Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Obama's response to gun question

Obama's response to gun question (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't see the relevance of the video: the question is whether in this day and age information or a gun is the more powerful weapon with which to arm its citizens. And given that the internet and other forms of rapid communication did not exist at the time of Washington, I don't see that necessarily the answer that were correct over 200 years ago still need to be the same ones today.
Are you really under the impression that if we let them shred the 2A, they won't shred the 1A as well using the same logic & precedent? Won't be much of stretch until that secret list you've got a hard on about includes suspending 1A protections in addition to 2A, 4A, & 14A without due process? What is to stop them? It's seriously brain damaging to consider the logic.

You're right that ideas are far more powerful than guns, so if you don't trust good law-biding people to have guns, why would you trust them to have ideas?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're right that ideas are far more powerful than guns, so if you don't trust good law-biding people to have guns, why would you trust them to have ideas?
That's what the EU is for; take away direct representation and make decisions for them. Filthy commoners shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions, they may not choose "what's best for them" and kick the social engineers and pro-unification, authoritarian fear-mongers out of bed. Then what would they do? People may start thinking for themselves again, and Allah help us all if that happens. Dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 05:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here: are you arguing against a ban? Do you think the legal definition of blind (which I understand is different from seeing absolutely nothing) is inadequate to capture whether someone is able to use a gun?
I'm getting at the fact that legal blindness does not mean the same thing to everyone, and that the subject isn't as (excuse the pun) black and white as it might seem.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Sorry, I can't follow your argument here: what do lack of training and demonization of guns have to do with one another? People who want to own guns certainly do not demonize them, and people who demonize guns probably don't own any.
My point was that with the media being the most common source of information about guns, people get warped, incorrect and often entirely erroneous concepts about how these machines work. With society's dual channels of blaming the inanimate object for what individuals do with it, and entertainment based on completely false (and physically impossible) exploits with those objects, we wind up with a large population of people who think they know something about guns. They are almost all completely wrong about this.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But I don't think many people actually advocate for a total ban, nor have I seen someone claim here that a complete ban of guns would eliminate violent crimes. I certainly haven't. But a significant reduction will lead to a significant reduction in gun deaths.
There is a vocal minority that does advocate totally banning firearms, and a not-so vocal but politically motivated (and highly placed) small minority that has this as the end point of their "roadmap toward progress" for lack of a better name. One major party's apparent candidate has as much as said this (though back when the individual lived in the White House as a spouse).

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
But that's not how we approach problems in any other area: when terrorists started hijacking planes in the 1970s, we put in more regulations and safety procedures at airports. You're no longer able to bring guns with you when you travel, for example (like my father's host brother did when he came to visit my parents in the 1970s — he's was a police officer). When terrorists started blowing planes up instead, our security procedures evolved and adapted. In the wake of 9/11, they were adapted still. Of course, all of this is in addition to counter terrorism efforts focussing on the groups du jour that were the culprits (e. g. Libya in the 1980s). What you're advocating is taking care of anything but guns, to take care of anything but more safety regulations at airports (in my analogy). That doesn't make any sense.
And when terrorists used airplanes as weapons, we didn't try to ban airplanes. That would mean too much economic change - and cost too much money. But we did ban box cutters, finger nail clippers, and a bunch of other things from carry on. In August, 2001, airport security was all over the place, with some airports taking it seriously and others not much at all.

But again, now we're discussing this not because anything has changed in our society, but because terrorists again victimized Americans. And curtailing the rights of Americans is supposed to stop terrorists who want to further limit our rights? And again, how is making more laws supposed to prevent people who break laws from breaking these new laws?

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
And if you legalise everything then you won't have any crime at all.
If you separate out "inner city" violence, you can see that there is a very concentrated problem within inner cities. You will also see that most of that problem is related to drugs, usually either sales or distribution. And the drug problem is incredibly important - and one that is societally based. We need to fix WHY people want to escape by using drugs. But the overall point is still that if a person not physically in a limited geographical area is orders of magnitude less likely to experience any sort of crime - and especially not gun-related crime - than one in that geographical area.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Except its rarely enforced. Typically the press release ends "no charges were filed as it was deemed the family had suffered enough already".
While I do not suggest that adding jail time to the enormous weight of guild a parent must feel after this sort of incident, I feel that not charging the person responsible for such an accident (even if the court decides "they have suffered enough") minimizes the impact of such laws. And I nterestingly, many federally mandated, "minimum sentence" gun laws are also "seldom enforced." They are plea-bargained away, allowing someone who would have served longer, or served actual time instead of probation, to make the DA's conviction rate look better. Neither of these is a good idea, but they both demonstrate how adding more laws doesn't always have any impact.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Thats in direct opposition to what the rest of us have been talking about. It continually amazes me that a medical professional with military experience cannot see any difference between shooting yourself (or someone else) in the head, or cutting your own wrists or throat. Most people don't have tall buildings to hand when they sit in a chair and finish a bottle of scotch after a bad day. And just because you are feeling down about something for an hour, day, week or a couple of months, doesn't mean you are mentally ill. Sometimes being sad is logical. Shit happens. But if you are in that state of mind and you self-medicate AND you have a gun to hand, you might easily do something that prevents you from waking up in the morning feeling much better. Guns are a matter of speed, convenience and perceived lack of pain or discomfort. No blood and gore, no fear, pain or time for regret, just click - boom - gone. You don't get cold feeling the blood run from your veins or see it spray all over the floor, you don't have the time to rethink the bottle of pills you swallowed. The wish to change your mind without being able to as you slowly strangle yourself hanging from the ceiling. I could go on but I shouldn't need to. You shouldn't be this short sighted.
I have extensive training in both suicide intervention and treatment of depression. "Sad" people don't commit suicide. Just plain "depressed" people don't commit suicide. Almost all are clinically depressed for an extended period of time, consider all sorts of options, and even "set their affairs in order" in a way (one hallmark of suicide risk is giving away things, often of high importance to the person giving them away). There are only a very, Rey small number of people who impulsively decide to end their lives. Read here to start. There's a lot more, but basically the popular idea that people figure they have goofed up big time and just kill themselves is false.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you were going to kill yourself, how would you do it?
Now we go from being clinical to my personal philosophy. Most suicides are so wrapped up in how badly they feel that death is the only thing they think can solve this. They don't think about the people they leave behind and how their loss will hurt others. I feel that most people who kill themselves are selfish and that they take a cowardly way out. So I would NOT kill myself, even if everything was going against me. But then I also have a support system that would ensure that I got treatment for depression or other indications of ineffective coping.



Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
This is a weak argument. The data is what it is and any political slant should (and will) be applied by the politicians. X people shot, Y people died, Z suicides, A for accidents. It makes a lot of sense that physicians would be against them in the main given they are the ones who have to deal with gunshot wounds. I don't know why you started rambling on about their expertise here.
Were it only a group decision, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, it's a political decision, taken specifically for political purposes. The AMA has not taken a real political stand against intoxicated driving - not in a way that leads to bad science and faulty research - yet more people are killed in US auto accidents related to alcohol than in shootings of any kind. The AMA has other unpleasant political angles as well, some of which limit the access individuals have to any sort of medical care (for example, primary care nurse pratitioners are limited not only in their scope of care, but in how close they must be physically to the physician who supervises them, which hurts medical access in rural areas). So I don't bow down to "they're all doctors, they must have a better idea about this than I do." That's BS.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The only argument against bad science is good science — not no science. Not letting anyone study the effects of fire arms scientifically is a recipe for disaster. From my perspective it's that certain politicians simply didn't like the findings which are clear: statistically, owning a gun makes you less safe. That's not a finding that many people like to hear, just like that there is overwhelming evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
The major issue here is funding. Throw money at a scientific organization, and scientists are assigned to do the research the money is linked to. And often with the slant that the funding source requires. This is not epidemiology, where the CDC works at identifying a disease vector, then finding a way to neutralize it. This is social science, and a combination of sociology and group psychology, with a big helping of politics thrown in. And the CDC is not the only agency that can do health related research - far from it.

And how can a scientist like you take at face value an implied "this thus that" statement like "owning a gun makes you less safe" without questioning how that statement was arrived at. Take a look at the actual statistics, and you see that this statement is simply correlative, and there is no causative link in any of the research that the statement is based on. A quick search on the term "owning a gun makes you less safe" brings up tons of articles that repeat the same thing and either hint at other sources or cite meta-analyses, without critical attention to any of those study's methods, sources, etc. An important point is that most such reports of this conclusion completely ignore the context in which both gun ownership and crime are reported. In rural Texas, there is a very small amount of crime against individuals, and I can assure you that most rural Texans have access to at least one firearm. This point is not a black and white, "quid ergo quo" argument, and ANY presentation of the issue as such should raise suspicions. Add that this is social science (a notoriously difficult discipline to get real, quantitative and relevant data in), and it should be clear that the "makes you less safe" meme is as specious as most of the NRA blurbs that get airtime.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 07:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Have you even considered the # of DGUs when considering "safety"?
Yes.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It's extremely tough to take your arguments seriously when you wholesale ignore the stats and circumstances that don't fit your narrative. Even if we took the lowest numbered offered @ 55,000 per year - that stat alone completely shreds your "safety" argument, especially when you consider that the numbers you're using to demonstrate that guns make you less safe (by way of homicide by firearm) include situations where a DGU resulted in a death, making the innocent more safe despite you counting that homicide as "less safe".
I have included that in my considerations. The stats you offer don't “completely shred” anything that I have said. Just like not wearing a seat belt in very specific circumstances can save your life, I'm interested in whether there is an advantage overall. And the statistics are clear: if you own a gun, you're more likely to be killed in your home.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 07:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Did our transformation into utter monsters in the wake of 9/11 not make an impression?
I concur, but your post contains neither an argument for nor against the idea that guns, not information, is the more powerful tool to fight this.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Are you really under the impression that if we let them shred the 2A, they won't shred the 1A as well using the same logic & precedent?
Who is “them”? It's the American people who'd have decided to amend their Constitution. The bar to do so is very high, deservedly so.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Won't be much of stretch until that secret list you've got a hard on about includes suspending 1A protections in addition to 2A, 4A, & 14A without due process?
Secret list? Please don't make up stuff just because you disagree. There are no secret lists. People who don't see gun ownership as important a right as free speech or due process don't think the latter are superfluous.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
You're right that ideas are far more powerful than guns, so if you don't trust good law-biding people to have guns, why would you trust them to have ideas?
Because ideas can't kill 50 people in a night club or a bunch of primary school students. I can counter bad ideas with good ideas — and both sides will live to tell about it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 08:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I have included that in my considerations. The stats you offer don't “completely shred” anything that I have said. Just like not wearing a seat belt in very specific circumstances can save your life, I'm interested in whether there is an advantage overall. And the statistics are clear: if you own a gun, you're more likely to be killed in your home.

This owning a gun in your home for self defence argument also seems kind of silly to me. For one, the chances of a home invasion for most people are extremely remote. Secondly, in the event that this does happen, chances are low that you'd be able to get it out of your safe in time.

I don't mean to sound judgemental about people that want to own guns, I just think this particular argument is rather weak.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 09:26 PM
 
How long do you think it takes to remove a gun from a safe? Are you thinking about the old-timey wild west variety? Somewhat similar to what I have: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B006OGNL..._t3_B00EXQW672 Takes 2 seconds to open and access the firearm.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This owning a gun in your home for self defence argument also seems kind of silly to me. For one, the chances of a home invasion for most people are extremely remote. Secondly, in the event that this does happen, chances are low that you'd be able to get it out of your safe in time.

I don't mean to sound judgemental about people that want to own guns, I just think this particular argument is rather weak.
Do you live in a border state? There have been at least four in the Phoenix metro area since the start of the year. In one, two women were beat to death in Sun City Grand.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2016, 09:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Do you live in a border state? There have been at least four in the Phoenix metro area since the start of the year. In one, two women were beat to death in Sun City Grand.
Eh, don't worry about it, it probably won't happen to you. Right?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 12:45 AM
 
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 04:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's key, isn't it? The vast majority of those on this forum complaining aren't in the USA, nor are they citizens, so their opinion means nothing. They allowed themselves to be disarmed and to be treated like children, with no control over what their gov't does to them, their rights quickly eroding with each passing day, powerless, and it "sticks in their craw" that we haven't buckled to fear-mongering like they did. In fact, we have more guns than ever before, and more new gun owners, while our violent crime and shooting statistics continue to drop. Irks the **** out of them.
No, what sticks in our craw is that every time 20 or 30 or 50 innocent people die at the hands of another stroppy gun freak we have to listen a week of you lot going "Oh no! The humanity! Why does this keep happening and how can we possibly stop it?" When the rest of the civilised world answered the question decades ago.

