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 3)
Thread Tools
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 03:19 PM
 
Okay, I'm willing to compromise, so far we have a provision proposed that will keep people on the Terror Watch list, backed by judicial oversight, from being able to purchase handguns and semi-automatic rifles for 36 months, or until that person wins direct appeal. I can get behind that. In exchange, we start the process of rounding up all non-citizen radical Muslims in the USA and deport them. Thoughts?
"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 16, 2016, 06:54 PM
 
How on Earth would you do that, and why does something need to be offered in exchange for you to get behind something that is a pretty obvious no-brainer?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 10:25 PM
 
Because he's bigoted against Muslims. And he just has to scratch that itch. It's as simple as that.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 16, 2016, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How on Earth would you do that, and why does something need to be offered in exchange for you to get behind something that is a pretty obvious no-brainer?
You add people on the Terror Watch list to the NICS, overseen by a judicial panel and allowing for appeals, I'm sure there are database people who can figure out the logistics of it. The second part is added to the bill to get the Repubs on board with the first part, otherwise none of it will pass.
"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 16, 2016, 10:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Because he's bigoted against Muslims. And he just has to scratch that itch. It's as simple as that.
I am bigoted against radical Islam, much like you are against rural Southerners.
"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 17, 2016, 12:44 AM
 
Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting | FOX31 Denver

No surprise, at all. Good for them, it feels good to take your security into your own hands.
"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 17, 2016, 02:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Okay, I'm willing to compromise, so far we have a provision proposed that will keep people on the Terror Watch list, backed by judicial oversight, from being able to purchase handguns and semi-automatic rifles for 36 months, or until that person wins direct appeal. I can get behind that. In exchange, we start the process of rounding up all non-citizen radical Muslims in the USA and deport them. Thoughts?
It probably won't be a surprise both of these rub me the wrong way.

I assume the terror watch list is as crappy as the no fly list. I guess you may be able to fix that with some judicial oversight, but I'm skeptical. Sounds unconstitutional, too.

I can't do mass deportations either. That's a box which should be kept closed. If I'm hinky about the terror watch list, I'm going to be double-dog hinky about the "deport list".
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 04:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I assume the terror watch list is as crappy as the no fly list. I guess you may be able to fix that with some judicial oversight, but I'm skeptical. Sounds unconstitutional, too.

I can't do mass deportations either. That's a box which should be kept closed. If I'm hinky about the terror watch list, I'm going to be double-dog hinky about the "deport list".
I agree with you here. At least if you are a non-American and you get flagged, it's quite hard to even find out why. And mass deportations based on fear and no evidence whatsoever? That's something the people would regret deeply after a decade or two.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 07:19 AM
 
Before you use any list as a tool, you better make sure its accurate and if fault is found, a process to fix it quickly.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 09:21 AM
 
So MP Jo Cox is gunned down by a political extremist. In England, where it's almost impossible for anyone to get a firearm. How well did the gun control laws work there?

Background checks for any private sale? Maybe. But since NICS ONLY works through licensed dealers, how are you going to work that? It takes the licensee's time and resources to make the phone call, so what's a reasonable fee for that? And since you're doing a transaction that doesn't really benefit the licensee, how motivated is that licensee going to be to "help you out?" We need a different mechanism, but not one that depends on someone's profit motive, nor on going to the police station, or something stupid like that.

And on the subject of NICS, why am I not hearing about all sorts of federal efforts to get EVERY state to submit ALL the data NICS needs? Like court decisions on people with psych diagnoses? Like the VaTech shooter? That all by itself would have kept both the Virginia Tech and Colorado Theater shootings from happening, because both perpetrators would have been stopped at the gun shop counter. Eerie silence...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 09:36 AM
 
Doctor - patient confidentiality.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I agree with you here. At least if you are a non-American and you get flagged, it's quite hard to even find out why. And mass deportations based on fear and no evidence whatsoever? That's something the people would regret deeply after a decade or two.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It probably won't be a surprise both of these rub me the wrong way.

