Guns & Gun Violence

see4

see4

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
But you are speaking as if the "stricter checks" get anything DONE.
I contend that they do not and are playing into the disarmers' agenda, the death of our civil rights by ten thousand mouse bites.

You cannot simultaneously hold both views.

Click to expand...
Not sure that's entirely accurate. We've [US] never had "stricter" checks across the nation. In states where gun laws are more prohibitive and checks are more strict, we do see less gun violence related crimes. But that's not to say gun violence doesn't exist in those places. So does it really help? Well statistically speaking it does.

But will it at the national level. I don't know. Looking at Chicago for example, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country... well we know the story there.

Personally, I'm for making it more difficult for people to get them, legal or otherwise. But still have the ability to get them, across the board. What say you?
 
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
bearkat42 said:
My point is not that violence wouldn't occur. That would be ridiculous. But the killings would (in my opinion) have to decrease simply because of the proximity required to commit said killings.
I also don't really buy the "bad guys would still have guns" argument either. All of you armed cowboys running around bragging about your weaponry, who exactly are you stopping? What crimes are you preventing?
Click to expand...
I don't brag.

I don't and shouldn't have to rely on someone to protect me.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
see4 said:
Not sure that's entirely accurate. We've [US] never had "stricter" checks across the nation. In states where gun laws are more prohibitive and checks are more strict, we do see less gun violence related crimes. But that's not to say gun violence doesn't exist in those places. So does it really help? Well statistically speaking it does.
Click to expand...
I am under the impression that the cities in the USA with the tightest gun laws are also the most violent places in the nation.

I could be wrong.
But will it at the national level. I don't know. Looking at Chicago for example, with some of the strictest gun laws in the country... well we know the story there.
Click to expand...
That is why UK and Aus are so interesting to me. They show that when you take away the guns, violent (not gun, but sticky stabby cutty things) crime goes up and stays up.
Personally, I'm for making it more difficult for people to get them, legal or otherwise. But still have the ability to get them, across the board. What say you?
Click to expand...
Where I live I cannot buy some of the utterly reasonable guns I want. Restore that capacity, I say. Until then I am already overrestricted.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
bearkat42 said:
Yes, but unfortunately I'm doing this from my phone. I can post them later on. It's basically common sense though.
Click to expand...
I am very careful around "basic common sense".
Much of it does not stand up to close analysis.
That is why I like to know the numbers that back, refute or simply obfuscate the issue at hand.
S. Clemens remarked wisely about "lies, damned lies and statistics" so the numbers aren't for the uncritical thinkers among us ... and yet it's still the best tool we have for bringing some definition to an emotionally lively topic.
 
Bugeye

Bugeye

Well-Known Member
bearkat42 said:
My point is not that violence wouldn't occur. That would be ridiculous. But the killings would (in my opinion) have to decrease simply because of the proximity required to commit said killings.
I also don't really buy the "bad guys would still have guns" argument either. All of you armed cowboys running around bragging about your weaponry, who exactly are you stopping? What crimes are you preventing?
Click to expand...
This cowboy lives in mountain lion territory. Got some now that aren't afraid of humans so when I see a scratch pile I do take comfort in having a side arm.

Flaming Pie busted out some FBI stats in another thread showing US gun murders are down slightly the last few years while we know gun sales have gone through the roof.

Interestingly, US is in 121st place out of 200+ countries for homicide rate (all murder, not just gun murder) according to Wikipedia. Honduras wins!

What do we do about guns? :shock:

Guess I'll just keep mine and worry about myself.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I am arguing with that. Do you have reliable numbers on this?
Click to expand...
Well statistically speaking, over time, gun violence has proportionally increased. So yea, more guns = more gun violence.

The year is 1487, and little Timothy is out for a walk near his local Fox News station and decides to step in a get the facts. Sir Walter Billium Oreilly says to little Timothy, "FUCK IT, I'LL DO IT MYSELF!", then says, "Little Timothy, or whatever the fuck your name is, there's only been 12 shootings this year."