Your check against 'tyranny' (aka taxes) has been diluted by technology to the point it is no check at all. You're using the excuse of clinging to outdated legislation to justify an unhealthy hobby at a cost of many thousands of innocent lives. Some might call that tyranny you know.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 04:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
The major issue here is funding. Throw money at a scientific organization, and scientists are assigned to do the research the money is linked to. And often with the slant that the funding source requires.
But how do you come to the conclusion that the CDC has a “slant” which it is able to force onto the researchers? I'm a researcher, and this is not how money is allocated. Even if you think that individual researchers or groups have a “slant”, this is made up for by other studies performed by other groups with other perspectives. Not funding more studies is the worst of both worlds, because you have less scientific facts to base your arguments on.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
This is not epidemiology, where the CDC works at identifying a disease vector, then finding a way to neutralize it. This is social science, and a combination of sociology and group psychology, with a big helping of politics thrown in. And the CDC is not the only agency that can do health related research - far from it.
Why do you think that the CDC's expertise allows it to only fund diseases? The DoD funds a lot of science that at first (and perhaps second and third) glance have nothing to do with the military (such as basic science). That doesn't mean this branch of the DoD is only qualified to judge and fund science project with an immediate military application. (The DoD is also a way compensate for the relative lack of funding of the NSF.)
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And how can a scientist like you take at face value an implied "this thus that" statement like "owning a gun makes you less safe" without questioning how that statement was arrived at. Take a look at the actual statistics, and you see that this statement is simply correlative, and there is no causative link in any of the research that the statement is based on.
I'm aware of the difference between causation and correlation, and that it is difficult to control for other relevant factors (such as poverty). I don't think I have taken these correlations at face value, I've provided specific references here. I'd be happy if you can provide me with data and evidence that I am wrong. A strong correlation says that there could be a causal relationship between two facts, but the absence of correlations states that there cannot be a causal relationship between the two.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
This point is not a black and white, "quid ergo quo" argument, and ANY presentation of the issue as such should raise suspicions. Add that this is social science (a notoriously difficult discipline to get real, quantitative and relevant data in), and it should be clear that the "makes you less safe" meme is as specious as most of the NRA blurbs that get airtime.
Yes, and there are quite a few things which are hard to measure — and that goes both ways. For example, you don't count cases where one spouse (usually a man) threatens his significant other with a gun. Similarly, you don't have statistics about cases where someone brandishes a gun and scares off a thief. But here you see the problem of the lack of state-funded scientific studies (and the NRA has successfully pushed for cutting off funding from the state): there are indeed aspects which deserve more study, but the many prominent funding that are left have a clear political agenda.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Do you live in a border state? There have been at least four in the Phoenix metro area since the start of the year. In one, two women were beat to death in Sun City Grand.
So you are saying if you live in a border area you have a 0.0005% chance of an annual home invasion?

The math:
Households in Phoenix Metro Area: 1,537,137 (statistics from 2010, Wikipedia)
Home invasions for the first six months of the year: 4

It's not exactly a war zone.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
If you separate out "inner city" violence, you can see that there is a very concentrated problem within inner cities. You will also see that most of that problem is related to drugs, usually either sales or distribution. And the drug problem is incredibly important - and one that is societally based. We need to fix WHY people want to escape by using drugs. But the overall point is still that if a person not physically in a limited geographical area is orders of magnitude less likely to experience any sort of crime - and especially not gun-related crime - than one in that geographical area.
Most people live in cities. You can't just ignore the data because it suits your numbers. You need a more scientific basis than that and "drugs" is not adequate. Rural towns have drug problems without the gun crime. People just steal or sell themselves to feed their habits instead.
Plus I have offered an adequate theory as to why gun crime might be reduced over cities even when you factor drugs out: Everyone in the country knows each other. I think its fair to conclude that people are less likely to shoot someone they went to school with or who used to babysit them as a kid or whatever.
While the human tendency to enjoy altered states of mind is certainly an interesting issue, and addiction and escapism are too, we quickly see that "drugs" becomes a whole nest of other complicated discussions. What might be simpler and more appropriate is the persistence of the macho, hero gunphilia that exists throughout modern America and what can be done to stem that.


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
While I do not suggest that adding jail time to the enormous weight of guild a parent must feel after this sort of incident, I feel that not charging the person responsible for such an accident (even if the court decides "they have suffered enough") minimizes the impact of such laws. And I nterestingly, many federally mandated, "minimum sentence" gun laws are also "seldom enforced." They are plea-bargained away, allowing someone who would have served longer, or served actual time instead of probation, to make the DA's conviction rate look better. Neither of these is a good idea, but they both demonstrate how adding more laws doesn't always have any impact.
I get the impression reading some of these reports that the cops often decide not to press charges in many of these 'accident' cases.


Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I have extensive training in both suicide intervention and treatment of depression. "Sad" people don't commit suicide. Just plain "depressed" people don't commit suicide. Almost all are clinically depressed for an extended period of time, consider all sorts of options, and even "set their affairs in order" in a way (one hallmark of suicide risk is giving away things, often of high importance to the person giving them away). There are only a very, Rey small number of people who impulsively decide to end their lives. Read here to start. There's a lot more, but basically the popular idea that people figure they have goofed up big time and just kill themselves is false.
With respect, you can't ever possibly know if someone who is just very sad or depressed is capable of killing themselves or not. You can't ask the ones who succeed why they did it or how they felt at the time. In fact I could go so far to say that this claim is easily refuted by the fact that people can turn to suicide extremely quickly under certain circumstances. Perpetrators of massacres being a great example. Hardly any of them live to go to jail. Most shoot themselves rather than be arrested, seems fair to assume that others get deliberately shot by the cops rather than get taken in. People kill themselves early in long jail sentences or women often kill themselves after being sexually assaulted. Certainly some of these examples will have had time to plan ahead or to think it through and even to become genuinely clinically depressed as you assert, but equally certainly many of them don't.
Can you become clinically depressed in a few hours? I would argue its usually a much more gradual process than that.



Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Now we go from being clinical to my personal philosophy. Most suicides are so wrapped up in how badly they feel that death is the only thing they think can solve this. They don't think about the people they leave behind and how their loss will hurt others. I feel that most people who kill themselves are selfish and that they take a cowardly way out. So I would NOT kill myself, even if everything was going against me. But then I also have a support system that would ensure that I got treatment for depression or other indications of ineffective coping.
I'd like to think I wouldn't kill myself either but this suggests you don't really appreciate what it means to be clinically depressed. Its not rational, thats why its clinical.
Regardless, you've copped out a bit here. I'm not interested whether you would or would't, the question is if you had to, how would you do it? If some terrible evil person locked you in an inescapable cell with every form of suicide paraphernalia imaginable, and told you that you had to kill yourself or he would torture your whole family, all your friends, the first twenty innocent preschoolers he could find, a basket of puppies etc etc. And you believe him.

Would you not choose the quick bullet to the brain option over a noose or poison? If the cell was the top of a cliff over jagged rocks below and you had the option to jump, would you pick that? I think its safe to say that most people would choose the gun. Its so much easier, more convenient and hopefully less painful and scary, that its no stretch at all to imagine that faced with all the options, that might be the only one you'd seriously consider at all. Which is the point. Take away the gun, maybe someone can't be bothered to go find a bridge (maybe they are too wasted to manage it). Maybe they don't fancy the noose (or are too wasted to tie one). You can see where I'm going with this I'm sure.



Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Were it only a group decision, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, it's a political decision, taken specifically for political purposes. The AMA has not taken a real political stand against intoxicated driving - not in a way that leads to bad science and faulty research - yet more people are killed in US auto accidents related to alcohol than in shootings of any kind. The AMA has other unpleasant political angles as well, some of which limit the access individuals have to any sort of medical care (for example, primary care nurse pratitioners are limited not only in their scope of care, but in how close they must be physically to the physician who supervises them, which hurts medical access in rural areas). So I don't bow down to "they're all doctors, they must have a better idea about this than I do." That's BS.
How did we get from the CDC to the AMA again?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 09:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
So you are saying if you live in a border area you have a 0.0005% chance of an annual home invasion?

The math:
Households in Phoenix Metro Area: 1,537,137 (statistics from 2010, Wikipedia)
Home invasions for the first six months of the year: 4

It's not exactly a war zone.
That was a quick look at Google, for the Phoenix area. I didn't look at Tucson, Yuma, Douglas, Bisbee, Nogales, and the towns, and cities that are closer to the border.

Our local ABC affiliate did an investigation on kidnapping stats the Phoenix PD used in 2009 to get Obama stimulus funding. Of the 668 (>56/month) "kidnappings" 218 were home invasions. That's a little over 18 a month.
Exposing Phoenix Police Kidnapping Statistics - Infogram, charts & infographics
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No, what sticks in our craw is that every time 20 or 30 or 50 innocent people die at the hands of another stroppy gun freak we have to listen a week of you lot going "Oh no! The humanity! Why does this keep happening and how can we possibly stop it?" When the rest of the civilised world answered the question decades ago.
You didn't answer shit, all you did was infantilize your citizenry, turning the whole EU into a big ****ing pram and place pads on the sharp corners of the coffee table. That's good enough for you, I get it, but it isn't for us. And you fellas in other countries scream "oh the humanity" more than we do, we know what's been causing this lately, and it's called radicalised Islam. Maybe you're heard of it?

Your check against 'tyranny' (aka taxes) has been diluted by technology to the point it is no check at all. You're using the excuse of clinging to outdated legislation to justify an unhealthy hobby at a cost of many thousands of innocent lives. Some might call that tyranny you know.
You think it's about taxes? You really have the testes to say that with your own country spiraling down the EU drain while losing more direct representation by the day? That's rich. Were people concerned about Pol Pot or Stalin because they were raising the taxes? "Defense against tyranny" means stopping actual tyrants, dear.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 10:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That was a quick look at Google, for the Phoenix area. I didn't look at Tucson, Yuma, Douglas, Bisbee, Nogales, and the towns, and cities that are closer to the border.

Our local ABC affiliate did an investigation on kidnapping stats the Phoenix PD used in 2009 to get Obama stimulus funding. Of the 668 (>56/month) "kidnappings" 218 were home invasions. That's a little over 18 a month.
Exposing Phoenix Police Kidnapping Statistics - Infogram, charts & infographics
That's a hell of a lot more than 4, ain't it? Makes one wonder where people like him dig up such cherry-picked, obviously fake stats. "Oh goodness, there's only been four home invasions in Phoenix in a year, herp derp."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That was a quick look at Google, for the Phoenix area. I didn't look at Tucson, Yuma, Douglas, Bisbee, Nogales, and the towns, and cities that are closer to the border.

Our local ABC affiliate did an investigation on kidnapping stats the Phoenix PD used in 2009 to get Obama stimulus funding. Of the 668 (>56/month) "kidnappings" 218 were home invasions. That's a little over 18 a month.
Exposing Phoenix Police Kidnapping Statistics - Infogram, charts & infographics

Whatever. It's a non-zero possibility, but you can't worry about every little possibility.

Does your home have carbon monoxide and smoke detectors? Burglar alarms? Would it survive a tornado or hurricane that swept in suddenly? Flash floods? Do you have it inspected for mould frequently? Do you have insurance for electrical fires? Floods? Zombie attacks?

My point is that at some point we accept risk. We accept risk when we drive a car, for example. Having a gun in your home for self defence probably caters more towards our imaginations of what might happen more than it does the statistical reality, and if we were that concerned with the statistical reality we'd be concerned with many other threats in our lives in and out of our homes.

Moreover, as has been said, it certainly isn't a given that having a gun around will always actually keep you more safe.

American gun culture is just weird.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 11:10 AM
 
If you don't take care of all risks (pretty much all homes do have CO, smoke, and burglar alarms, though), in any situation, just ignore them all! On your next sex romp through Haiti, leave the condoms at home. What's the worst that could happen?