I assume the terror watch list is as crappy as the no fly list. I guess you may be able to fix that with some judicial oversight, but I'm skeptical. Sounds unconstitutional, too.

I can't do mass deportations either. That's a box which should be kept closed. If I'm hinky about the terror watch list, I'm going to be double-dog hinky about the "deport list".
I'm struggling to see why you guys care if radical muslims who are spreading homophobia and hate get deported. Baffling. 1 The right to freedom of expression in this country does not extend to non-citizens. 2. Instigating hate crimes isn't freedom of speech. 3. They're visitors abusing our system to spread unAmerican values.
"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 17, 2016, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
And on the subject of NICS, why am I not hearing about all sorts of federal efforts to get EVERY state to submit ALL the data NICS needs? Like court decisions on people with psych diagnoses? Like the VaTech shooter? That all by itself would have kept both the Virginia Tech and Colorado Theater shootings from happening, because both perpetrators would have been stopped at the gun shop counter. Eerie silence...
Because our politicians don't really care about fixing the issue, they want to use it as political leverage.
"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 17, 2016, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I'm struggling to see why you guys care if radical muslims who are spreading homophobia and hate get deported. Baffling. 1 The right to freedom of expression in this country does not extend to non-citizens. 2. Instigating hate crimes isn't freedom of speech. 3. They're visitors abusing our system to spread unAmerican values.
I'm not trying to protect radicals. I'm trying to protect everyone else from the proverbial mile which gets taken once you give the government an inch.

I don't trust the government to decide who belongs in the class we've decided to attack, nor do I trust them to keep it limited to that single class.

IOW, government solves problems poorly, which is why freedom has a price.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Gun sales surge among gays, lesbians after Orlando shooting | FOX31 Denver

No surprise, at all. Good for them, it feels good to take your security into your own hands.
Yes, being a target of hate and needing to purchase something to possibly kill someone with feels great.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
So MP Jo Cox is gunned down by a political extremist. In England, where it's almost impossible for anyone to get a firearm. How well did the gun control laws work there
You're better than this, gh. Your argument here is because one gun death occurred gun control is somehow a failure.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
So MP Jo Cox is gunned down by a political extremist. In England, where it's almost impossible for anyone to get a firearm. How well did the gun control laws work there?
Since our gun deaths total is something like 1/40th of yours, pretty ****ing well thanks.



There is talk the gun was home made. Our cops are saying very little about the shooter thus far.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 03:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Since our gun deaths total is something like 1/40th of yours, pretty ****ing well thanks.
I would say the gun control laws in the UK are pretty damn effective.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 06:33 PM
 
Though I'd note our rate in the US would be a good deal lower if our drug policy was sane.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Doctor - patient confidentiality.
If it's gone to a court, it's NOT confidential, it's part of public - though typically confidential - record. Many states routinely provide "individual was committed to a hospital for psychiatric reasons" information to NICS. In most states (Texas is an example), it takes two physicians appearing before a judge to attest to the diagnosis before someone can be involuntarily committed. Voluntary commitment is a personal decision - but it is supposed to be reported to NICS as well, since any commitment for mental health reasons is a disqualifying condition.

If a doctor has not informed authorities that someone is a danger to himself/herself and others due to a medical/mental condition, that doctor has violated the law in many (but sadly, not all) states. Entering information about this issue is not "publicizing" it, it merely flags the record of that individual - and disqualifies him/her through NICS.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 07:01 PM
 
The gun control measures being proposed by the left that suspend due process concerning the 2nd amendment (as well as the 4th & 14th) would not have stopped the Orlando massacre. The "terror watch list" is not only arbitrary, but it is by design secret. What legal protections would stop the government from placing literally everybody on the list? There's no checks and balances with it, and it completely upends our entire judicial system.

Replace the 2A with the 1A in this context. Free speech for everyone, well except for who the government decides doesn't get it based on secret criteria without public oversight.

In addition, these measures:

Would not have stopped Newtown

Would not have stopped Columbine.