Now the year is 2015, and little Timothy's great great great great great great great great great great great grandson, walks to the nearest CNN news station and poses the same question. Coyote Blitzer says, "A lot kid, thousands, many thousands per year"


Now of course, I can't support any of this information right now with references, but I did want to take a jab at Fox News and CNN. So there's that.
 
G

god1

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Right, guns themselves don't kill people; people do. A very valid argument.

Who can have a gun, and who cannot?

Currently, if you've committed a felony violent crime or beat your wife, which I suppose is a misdemeanor in some places, you can't has. No gun for you! (seinfeld)
If you are currently smoking the pot [or other drugs], illegally or otherwise, you can't has.
If you wanted to hang yourself, you can't has.

But it asks nothing about, "Are you a Jihadist?" or "Are you currently, or ever plan on, being off your rocker?"

How do you control that? Do you make it subjective to the gun dealer selling the firearm? Then you open the door for profiling.

Gun control is a very tough argument, in either direction. Obviously we can't get rid of guns, we can't ban them and we can't profile people. So what do we do?
Click to expand...
If feeling safe is the issue:

It is a tough problem, because our system assumes people for the most part are responsible. Turn that assumption around and the solutions will lead you down another path.

Fixes, such as, profiling, increased surveillance, implants are deemed too invasive by the general public. However if you truly wanted a solution, escalated implementation of those techniques is what would be required. Given the nature of the problem, there's just no way of guaranteeing any security without doing a better job of sampling the population.

Personally I much prefer freedom over security and assume the risk.

However, getting rid of the goofy politicians that won't acknowledge the problem for what it is would be a welcome start.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
see4 said:
Well statistically speaking, over time, gun violence has proportionally increased. So yea, more guns = more gun violence.

The year is 1487, and little Timothy is out for a walk near his local Fox News station and decides to step in a get the facts. Sir Walter Billium Oreilly says to little Timothy, "FUCK IT, I'LL DO IT MYSELF!", then says, "Little Timothy, or whatever the fuck your name is, there's only been 12 shootings this year."

Now the year is 2015, and little Timothy's great great great great great great great great great great great grandson, walks to the nearest CNN news station and poses the same question. Coyote Blitzer says, "A lot kid, thousands, many thousands per year"


Now of course, I can't support any of this information right now with references, but I did want to take a jab at Fox News and CNN. So there's that.
Click to expand...
Annie needs some of your genetics. With load tables.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
god1 said:
If feeling safe is the issue:

It is a tough problem, because our system assumes people for the most part are responsible. Turn that assumption around and the solutions will lead you down another path.

Fixes, such as, profiling, increased surveillance, implants are deemed too invasive by the general public. However if you truly wanted a solution, escalated implementation of those techniques is what would be required. Given the nature of the problem, there's just no way of guaranteeing any security without doing a better job of sampling the population.

Personally I much prefer freedom over security and assume the risk.

However, getting rid of the goofy politicians that won't acknowledge the problem for what it is would be a welcome start.
Click to expand...
You may very well be right. What boils down to essentially, profiling, may be the answer. It certainly has worked for Homeland Security and airports.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Bugeye said:
This cowboy lives in mountain lion territory. Got some now that aren't afraid of humans so when I see a scratch pile I do take comfort in having a side arm.

Flaming Pie busted out some FBI stats in another thread showing US gun murders are down slightly the last few years while we know gun sales have gone through the roof.

Interestingly, US is in 121st place out of 200+ countries for homicide rate (all murder, not just gun murder) according to Wikipedia. Honduras wins!

What do we do about guns? :shock:

Guess I'll just keep mine and worry about myself.
Click to expand...
And interestingly enough, statistically speaking, per capita, the US is not #1 in mass shootings. In fact, we are not in the top 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top