Choosing to treat your citizens like autistic children is just weird.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 12:28 PM
 
I thought it was illegal not to have smoke and CO detectors.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You didn't answer shit,
We answered the question of how to prevent most mass shootings. Now they hardly happen at all.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
all you did was infantilize your citizenry, turning the whole EU into a big ****ing pram and place pads on the sharp corners of the coffee table.
Points for being topical I suppose but gun control never had anything to do with the EU. Australia came to the same conclusions we did and has had the same spectacularly successful result.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's good enough for you, I get it, but it isn't for us.
But why the hell not? Not that a country where you have to be concerned that anyone you ever argue with might shoot you is somehow a better situation than living in a country where you don't.

Living in peace without fear isn't good enough for me. I want to live under constant threat of death. I suggest you move to Africa or Australia where everything wants to eat you.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
And you fellas in other countries scream "oh the humanity" more than we do, we know what's been causing this lately, and it's called radicalised Islam. Maybe you're heard of it?
Radical Islam has only just jumped on this bandwagon. They are probably kicking themselves for all the time and effort they put into the 9/11 attacks hijacking planes when they could all have just gone to Walmart and probably killed just as many people between the 20 of them.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
You think it's about taxes? You really have the testes to say that with your own country spiraling down the EU drain while losing more direct representation by the day? That's rich. Were people concerned about Pol Pot or Stalin because they were raising the taxes? "Defense against tyranny" means stopping actual tyrants, dear.
I was referring to the "tyranny" that led to US independence from the empire but please do tell how Pol Pot and Stalin inspired the writing of the 2nd amendment.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Who is “them”? It's the American people who'd have decided to amend their Constitution. The bar to do so is very high, deservedly so.
"Them" is the government. And the American people have not decided to amend the constitution - not even close. What you have is an executive branch that is deciding that amending the constitution is too high of a bar, so instead they'll take unilateral action despite what's written in the constitution.

Secret list? Please don't make up stuff just because you disagree. There are no secret lists. People who don't see gun ownership as important a right as free speech or due process don't think the latter are superfluous.
Really? Where can I find the No-Fly list then? How can I find out if I'm on it, and if I am, when do I get my day in court? The same list the left wants to use to deny a constitutional amendment without due process or an adversarial court process? What's to top this same precedent from being used on the 1A, 4A, or 14A?

Because ideas can't kill 50 people in a night club or a bunch of primary school students. I can counter bad ideas with good ideas — and both sides will live to tell about it.
So the gun did it by itself, but the "idea" or radicalization that the Orlando shooter went through had nothing to do with it?

What's funny is this "solution" wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings, nor will it prevent the next one or the one after that. The Orlando shooter was cleared as a DHS contractor, and was not on the "no-fly" list. What problem is this "solution" supposed to solve? What question is it answering? It's certainly not answering the "how do we stop this in the future" question since it wouldn't have stopped it in the past. The logic is brain-damaging. The Orlando shooter still would have been able to buy a rifle or a shotgun (which would have been more deadly than any semi auto rifle in the same situation).

So tell me, how does "no fly no guns" solve our problems?

How can you justify suspending a constitutional amendment without due process?

What's to stop this logic & precedent from being applied unilaterally as soon as it's convenient for the government?
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 04:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No, what sticks in our craw is that every time 20 or 30 or 50 innocent people die at the hands of another stroppy gun freak we have to listen a week of you lot going "Oh no! The humanity! Why does this keep happening and how can we possibly stop it?" When the rest of the civilised world answered the question decades ago.
So France no longer counts as a civilized nation in your mind?

Your check against 'tyranny' (aka taxes) has been diluted by technology to the point it is no check at all.
Bullshit.
You're using the excuse of clinging to outdated legislation to justify an unhealthy hobby at a cost of many thousands of innocent lives. Some might call that tyranny you know.
Many thousands? Innocent? lol.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Whatever. It's a non-zero possibility, but you can't worry about every little possibility.
Certainly not worried when I have the ability to defend myself and my family.

Does your home have carbon monoxide and smoke detectors? Burglar alarms? Would it survive a tornado or hurricane that swept in suddenly? Flash floods? Do you have it inspected for mould frequently? Do you have insurance for electrical fires? Floods? Zombie attacks?
Sure, but just like calling the fire department, it doesn't stop the fire.

My point is that at some point we accept risk. We accept risk when we drive a car, for example. Having a gun in your home for self defence probably caters more towards our imaginations of what might happen more than it does the statistical reality, and if we were that concerned with the statistical reality we'd be concerned with many other threats in our lives in and out of our homes.
What are you basing that off? How do you reconcile this statement with the vast number of defensive gun uses in the United states?

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

Moreover, as has been said, it certainly isn't a given that having a gun around will always actually keep you more safe.
No, but it is a certainty that without one you're less safe from threats foreign and domestic.

American gun culture is just weird.
No, I think you're just ignorant towards it, and people fear what they do not understand.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2016, 07:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
"Them" is the government. And the American people have not decided to amend the constitution - not even close. What you have is an executive branch that is deciding that amending the constitution is too high of a bar, so instead they'll take unilateral action despite what's written in the constitution.
No, they haven't, but they could. And that wouldn't be the government deciding something against the will of the people, it'd be the government on behalf of the American people.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Really? Where can I find the No-Fly list then? How can I find out if I'm on it, and if I am, when do I get my day in court? The same list the left wants to use to deny a constitutional amendment without due process or an adversarial court process? What's to top this same precedent from being used on the 1A, 4A, or 14A?
You referred to a secret list that “I've got a hard on about”. If you had read my other posts here, you'd know that I'm against using the No Fly and Terrorist Watch lists.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Banning certain types of guns solves just a fringe problem, mass shootings, which represent only a tiny sliver of the total overall number of victims. Most gun fatalities in the US are due to hand guns, and banning “assault rifles” would not significantly diminish these numbers. Nevertheless, there is a hope that over time this would reduce the number of mass shootings. I also think that linking the permission for a gun purchase to the various Islamist watch lists will not do much to make a dent in the statistics. That is because mass shootings are so common in the US (unlike in other countries), only statistically, only a tiny share of them is due to Islamists. According to these statistics there were 176 instances of mass shootings (defined in this case as shootings with 4 or more victims). If the previous 3 years are anything to go by, on average there will be one mass shooting per day.
You're attributing opinions to me that aren't mine, you're making assumptions what they could be and start arguing from there. This is what I think the system should be:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Personally, I think getting a gun should be like getting a pilot's license: you should be vetted, train regularly, you'd have to learn about your responsibilities and duties as a gun owner. And the guns should be stored safely. Getting a gun should not be as easy as buying a printer. Nor should legally blind people be eligible for a carry permit.* Of course, this is not possible within the current legal framework in the US.
So if you want to argue with me, read what my opinions are, ask, but don't make assumptions.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So the gun did it by itself, but the "idea" or radicalization that the Orlando shooter went through had nothing to do with it?
The huge majority of mass shootings are not due to Islamic terrorists. Linking the two in the US is a mistake (in other countries the situation is very different).
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What's funny is this "solution" wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings, nor will it prevent the next one or the one after that. The Orlando shooter was cleared as a DHS contractor, and was not on the "no-fly" list.
Your claim that “it won't work” contradicts available evidence. Even if you want to argue in favor of not banning the sale of certain firearms to certain people, you need to grapple with this.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 05:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
We answered the question of how to prevent most mass shootings. Now they hardly happen at all.
By infantilizing your citizens, great job.