Would not have stopped the vast majority of homicides committed in urban wastelands where existing laws are plenty to make the ownership & use of said guns illegal in the first place.

So tell me, please, anyone, how introducing these measures designed to stop .00000011% of our current population year over year (the 2015 proportion of citizens who committed "mass killings", which others have pointed out isn't even an accurate metric) are rational and/or justified?

A) You won't stop what you claim to be aiming to stop.
B) You'll suspend due process for the entirety of the country concerning a fundamental constitutional right.
C) You'll make it easier for ISIS/whoever to perpetrate these killings, considering every target will now be guaranteed to be soft instead of just a few
D) When seconds count, the police will still be 3 hours away, and some asshole will still probably barricade you in with the shooter.

If you're ISIS/one of the bad guys, you couldn't ask for a better outcome. "We attack them, and they disarm themselves in response!"

It's mind numbing brain damage to think that we'll be able to stop attacks like this through gun control.

Add in the militarization of the police, and it's even more mind numbing. I thought the left was all up in arms about the way our police treat minorities? Now you want to rely on them, and solely them for armed protection? Great idea!

Fcking Sheep.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 07:01 PM
 
our homicide rate is ~4.5 per 100k, which is still tiny.
"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 17, 2016, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don't trust the government to decide who belongs in the class we've decided to attack, nor do I trust them to keep it limited to that single class.
Given the choice, I'd get rid of the non-citizen radical Islamists before I'd ever let them take our firearms.
"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 17, 2016, 07:11 PM
 
Well, as I said, I'm against taking firearms, and I'm also against a policy of deporting people because of their ideas.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Well, as I said, I'm against taking firearms, and I'm also against a policy of deporting people because of their ideas.
Even if those ideas are "gays need to die, go out and kill them"?
"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 17, 2016, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Because our politicians don't really care about fixing the issue, they want to use it as political leverage.
Sadly, and tragically, this is the real crux of the matter. Pols on one side don't want more control, they want a wedge and a lever. Pols on the other side don't want all the rules to go away, they want to have something they can beat their chests about and crow that they "took a stand".

In 1986, Congress "banned" machine guns. Except they didn't. All they did was close the NFA registry for newly made machine guns. Which only made machine guns a rich person's hobby. (There are somewhere between 1.5 and 2 million "machine guns" in private hands, perfectly legal and all on the up and up - but every year each one "appreciates" in value because of the limited pool of such devices.).

Why did Congress take any action at all? Miami Vice made it look (to some) like bad guys had machine guns everywhere. Which was patently false and absurd. There is no record of the legal owner of a registered machine gun using it to commit a crime. Period. Further, the incidence of criminal activities using machine guns is infinitesimal - and all were either converted illegally, stolen (often from police officers/departments), or illegally imported.*

Currently, if I were to have the $15,000+ needed to buy a machine gun, I would have to apply for permission, submitting a $200 fee, and wait as much as 8 months for a decision (which could be "no"). But if Joe Gangsta can find some black market way to obtain a machine gun, he just has to have the cash up front...

*The Byzantine and arcane regulations surrounding the "ban" of machine guns has led to some of the most idiotic and stupendously dumb legal cases to pass before the bar. In one, a shoelace, used just so was determined to be "a machine gun" because it allowed a person to make his rifle go off more than once (on purpose, of course) with a single pull of the trigger. On the other hand, normal wear and tear can make old parts fail and a rifle could accidentally fire more than once with a single pull of the trigger - which has put more than one person in prison for a long time... That's what happens when politicians write laws about technical subjects they not only don't know anything about, but also have no real interest in "getting right."

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You're better than this, gh. Your argument here is because one gun death occurred gun control is somehow a failure.
Nope. It's about how so many people want to institute draconian restrictions right now without even considering whether their knee-jerk ideas of bans and confiscation might not actually work - let alone the way they wanted. This was just a very timely example of how such bans don't work.

