Guns & Gun Violence

[cannabineer]

Yeah I've seen a lot of commando posts here for sure. Not yours, but a lot from others. I'm just not a commando tho.

I come from a gun family and have had fun shooting myself growing up. I shot a 22 rifle with my dad lotsa times. Most my bf's have been into hunting or target shooting. Guns are not evil I know. But I think it's a new situation with all the shootings and I think some changes have to be made in keeping so many crazies from getting them so easy.

What makes me heartbroken is that this sort of emotional substitute for logic plays universally these days. You have my profound sympathy.

 

[ZaraBeth420]

What makes me heartbroken is that this sort of emotional substitute for logic plays universally these days. You have my profound sympathy.

So how does your plan reduce mass shootings? You favor less restrictions on guns. How does that help the shootings go away? It's an honest question.

 

[whitebb2727]

Can you post a link to your "M4 CARBON assault rifle" for, what I'm assuming you mean as $419.

You're new to guns. Enjoy! You'll have tons of fun!

Btw, you wont be receiving it via UPS. So there's that. Unless of course you are an FFL.

Probably ordered an upper with a lower build kit and thinks its the whole gun.

 

[whitebb2727]

you won't be getting a silencer unless you have a class III license. suppressor would be the correct term.

and just file down the sear and she'll rock and roll.

Don't need a class three for a silencer. Only to pay the tax and fill out two extra pieces of paper.

 

[pnwmystery]

So how does your plan reduce mass shootings? You favor less restrictions on guns. How does that help the shootings go away? It's an honest question.

It doesn't. If anything less gun laws make these shootings easier. If you take away background checks, restrictions, etc., it'll not only become a heyday for the pro-gun people but it'll become a heyday for violent criminals.

 

[cannabineer]

So how does your plan reduce mass shootings? You favor less restrictions on guns. How does that help the shootings go away? It's an honest question.

Simple.
I've mentioned the situation in Australia and Great Britain, where gun confiscations led to increases in violent crime. I am confident that the line can be extended in the indicated direction. Thus more gun freedom becomes less violent crime.

Pretend for a moment that YOU are planning a mass shooting.

Behind Door Number One is a society with modern gun control legislation meaning few people carry, and some of those will hide the fact with some vigor.


Behind Door Number Two is a society where concealed carry is not the exception but the NORM.

Okay, choose a door. Let me know which one; I'm curious. It is one of my weaknesses.

 

[pnwmystery]

Simple.
I've mentioned the situation in Australia and Great Britain, where gun confiscations led to increases in violent crime. I am confident that the line can be extended in the indicated direction. Thus more gun freedom becomes less violent crime.

Pretend for a moment that YOU are planning a mass shooting.

Behind Door Number One is a society with modern gun control legislation meaning few people carry, and some of those will hide the fact with some vigor.


Behind Door Number Two is a society where concealed carry is not the exception but the NORM.

Okay, choose a door. Let me know which one; I'm curious. It is one of my weaknesses.

You're really really skewing your facts with the Australia and UK examples. Australians do not nor did they ever have a right to own guns, and even before the 1997 buy back program guns were heavily regulated and only certain groups were allowed to have them; such as for occupational reasons. Moreover in Australia semi-automatic and pump-action weapons were targeted with the buy-back program, while occupational groups were exempt. The myth that "violent crime increased after gun confiscation because it went up by blah blah blah percent," is also disingenuous; it does not tell a full story at all. There are other factors at work, such as population increase (of course crime rates go up the more people there are, this should be very common sense). There is also ample evidence that in Australia the murder/violent crime rate is essentially flat, only seeing a slight up tick after the gun ban which then returned to the "normal" rate. Here http://web.archive.org/web/20090417100922/http://aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi003.html we can see actually see that the homicide rate dipped after the gun ban. Moreover as we can see, fire arm related homicides also went down.