Points for being topical I suppose but gun control never had anything to do with the EU. Australia came to the same conclusions we did and has had the same spectacularly successful result.
Except that hasn't held and Aussies now have more guns than ever before, because control didn't work for them and they didn't want to remain disarmed: Port Arthur, 20 years on: Australia has more guns than ever
Tough pill for you to swallow, I know.

But why the hell not? Not that a country where you have to be concerned that anyone you ever argue with might shoot you is somehow a better situation than living in a country where you don't.

Living in peace without fear isn't good enough for me. I want to live under constant threat of death. I suggest you move to Africa or Australia where everything wants to eat you.
We don't, but we can still protect ourselves while also being able to fight back when/if the gov't becomes corrupt, and they know it. You let them do that to you, and even made you think you want it. All the while your violent crime is spiralling up while ours is dropping. That was sooo worth it, wasn't it? What a wonderful "peace" you have.

Radical Islam has only just jumped on this bandwagon. They are probably kicking themselves for all the time and effort they put into the 9/11 attacks hijacking planes when they could all have just gone to Walmart and probably killed just as many people between the 20 of them.
Yes, the last couple decades are just yesterday, right? You honestly sound disappointed. I know you Regressives like a good bloodbath, because you think it somehow re-enforces your controlling, authoritarian ways, but geez.

I was referring to the "tyranny" that led to US independence from the empire but please do tell how Pol Pot and Stalin inspired the writing of the 2nd amendment.
Pol Pot and Stalin-types have always existed, that's why we have the 2A, our separation from your lot isn't what inspired it. The fact that you think it was largely about unfair taxation is very telling indeed and reveals that you, and many more of you over there, just don't get it. It's about unequal representation, something you're dealing with now, only it looks more and more like you'll just smile and take it in the arse (voting Stay) while we split, when given the opportunity. It's past time you trade in your "stiff upper lip" for a backbone. Take your sovereignty seriously again, rather than trade it for an EU commission that you can't even vote out when they **** you over. Happy fishing... oh wait, you can't do that, your waters belong to Belgium now. Oops.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
By infantilizing your citizens, great job.
Your citizens keep throwing mass murder tantrums because they can't get a girlfriend but ours are the infants?



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Except that hasn't held and Aussies now have more guns than ever before, because control didn't work for them and they didn't want to remain disarmed: Port Arthur, 20 years on: Australia has more guns than ever
Tough pill for you to swallow, I know.
More guns for more people (23% population increase), almost all guns used as tools in rural areas or for rural pursuits, and most of the excess seems to be concentrated in the hands of existing gun nuts. British gun nuts are not like American gun nuts, I'm willing to bet Australian gun nuts aren't either.
Ultimately, they still have better laws than you, and no mass shootings in 20 years to prove it.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
We don't, but we can still protect ourselves while also being able to fight back when/if the gov't becomes corrupt, and they know it.
I'm sure you're AR-15s will work wonders against invisible Predator drones.

[QUOTE=Cap'n Tightpants;4359271]You let them do that to you, and even made you think you want it. [QUOTE]
We let them because we wanted it. Because its common ****ing sense. Common here anyway.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
All the while your violent crime is spiralling up while ours is dropping. That was sooo worth it, wasn't it? What a wonderful "peace" you have.
Its easy to get a big percentage spike when the numbers are small.

Meanwhile you live in a country where 3 year olds have to be trained how to hide school bathrooms in case a responsible gun owner having a bad week comes in to shoot them. Tell me how that is practically worse than the police state you live in perpetual fear of.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yes, the last couple decades are just yesterday, right? You honestly sound disappointed. I know you Regressives like a good bloodbath, because you think it somehow re-enforces your controlling, authoritarian ways, but geez.
The last two high profile ones involved Muslims. They didn't span decades.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Pol Pot and Stalin-types have always existed, that's why we have the 2A, our separation from your lot isn't what inspired it.
Sure, you all lived under some other tyrannical government that one time.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The fact that you think it was largely about unfair taxation is very telling indeed and reveals that you, and many more of you over there, just don't get it. It's about unequal representation
But not in the British parliament right? Or did you just undermine one point with the very next one?


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
we split, when given the opportunity. It's past time you trade in your "stiff upper lip" for a backbone. Take your sovereignty seriously again, rather than trade it for an EU commission that you can't even vote out when they **** you over. Happy fishing... oh wait, you can't do that, your waters belong to Belgium now. Oops.
Did I miss something or are you not a collection of individual states under a federal umbrella government? Not sure how its so different, but sure lets go on believing that putting up boundaries and divisions so we can all live in village tribes and start wars all the ****ing time is a great idea. Talk about ass-backwards.
You're a typical example of what we call a Little Englander. I'm not remotely surprised.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 12:48 PM
 
And we accept those deaths, because we know the price of disarmament is much higher. I get it, you're an imperialist, willing to restrict freedom of innocent people for the "greater good". Our states were never countries, with the exception of Texas (for a very short time).