Example: Great Britain. Emotional rhetoric led one party to "success" by capitalizing on the horrific acts of one person at a school in Scottland, and Britains lost a big chunk of freedom. As a side effect, guns having been confiscated, criminals began using all sorts of other weapons. There are relatively new laws that restrict even kitchen knives. Look it up. Australia did something similar, with similar side effects. Just banning and confiscating guns doesn't stop crime.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Even if those ideas are "gays need to die, go out and kill them"?
That statement, made directly, would run afoul of laws against inciting violence.

Defending the scripture which declares this to be holy law is nowhere near as cut and dried.

Further, I get the impression the "legal" definition of "gay" in this context doesn't mean "a man who is sexually attracted to other men", but means "a man committing sodomy in front of four witnesses", which further complicates the issue.


To be clear, my point isn't to defend the imam in question, my point is to say the litmus test proposed doesn't test positive for the person you want to catch. The test would need to be more expansive, and right there is why I'm against it. It doesn't even exist yet and is already asking for a bigger net.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
our homicide rate is ~4.5 per 100k, which is still tiny.
And as I keep harping on, would be lower if we weren't actually incentivizing murder via drug prohibition.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And as I keep harping on, would be lower if we weren't actually incentivizing murder via drug prohibition.
Yes, the majority is gang/drug related.

Once you remove the cesspools (highest affected US cities), the US would rank average on homicide rates.

-t
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 10:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Nope. It's about how so many people want to institute draconian restrictions right now without even considering whether their knee-jerk ideas of bans and confiscation might not actually work - let alone the way they wanted. This was just a very timely example of how such bans don't work.
For the vast majority of people supporting this gun control, it comes down to ignorance.

The laws they suggest would not affect them as guns and firearms are not part of their daily (or even yearly) lives. The only exposure to guns they get is from the sensationalism-driven 24 hour news cycle, who literally profit from events such as this and from hollywood, who never portray guns anywhere near close to accurately. Never mind that the vast majority of DGUs never make the news, or all the suffering avoided when a good guy was not only there but had the means to prevent it. It's easy for them to demand confiscation and bans, because they are too short sighted to see the indirect impacts of what they're asking for & it has no other impact on their lives that they're capable of comprehending. It's a circle jerk of groupthink for those who've never had to fight for anything or anyone - whether it be their lives in a violent situation or for their country at war.

In other words, the "knee jerk" doesn't affect them in a way that they can see, so they are happy to drink up whatever constitution shredding policies put before them. Those who do not understand the first thing about firearms are the loudest of those telling the rest of us we shouldn't have them, because government or whatever.

Irregardless of how one feels while sipping coffee in their relative paradise, the world is still not a good place (though it's better than its ever been ever). Wishing away human nature then codifying it into law is a fool's errand, one that far too many happily embrace simply because they think somehow human nature has changed in the last 30 years or so and we're "enlightened". We're still just as gullible, and just as corrupt, and just as easily subjugated as we were 1000 years ago both from a personal defense standpoint and from a "who has ultimate control of our country" vantage point. It is this wisdom that delivered the "right to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed. Some people just can't handle freedom, and need to be told what to do and feel protected by some higher authority despite the realities of the world they're born from. Never mind the fact that you're far more likely to die at the hands of the police than a CCW.

The police waited 3 hours to go in, allowing the Orlando shooter ample time to shoot 50+ people - you could have a bolt action rifle and kill that many in 3 hours in that closed space. When seconds count, you can count on the police to wait 3 hours for you to bleed out on the floor.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yes, the majority is gang/drug related.

Once you remove the cesspools (highest affected US cities), the US would rank average on homicide rates.

-t
The stat I've heard is 2/5ths. If I've done the math right, getting rid of that would put us at about 3.5.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 17, 2016, 11:51 PM
 
Eliminating the gang violence I posit would work out to a revised total of about 5,500 murders by gun per year.

That's about 15 gun murders per day.

Each state would have one every three days.