As far as the UK between 1990 and 1996 there were 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After 1996 the hand gun ban the rate reached a peak of 18.0 per million in 2003 and the British government hired 20,000 more police officers. Now the homicide rate is lower than what it was pre hand gun ban.

 

[ZaraBeth420]

Simple.
I've mentioned the situation in Australia and Great Britain, where gun confiscations led to increases in violent crime. I am confident that the line can be extended in the indicated direction. Thus more gun freedom becomes less violent crime.

Pretend for a moment that YOU are planning a mass shooting.

Behind Door Number One is a society with modern gun control legislation meaning few people carry, and some of those will hide the fact with some vigor.

Behind Door Number Two is a society where concealed carry is not the exception but the NORM.

Okay, choose a door. Let me know which one; I'm curious. It is one of my weaknesses.

But you seem to be making some iffy assumptions, if I may say so without offending. You're assuming that modern gun control legislation would mean few people carrying concealed guns. Couldn't laws be done in a way to allow good gun owners to carry all they want, but at the same time making it more difficult for crazies to get guns?

Can't the gun loving crowd seem concerned enough to make some compromise? That's what turns so many young people off the NRA. Unwillingness to at least compromise. And young people vote.

 

[cannabineer]

You're really really skewing your facts with the Australia and UK examples. Australians do not nor did they ever have a right to own guns, and even before the 1997 buy back program guns were heavily regulated and only certain groups were allowed to have them; such as for occupational reasons. Moreover in Australia semi-automatic and pump-action weapons were targeted with the buy-back program, while occupational groups were exempt. The myth that "violent crime increased after gun confiscation because it went up by blah blah blah percent," is also disingenuous; it does not tell a full story at all. There are other factors at work, such as population increase (of course crime rates go up the more people there are, this should be very common sense). There is also ample evidence that in Australia the murder/violent crime rate is essentially flat, only seeing a slight up tick after the gun ban which then returned to the "normal" rate. Here http://web.archive.org/web/20090417100922/http://aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi003.html we can see actually see that the homicide rate dipped after the gun ban. Moreover as we can see, fire arm related homicides also went down.

As far as the UK between 1990 and 1996 there were 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. After 1996 the hand gun ban the rate reached a peak of 18.0 per million in 2003 and the British government hired 20,000 more police officers. Now the homicide rate is lower than what it was pre hand gun ban.

I reject your statistics and replace them with my own.

 

[pnwmystery]

I reject your statistics and replace them with my own.

This is because people will always kill people. However, if we take away the means to commit mass murder, mass murders will go down.

 

[see4]

Simple.
I've mentioned the situation in Australia and Great Britain, where gun confiscations led to increases in violent crime. I am confident that the line can be extended in the indicated direction. Thus more gun freedom becomes less violent crime.

Pretend for a moment that YOU are planning a mass shooting.

Behind Door Number One is a society with modern gun control legislation meaning few people carry, and some of those will hide the fact with some vigor.


Behind Door Number Two is a society where concealed carry is not the exception but the NORM.

Okay, choose a door. Let me know which one; I'm curious. It is one of my weaknesses.

I choose bulbous erection.

Did I win?

 

[cannabineer]

But you seem to be making some iffy assumptions, if I may say so without offending.

If your aim is not to offend, be direct and ignore the seems. If I am being wrong, say YOU'RE WRONG instead of sidling in like a coyote on Mormon tea.

You're assuming that modern gun control legislation would mean few people carrying concealed guns. Couldn't laws be done in a way to allow good gun owners to carry all they want, but at the same time making it more difficult for crazies to get guns?

I have not seen a way. Propose one but be comprehensive and specific. Now you are hunting in Attorney turf.

Can't the gun loving crowd seem concerned enough to make some compromise? That's what turns so many young people off the NRA. Unwillingness to at least compromise. And young people vote.

I will agree to any compromise that is not a concealed abdication. Again, list possibles.