You've bought into the lie that a unified Europe will better represent you, will make you stronger, but in reality with the EU you have no representation at all. We have guns to stop the take-over you're experiencing now, and you're too ignorant to see it. Your country, which has prospered for well over a millenia (f. 927CE) will now be part of an non-representative dictatorship. Congratulations! The Germans didn't get you in 1940, they only had to wait another 75 years to add you to their conquests. You should be so proud, better men than you who fought and died for your country, by the legion, all died in vain, because of criminally small-minded tw*ts with a lust for larger government over self-determination. Sad.

I was of a mind that radical Islam was the world's greatest threat, but it isn't, it's people like you, with the mantra, "Grant me the illusion of safety and security and we'll give you anything you want."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post


I was of a mind that radical Islam was the world's greatest threat, but it isn't, it's people like you, with the mantra, "Grant me the illusion of safety and security and we'll give you anything you want."
This. It blows my mind that the same police, gov't and big business that the left decries for <insert social justice issue here> is the same group of insiders that they wish to hand ultimate control by means of disarmament.

Make no mistake, even the mighty US military would not be a match for even a fraction of the armed citizenry of the United States, especially after infrastructure and economy start to collapse - for the same reasons we struggled so hard in Iraq & Afghanistan (backed by a robust peace-time economy). Sure the military would win every tactical battle, but would inevitably lose the war as the supply chains that prop up that military begin to dwindle due to economics & attrition. The elites do not care about you - at least not enough to give you a seat at the table. We, as the citizens, have a responsibility to keep the government honest and once the deterrent of an armed citizenry is off the table, those elites will be ever more daring in their attempts to subjugate and enslave, as humans are ought to do.

Thankfully we are far away from that today, but with the surveillance state and the willingness of the judiciary to gut the Bill of Rights to protect their interests, we inch ever closer to that reality due to an ever growing sense of complacency & perceived dependency on the government. The "no-fly no-guns" law would be a crucial step, demonstrating that the government can strip rights at will, in secrecy and without due process. There would be literally nothing to stop them from applying this precedent to every "right" (they would no longer be rights).....in the name of "national security". Security for whom? When forced to choose the elites will pick themselves every time at the expense of everyone else.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin. He was talking about you, Waragainstsleep.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 05:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Our states were never countries, with the exception of Texas (for a very short time).
Hawaii was a kingdom.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 09:43 PM
 
Realistically, if the American people rose up to overthrow the government, how many lives do you estimate would be lost?
Lets say that a very high percentage of civilians are on the same page so you wouldn't be talking full blown civil war. A coup.
What do you suppose the number would have been say 150 years ago?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2016, 10:14 PM
 
The best rebuttal to the looney/regressive left...

     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 12:28 AM
 
If millions of Americans took up arms and rose up and opposed the gov't, the army would back down. They wouldn't want to open fire on their countrymen; their family and neighbors. This is the USA, not China or Russia. I know authoritarians believe the military would just mow people down, but that's their own warped sensibilities, not reality.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 04:59 AM
 
Actually I don't think the military would slaughter civilians. And I'm not convinced the civilians would have to be armed for them to back down.

So you don't think any lives would be lost in a coup? And yet the number killed needlessly by the second amendment (or by the refusal to temper it at all) is likely already in the millions over the last century or so. And these are not people who chose to risk their lives to overthrow a tyrant, they are bystanders including children.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 09:30 AM
 
Grand total over 100 years should be much less than two million.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 09:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Grand total over 100 years should be much less than two million.
Thats a lot of people.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 10:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Thats a lot of people.
This statement needs to be relative to something, no?

Compared to WWII?

I pick this because it's related to the actions of tyrants.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This statement needs to be relative to something, no?

Compared to WWII?

I pick this because it's related to the actions of tyrants.
Nevermind WWII, consider:
-what the Syrian government has done to its own disarmed population
-what the alternative has done to the disarmed minorities(Yazidi,Christian, etc)
-Cambodia in the 70s 80s 90s
-The Balkans and Rwanda in the 90s
-N.Korea today

All mostly disarmed civilian populations. Unfortunately their voices wont be heard in this debate, yet im pretty certain about which side they would be on.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I concur, but your post contains neither an argument for nor against the idea that guns, not information, is the more powerful tool to fight this.
Because we're discussing danger to democracy, and the above mechanism wasn't even put on the list.

It would be foolish of me argue my position when there isn't even basic agreement on what's being defended against.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Actually I don't think the military would slaughter civilians. And I'm not convinced the civilians would have to be armed for them to back down.

So you don't think any lives would be lost in a coup? And yet the number killed needlessly by the second amendment (or by the refusal to temper it at all) is likely already in the millions over the last century or so. And these are not people who chose to risk their lives to overthrow a tyrant, they are bystanders including children.
"Think of the children!" So? People die in a revolution, saving one's country and way of life is worth dying for. You're willing to allow millions of people to die just so you can have fresh bread and a means of travel that doesn't require pedaling, walking, or caring for a horse.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Grand total over 100 years should be much less than two million.
Given population growth rates, it would be much less than 1M, like around 700k. That's less than automobiles, and dropping. Again, our violent crime and murder rates are going down, unlike places such as the UK, where they've seen an increase of 27% over the last 24 months, in part due to the EU's horrible immigration policies, but also because infantilizing adults doesn't cure the problems causing the violence, it only takes away one of the tools used to perpetrate it. "We fixed our problem!"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 12:09 PM
 
If you counted every unneeded death from guns I could see it breaking 1 mil, but probably not by much.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 23, 2016, 01:32 PM
 
The elite are entitled to and "deserve" protection. Everyone else? Not so much.



"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
"Think of the children!" So? People die in a revolution, saving one's country and way of life is worth dying for. You're willing to allow millions of people to die just so you can have fresh bread and a means of travel that doesn't require pedaling, walking, or caring for a horse.
Don't forget ambulances, police cars, fire engines. Lives get saved too. I suspect it more than balances out.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Given population growth rates, it would be much less than 1M, like around 700k. That's less than automobiles, and dropping.
Don't forget the suicides.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Again, our violent crime and murder rates are going down, unlike places such as the UK, where they've seen an increase of 27% over the last 24 months, in part due to the EU's horrible immigration policies, but also because infantilizing adults doesn't cure the problems causing the violence, it only takes away one of the tools used to perpetrate it. "We fixed our problem!"
27% sounds a lot but its easily done on numbers under a hundred. 27% on top of your thousands of instances would be a huge spike.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 01:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Don't forget ambulances, police cars, fire engines. Lives get saved too. I suspect it more than balances out.
Doubtful. Cars are our vanity, a luxury we indulge for the sake of comfort and convenience, a firearm is so much more than that when needed most

Don't forget the suicides.
Without a shred of proof that people wouldn't off themselves by other means. And what if they do? That's a freedom as well.