Deaths from motorcycle accidents are comparable in quantity if not quality.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 01:41 AM
 
This is nonsense. Year after year, there are far less than 100 gun homicides a year in the UK (population of over 70million). By your logic, all laws are useless because they sometimes get broken. The US and the UK are very different countries, and I'm not saying the UK laws would work in the US, but to claim they are a failure is completely bogus.

As for restrictions on kitchen knives? They don't let kids buy big, sharp, knives- BFD.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
Nope. It's about how so many people want to institute draconian restrictions right now without even considering whether their knee-jerk ideas of bans and confiscation might not actually work - let alone the way they wanted. This was just a very timely example of how such bans don't work.

Example: Great Britain. Emotional rhetoric led one party to "success" by capitalizing on the horrific acts of one person at a school in Scottland, and Britains lost a big chunk of freedom. As a side effect, guns having been confiscated, criminals began using all sorts of other weapons. There are relatively new laws that restrict even kitchen knives. Look it up. Australia did something similar, with similar side effects. Just banning and confiscating guns doesn't stop crime.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 02:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yes, the majority is gang/drug related.

Once you remove the cesspools (highest affected US cities), the US would rank average on homicide rates.

-t
That's key, right there, with certain parts of the population carrying a rate in excess of 80/100k and accounting for >50% of all gun-related homicides, we'd have a better rate than Canada if those weren't included and be on-par with the firearm-phobic EU.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
For the vast majority of people supporting this gun control, it comes down to ignorance.

The laws they suggest would not affect them as guns and firearms are not part of their daily (or even yearly) lives. The only exposure to guns they get is from the sensationalism-driven 24 hour news cycle, who literally profit from events such as this and from hollywood, who never portray guns anywhere near close to accurately. Never mind that the vast majority of DGUs never make the news, or all the suffering avoided when a good guy was not only there but had the means to prevent it. It's easy for them to demand confiscation and bans, because they are too short sighted to see the indirect impacts of what they're asking for & it has no other impact on their lives that they're capable of comprehending. It's a circle jerk of groupthink for those who've never had to fight for anything or anyone - whether it be their lives in a violent situation or for their country at war.

In other words, the "knee jerk" doesn't affect them in a way that they can see, so they are happy to drink up whatever constitution shredding policies put before them. Those who do not understand the first thing about firearms are the loudest of those telling the rest of us we shouldn't have them, because government or whatever.

Irregardless of how one feels while sipping coffee in their relative paradise, the world is still not a good place (though it's better than its ever been ever). Wishing away human nature then codifying it into law is a fool's errand, one that far too many happily embrace simply because they think somehow human nature has changed in the last 30 years or so and we're "enlightened". We're still just as gullible, and just as corrupt, and just as easily subjugated as we were 1000 years ago both from a personal defense standpoint and from a "who has ultimate control of our country" vantage point. It is this wisdom that delivered the "right to keep in bear arms shall not be infringed. Some people just can't handle freedom, and need to be told what to do and feel protected by some higher authority despite the realities of the world they're born from. Never mind the fact that you're far more likely to die at the hands of the police than a CCW.

The police waited 3 hours to go in, allowing the Orlando shooter ample time to shoot 50+ people - you could have a bolt action rifle and kill that many in 3 hours in that closed space. When seconds count, you can count on the police to wait 3 hours for you to bleed out on the floor.
Agreed on all points.
"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
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 06:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
And as I keep harping on, would be lower if we weren't actually incentivizing murder via drug prohibition.
Don't confuse this with me saying US drug policy is not completely wrong, but the drug laws in the UK are as if not more restrictive than the US, and yet the homicide rate is much, much lower.

Maybe the guns do have something to do with it?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 10:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Once you remove the cesspools (highest affected US cities), the US would rank average on homicide rates.

-t
In other words, "once you fiddle the numbers to suit your own agenda...."

As Paco said, since a bunch of states have legalised weed, and given that your sentencing in many states is way higher than other countries there is an argument that your drug laws are much less of an incentive to gun crime than most.