To answer your question, in a "close to perfect" gun world where all concealed carryiers are good people, trained, and safe with guns, I would choose door number 1.

But this is reality, sweetie. The entire "perfect world" reverie is a symptom of the reality-phobic behavior I find at the rotten core of every single instance of "politically correct" ideology. I am not playing that one.

[/quote]

 

[cannabineer]

This is because people will always kill people. However, if we take away the means to commit mass murder, mass murders will go down.

There were mass murders before there were guns. They were not pleasant affairs.

 

[cannabineer]

I choose bulbous erection.

Did I win?

Put the bulbous erection down and step away slowly.

Tell me sir, do you have a license for that thing?

 

[ZaraBeth420]

If your aim is not to offend, be direct and ignore the seems. If I am being wrong, say YOU'RE WRONG instead of sidling in like a coyote on Mormon tea.

OK, you're wrong. It doesn't just "seem" like you're wrong. You are wrong.

How's that?

And BTW, what the fuck is Mormon tea?

 

[see4]

What makes me heartbroken is that this sort of emotional substitute for logic plays universally these days. You have my profound sympathy.

I think she has a fair point to say that it both saddens her and steps need to be taken to make a change. It's not really possible to ignore or even exclude visceral responses as it pertains to death and violence. However, the answer is not to do away with guns, just make it harder for [certain] people to get.

And a crazy will shoot into a crowd of people regardless of percentages who carry within said crowd. Crazy people are not logical thinkers, which is why they are labeled, crazy.

 

[cannabineer]

OK, you're wrong. It doesn't just "seem" like you're wrong. You are wrong.

How's that?

Excellent! That is the fighting spirit.

Ok phase 2 of the training: bring it; how am I wrong? Weaken my knees with your arrestingly pungent reason and proudly cantilevered dialectic.

And BTW, what the fuck is Mormon tea?

Ephedra. Wiring coyotes sideways since ten million BC.

 

[see4]

You are the one claiming a correlation. You said more guns yields more "gun violence". The data from DOJ obviously refutes that silly claim.

It could be that more guns yields less violence, as the chart implies, or the two could be completely unrelated. What the chart does prove, however, is that the assertion that "more guns leads to more violence" is hokum.

Facts matter.

No desert dude. I am not trying to be confrontational with you, so please don't immediately become defensive.

The chart, only the chart, lets focus solely on that for a moment. ok?

That chart, does not in any way show us, as a matter of fact, that a direct correlation can be drawn between more guns equals less crimes. It shows two disparate points on one line graph, attempting to illustrate a correlation. Do you agree? If not, please explain.




Anyone can make a line chart about two disparate things and attempt to correlate them.

 

[cannabineer]

I think she has a fair point to say that it both saddens her and steps need to be taken to make a change. It's not really possible to ignore or even exclude visceral responses as it pertains to death and violence. However, the answer is not to do away with guns, just make it harder for [certain] people to get.

And a crazy will shoot into a crowd of people regardless of percentages who carry within said crowd. Crazy people are not logical thinkers, which is why they are labeled, crazy.

I agree that we should neither ignore nor exclude visceral arguments. But as adults we have the duty to pair them with rational, aspiringly objective arguments. Those that don't get a rational dance partner ... I feel unafraid to reject pending new improved rational shit.

As for crazies, they will always be among us. Our collective unwillingness to take a certain loss and disempower the crazies thus ... is decadence, weakness. It will destroy us.

 

[see4]

I agree that we should neither ignore nor exclude visceral arguments. But as adults we have the duty to pair them with rational, aspiringly objective arguments. Those that don't get a rational dance partner ... I feel unafraid to reject pending new improved rational shit.

As for crazies, they will always be among us. Our collective unwillingness to take a certain loss and disempower the crazies thus ... is decadence, weakness. It will destroy us.

Agreed. How? (Do we disempower the crazies) Surely not by making it easier for everyone to get guns.