to the point of touching anarchist I never want the government to tell me I can't have or make something because they don't think it's safe for me to have it.

That being said, I am for stricter testing to aquire a gun license, as well as more mass education about guns. But that still won't drop rates until you address the major problem that the majority of these murders happen in the poverty stricken and usually densely populated areas of the country.

It maybe a socialist viewpoint but if you don't give kids equal opportunities and incentives, at least good enough opportunity and incentive, to educate themselves and try to achieve a good life by legal means then you cant solve the problems of gang violence and other crimes.

Go to the source of the problem, there is a large enough population of us, Americans, that are under educated, and then taken advantage of too much by "capitalism" to be able to start a good life without having to try and join gangs, commit crimes, or run drugs as a means to live or succeed.

The war on drugs is a different debacle entirely that ties into all crime and many of these gun related problems. But that is something that should be eliminated and then properly regulated to help relieve some of these crime issues.

[PBSteve]

The issue I have is the shooter should NOT have been allowed to purchase a gun. He should have had a felony which would prohibit legal purchase.

There should be a mechanism in place to actually physically PREVENT someone from illegally purchasing a firearm.

As you know it's illegal for a felon to own a firearm, but all they have to do is jump online and buy one from a private seller who is not obligated to check the buyer's background. I can even point you to the website where you can do it: http://www.armslist.com. They throw the warning screen up at you when you visit, which amounts to "I promise not to break the law". This is especially ridiculous in light of the 2A argument which is "criminals are going to break the law anyway, so no point in putting more on the book". So naturally the best we should do is make convicted criminals super-duper promise that they're not going to break the law. Nevermind a lock on the gun safe.

It's not even a self-consistent argument. These are people who have broken the law before, 2A advocates assert are going to break the law anyway, and yet all we can do to prevent them from acquiring a firearm is make them promise that they're not breaking the law. If you believe they're going to break the law anyway you might as well be handing guns to convicts. It's like letting a convicted burglar into an open bank vault if they make a scout's promise not to take anything, and not securing the locks on the safety deposit boxes because they're going to steal anyway, why bother trying?

Of course having an outside party or mechanism to prevent someone who has broken the law before from breaking it again is going too far. It wouldn't even be that hard to require a background check for private transactions. Of course if both the seller and the buyer have criminal intent it won't stop anything, but it's remarkable how many law abiding gun owners don't actually want to know whether they're selling a gun to a felon or not.

Of course hell will freeze over before the NRA lets any of this change, so I don't really bother with the conversation anymore.