Another key point that all of you are conveniently ignoring is the gun deaths that get ruled as accidents or suicides. Name another country that regularly sees toddlers shooting themselves or family members.

With UK style gun laws you would eliminate 99% of those accidents and who knows how many suicides. No-one knows because the CDC are forbidden to study gun deaths. That would be another common sense gun law worthy of fixing btw.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 10:05 AM
 
What if you had to pay a 'tribute' to get your 2nd amendment rights?

What if those rights were awarded on a per family basis, but each family who wanted to own guns had to execute one family member every 20 years?
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 18, 2016, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Don't confuse this with me saying US drug policy is not completely wrong, but the drug laws in the UK are as if not more restrictive than the US, and yet the homicide rate is much, much lower.

Maybe the guns do have something to do with it?
I'm not questioning that, but I'll note our non-gun homicide is close to double that in the UK. We hate ourselves in the US. Rub it in.

I also get the feeling the UK has a different relationship with drugs than the US does. I'm sure you can point to all sorts of psychosocial and historical reasons. I'm guessing one can also point to being able to walk here from where they make cocaine, but I'll admit, that's just a guess.

All that said, I pretty specifically quantified my claim in a later post. We have about 8,800 gun murders per year. If you got rid of prohibition, it would be closer to 5,500. Do you feel this is overstating my case, or ignoring some other factor to suit my agenda?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
In other words, "once you fiddle the numbers to suit your own agenda...."

As Paco said, since a bunch of states have legalised weed, and given that your sentencing in many states is way higher than other countries there is an argument that your drug laws are much less of an incentive to gun crime than most.

Another key point that all of you are conveniently ignoring is the gun deaths that get ruled as accidents or suicides. Name another country that regularly sees toddlers shooting themselves or family members.
Would you say you've addressed all points posed in your direction? I'd be more willing to to address accidents and suicides if I felt my arguments weren't getting glossed over

This is a guess on my part, but I'd say how willing someone is to commit murder as part of the drug trade will have a direct correlation with the price per unit of weight. IOW, people are far more inclined to kill each other over coke, meth, and heroin, than they are over pot.

My own personal experience is weed dealers are hippy stoners.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's key, right there, with certain parts of the population carrying a rate in excess of 80/100k and accounting for >50% of all gun-related homicides, we'd have a better rate than Canada if those weren't included and be on-par with the firearm-phobic EU.
Where is the 50%+ stat from?

It certainly feels that way, but the only stat I was able to find was 40%.
     
Hawkeye_a
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 12:23 PM
 
I'm not super well versed in the gun debate, and have never owned a gun (nor plan on owning one). However, facts dont care about feelings. And i do respect and appreciate the American narrative which lead to the second amendment. I've heard several debates between my European and American friends. Some of the statements made(which i haven't verified) include:

1. Chicago has some of the nation's toughest gun control laws, yet the highest gun related crime/murder.
2. Switzerland and Israel have the highest number of guns per household. Why is gun crime lower there? (homogeneous societies? mandatory military service?)

@ghporter
I agree that the UK and Australia might have reacted with knee-jerk legislation. While there might have been a decrease in gun related violence, I'm more interested in knowing about the change in the total amount of violent crime in those places. (ie did taking away a viable means of self defense embolden criminals?)

Yet, while decreasing the total number of guns lowers the supply available to criminals or those thinking about using guns for aggression, is the tradeof of taking away someone's ability to defend themselves justified? Considering law enforcement only gets involved *after*(ie too late) a crime is committed? I don't know.

@Paco500
Ben Shapiro shared this on his FaceBook page.


While the *intentions* behind tough gun control advocates come from a good place, i'm not entirely convinced about the outcomes, especially when looking at countries around the world.
( Last edited by Hawkeye_a; Jun 18, 2016 at 12:46 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 12:44 PM
 
Re: Chicago.

We used to have the strictest laws. Handguns were in effect banned. It was found unconstitutional in Heller v Chicago. This decision also incorporated the Second Amendment (made it apply to individual states).