27% sounds a lot but its easily done on numbers under a hundred. 27% on top of your thousands of instances would be a huge spike.
It IS a huge spike, no getting around it. Hopefully Brexit will halt your immigration deluge and help lower that rate. It's no coincidence that this happened in the wake of all those new migrants, err, I mean "refugees".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 07:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Doubtful. Cars are our vanity, a luxury we indulge for the sake of comfort and convenience, a firearm is so much more than that when needed most

I think your attachment to guns is more of a vanity/luxury exercise than any of you like to admit.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Without a shred of proof that people wouldn't off themselves by other means. And what if they do? That's a freedom as well.
I suppose it is a freedom but wouldn't you prefer that people give themselves a chance to think it through rather than do it on impulse? Its kind of a big decision, bot that I believe anyone who does it regrets it. Only that they would if they could.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It IS a huge spike, no getting around it. Hopefully Brexit will halt your immigration deluge and help lower that rate. It's no coincidence that this happened in the wake of all those new migrants, err, I mean "refugees".
If a murder rate went from 1 to 3 it would be a huge percentage spike but in absolute terms its not a reason to panic.

Unfortunately leaving the EU will make any immigration problem we have worse. The EU migrants are not the real issue anyway but the French will now gleefully wave anyone wanting to get to the UK through instead of stopping them. The worse our exit affects the French, the more helpful they'll get.
And all that money we "save" from the EU membership fees has already been spent saving the NHS, mitigating austerity cuts, improving infrastructure, bailing out our unviable steel industry, and half a dozen other things before it can go to improving our border security. And of course, we won't actually save any money in the first place anyway.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 11:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I think your attachment to guns is more of a vanity/luxury exercise than any of you like to admit.
My guns have never killed anyone, much less any innocent person. Every day your car contributes to the deaths of millions while destroying our environment AND keeping us all in bed with Islamic states that openly support terrorism.

I suppose it is a freedom but wouldn't you prefer that people give themselves a chance to think it through rather than do it on impulse? Its kind of a big decision, bot that I believe anyone who does it regrets it. Only that they would if they could.
I have no issues with adults killing themselves, many are just tired of living and it's the ultimate expression of individual freedom. I feel a lot of times that medicine can keep people around longer than we were ever intended to live; 80, 90, even 100 years or more. That takes its toll on the world around us.

If a murder rate went from 1 to 3 it would be a huge percentage spike but in absolute terms its not a reason to panic.
Are you playing daft? I wasn't talking about just murder, I said violent crime. With numbers in the 100s of 1000s. From the article:

"Violence recorded by the police rose by 185,000 offences in the year to September."

I guess that's what happens when you take the liars in British media seriously...

Unfortunately leaving the EU will make any immigration problem we have worse. The EU migrants are not the real issue anyway but the French will now gleefully wave anyone wanting to get to the UK through instead of stopping them. The worse our exit affects the French, the more helpful they'll get.
And all that money we "save" from the EU membership fees has already been spent saving the NHS, mitigating austerity cuts, improving infrastructure, bailing out our unviable steel industry, and half a dozen other things before it can go to improving our border security. And of course, we won't actually save any money in the first place anyway.
That doesn't even make sense. I've already heard Nigel Farage's plan, you up the border security and send the illegals back to Calais. It's a lot less expensive than having even more hostile people (who refuse to uphold UK values and the tenants of Western Liberalism) on the dole, and that's exactly what they've been doing, with >80% of all migrants living as dependents of the state, abusing your NHS to the point of collapse, and tearing down your national infrastructure. Wake the **** up. The lies you'd bought into from the EU councils were crushing your country, and that was their intent, to make you turn over your country to the Euro powerbrokers without even a fight. It's unbelievable that 48.2% of you couldn't see it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 24, 2016, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
My guns have never killed anyone, much less any innocent person. Every day your car contributes to the deaths of millions while destroying our environment AND keeping us all in bed with Islamic states that openly support terrorism.
You have way more cars than I do. And you know the right that affords you those guns is what costs lives, don't play dumb.



Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I have no issues with adults killing themselves, many are just tired of living and it's the ultimate expression of individual freedom. I feel a lot of times that medicine can keep people around longer than we were ever intended to live; 80, 90, even 100 years or more. That takes its toll on the world around us.
I don't object to suicide if its an informed choice. Its difficult for some to accept but there are circumstances where its actually quite logical. I wouldn't want to be a vegetable in a hospital bed. But there are definitely people who perhaps while intoxicated having had a bad day might pick up a gun and top themselves, where they might have woken up later feeling better. I'm not in favour of that, its no different to getting hit by a bus. It happens, but we put up rails in places where it happens too easily.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That doesn't even make sense. I've already heard Nigel Farage's plan, you up the border security and send the illegals back to Calais. It's a lot less expensive than having even more hostile people (who refuse to uphold UK values and the tenants of Western Liberalism) on the dole, and that's exactly what they've been doing, with >80% of all migrants living as dependents of the state, abusing your NHS to the point of collapse, and tearing down your national infrastructure. Wake the **** up. The lies you'd bought into from the EU councils were crushing your country, and that was their intent, to make you turn over your country to the Euro powerbrokers without even a fight. It's unbelievable that 48.2% of you couldn't see it.
Farage is a lying turd. Minutes after the result was confirmed he finally admitted one of the biggest tailgates of the leave campaign was a lie.
Migrants are not causing the collapse of the NHS. Thats just more shit from the Daily Fail and The Sun. We aren't going to send people back to Calais because the French won't take them back and so they'll end up trapped in the English Channel and the British people won't stand for that. We're an island, we can't close our borders that easily anyway. If they get trapped at sea, they'll just swim around the border patrols or die trying.
We don't have the money police our whole damn coastline. Its more likely we end up flying them back to whatever country they claim to come from at even more expense. Whatever the system ends up being its a total cluster****. No-one has thought it through.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:39 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,