I'm not sure how we currently rate in strictness. I don't own a gun. We have concealed carry, but it any business can put up a "no guns" sign, and enough have to make it impossible to carry and do business. An example of a business which uses the "no guns" clause? The CTA, our public transportation.

Chicago has within the last year, had an insane spike in homicides. Our high murder rates were touted before this happened. That was bullshit. The raw numbers were high because there's a big population. If we were dealing with a more sensible statistic, say murders per 100K, Chicago wasn't in the top 10. Hell... Chicago wasn't even number one in Illinois.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 02:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
@Paco500
Ben Shapiro shared this on his FaceBook page.
I thought 2011 was an odd year to pick, we have more recent data.

Turns out more recent data would make his argument look better, at least in terms of homicides with rifles.

If this was intentional, good on him! That's how you're supposed to do it. If your argument is strong, it can handle the data set less favorable to you.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 02:21 PM
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm pretty center-right when it comes to gun control. As a firearm owner myself I'm not one who even supports an all out ban on handguns. But this criticism that people make against handgun bans in urban centers is simply unfounded. You can't compare it to Switzerland which has a population for the entire country ... most of which is rural ... that is about the same as that of NYC which is very densely populated. It really is apples vs oranges. So let's just stop with that. Ok?

That being said ... the primary reason why gun bans in urban centers like Chicago are ineffective is because the surrounding rural areas don't have them. Or in those cases where the band are statewide the surrounding states don't have them. The illegal weapons in Chicago or NYC aren't made there. They are trafficked into those urban centers from surrounding areas. And the thing that's most hypocritical about it is that all too often the people criticizing gun control legislation in urban centers often live in the surrounding areas supplying the weapons involved in all the carnage. But then want to act like that has nothing to do with the situation.

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 02:41 PM
 
And as someone who's is probably in outer space on the issue compared to most, I have total understanding and sympathy for wanting to clamp down on handguns in urban centers, but as you say, none of that works unless it's a blanket, Federal law. Otherwise, it just flows from the unrestricted to the restricted by way of the black market.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
That being said ... the primary reason why gun bans in urban centers like Chicago are ineffective is because the surrounding rural areas don't have them.
Do you have any links or facts that would backup your claim that inner-city criminals were going out to the suburbs to buy guns ?

Sure, I can see guns begin trafficked from all over the US.
Making gun laws stricter in the suburbs would accomplish nothing.

-t
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2016, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where is the 50%+ stat from?

It certainly feels that way, but the only stat I was able to find was 40%.
It's 51% of killers between 16-34, I was incorrect, sorry. Still very chilling.
"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 18, 2016, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
I'm not super well versed in the gun debate, and have never owned a gun (nor plan on owning one).
You really should, even if you only buy it and keep it in a safe (after learning how to properly use it) along with a few 100 rounds of ammo for it. Odds are the day will come when it will be necessary and you'll wish you had one. (All empires fall, the USA is no exception.)
"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 18, 2016, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a View Post
Ben Shapiro shared this on his FaceBook page.

You can't stop all deaths. Cars probably kill more people than the rest of that list, but they have other uses. They even save lives. You can't ban cars or knives or hammers or clubs and you obviously can't ban hands and feet. The point is to try to prevent the easily preventable and needless deaths. The fact the left is going after "assault" rifles is more to do with what they might succeed at. Banning hunting rifles would be as daft as banning knives or hammers, but there is no way they are going to get away with a handgun ban so they are trying to do what they can.

If you take the protection argument, guns are a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thieves and criminals only need them because their victims all have them.



What about a law ruling that weapons for personal protection (so excluding hunting rifles) had to be pink and sparkly? Or some other cosmetic requirement to make them less macho or less cool?
I can't see a logically strong argument against such a rule. Pink sparkly guns are just as effective for home defence, but maybe some of the gang members and other less responsible people would be less inclined to pose with them or carry them etc.
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 07:38 PM.
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.,