Guns & Gun Violence

[see4]

Ok, time for me to toss around some articles, countering what some of us have said:
- http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html
- http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/death-by-gun-top-20-states-with-highest-rates/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

But then, interestingly, there's this:
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/

States with stricter gun laws show few crimes related to gun violence. However, gun violence as a whole is down. Clearly indicating that gun laws themselves are not the correlation between gun violence, which leads me to believe we need a more proactive law enforcement and a more aware society.

I think possible one thing we could do as a society is stop being super nosey about stupid shit and start being a little more politically incorrect and calling people out who we think are a tad sketchy. Or perhaps just pay a little more attention to them.
Personally I applauded the school that kicked that Muslim kid out of school for bringing in a clock that looked like a god damn bomb. He's lucky he didn't get shot, being in Texas and all.

 

[whitebb2727]

I disagree, what about other contributing factors like: increase in law enforcement, better education, wars (distraction)? Are you to say that has no bearing on decline in crime?

As I explained to dr polar bear, the Constitutional argument could have been made 200 years ago, when it took 5 minutes to reload your firearm. Not today. I highly doubt the George Washington would have wanted people carrying fully automatic assault rifles capable of churning out 100 rounds in less than 8 seconds.

So you think the second was written with no thought to the future or advancement in guns.

It doesn't really matter anyway. That is your opinion and others may differ. We can not speak for what they thought.

We have the right to gun ownership to protect against tyranny.

I do not and should not have to rely on anyone to protect me or my family. I will go as neighborhood to.

The second is also there to deter foreign invasion.

People attack assault weapons. There is no such thing. All weapons can assault. In the big picture those type weapons are a small problem.

 

[see4]

I wanna make sure I have the exact same weapons access as the jerks in the black vans, y'know, our peace officers.

I'm OK with disarming citizens, fully or fractionally, with a strict proviso: that all civilians, including the uniformed ones, be subjected to the same level of law.

Yes, me too. Agreed.

I foresee a new factor that will boost violent crime; crowding. There was a classical experiment where they bred rats in cages of finite size. The populations stabilized. Think about what that implies, and how. It's a bad thing to be a rat at equilibrium.

Humans are the Earth's virus. Fact.

Me, otoh ...
I believe that the Founders intended the citizens to have full access to the most modern weapons. It is the only way the Amendment can be construed sensibly in my view. These days a belt-fed .308 is the equivalent of that 18th-century Brown Bess. And the equivalent of a horse soldier ... take your pick. CVN? Missile sub? B-52 squad?

So you're cool with slavery? Founders intended that too. How about shagging up with your 12 year old neighbor? Not a problem, back then. Until about 1885 when it shot up to 16.

 

[budlover13]

I disagree, what about other contributing factors like: increase in law enforcement, better education, wars (distraction)? Are you to say that has no bearing on decline in crime?

As I explained to dr polar bear, the Constitutional argument could have been made 200 years ago, when it took 5 minutes to reload your firearm. Not today. I highly doubt the George Washington would have wanted people carrying fully automatic assault rifles capable of churning out 100 rounds in less than 8 seconds.

I would think that he would want the people and the government on equal ground, however he would try to ensure that.

 

[budlover13]

If you can't kill a buck [or a gangster] in less than 10 shots, you don't deserve an AR.

But if the 'gangsters' are going to have them, why shouldn't I?

 

[see4]

So you think the second was written with no thought to the future or advancement in guns.

Please see above quotes to the bear.

We have the right to gun ownership to protect against tyranny.

Luckily that ain't happening at the moment.

I do not and should not have to rely on anyone to protect me or my family. I will go as neighborhood to.

Agreed. Which makes this a tough debate.

The second is also there to deter foreign invasion.

Thats what our 450 thousand trillion billion defense budget is for.

People attack assault weapons. There is no such thing. All weapons can assault. In the big picture those type weapons are a small problem.

True statement.

 

[cannabineer]

Yes, me too. Agreed.



Humans are the Earth's virus. Fact.



So you're cool with slavery? Founders intended that too. How about shagging up with your 12 year old neighbor? Not a problem, back then. Until about 1885 when it shot up to 16.

Hell no. Some of my BEST FRIENDS are black!

I'm entirely ignoring that bringing up slavery in a gun rights discussion is a red herring.

 

[2ANONYMOUS]

We have to accept that not all outcomes can be controlled.

We can only try to be as prepared as possible for the worst case scenario.

Out response time to this last violent attack was very swift and effective. We need to make sure that our police in all areas are equipped to respond swiftly to mass homicides.

You can't identify every crazy before they commit a crime. It is simply not possible.

And being prepared i shall be

 

[see4]

But if the 'gangsters' are going to have them, why shouldn't I?

Because they hold their guns sideways.

 

[see4]

Hell no. Some of my BEST FRIENDS are black!

I'm entirely ignoring that bringing up slavery in a gun rights discussion is a red herring.

I'm sorry, but if we can say that guns are what our founding fathers wanted, then we must include all the things that came with it. Including slavery and pedo-sex.

 

[cannabineer]

And being prepared i shall be View attachment 3557586 View attachment 3557587 View attachment 3557588

I can read your serial number

 

[see4]

And being prepared i shall be View attachment 3557586 View attachment 3557587 View attachment 3557588

First, please return that Bushmaster to your nearest Dicks Sporting Goods.
Second, hide your serial number bro. Seriously.

 

[Not GOP]

If you can't kill a buck [or a gangster] in less than 10 shots, you don't deserve an AR.

"a" (singular?) Sure. But what about a "few" (plural) armed banditos?

 

[see4]

I would think that he would want the people and the government on equal ground, however he would try to ensure that.

Do you think he would want us spending trillions in defense budget only to go be the worlds police? Isn't that what he fought against?

 

[Lord Kanti]

this is the problem: the left has made it impossible for "good" gun owners to be able to carry, they keep adding "gun free zones" like it's really going to make a difference. the shooter for the batman movies purposefully bypassed other movie theaters to go to the one he attacked specifically because it was a "gun free zone." what is so hard to understand that there are people out there in society that want to hurt other people, and will do it with whatever means necessary...like driving a car through a crowd of people. the People have guns to keep the government in check. every time you hear a politician say "we have to do something" they really mean "we are really trying hard to get you all to give up your weapons"

I think I'm in love. Are you single? If not, then I guess he could just watch or maybe even clean you up afterwards...

 

[cannabineer]

I'm sorry, but if we can say that guns are what our founding fathers wanted, then we must include all the things that came with it. Including slavery and pedo-sex.

No. Packaging them together is the soul of logical fallacy. Slavery and pedo-sex were subjected to the full legal and legislative review and repealed within the system.

If the nation wishes to repeal the 2nd, there exists a specified mechanism. I'll submit to it being done thus but not the current way, with weaselry such as trying to destructively redefine people, militia, well-regulated.

 

[undercovergrow]

wasn't the slavery issue so contentious at the time, that the politicians decided to deal with "it" at another time and to get the ball rolling with identifying a black person as an actual human being, that is why the initial framers started out identifying the blacks as less than but almost--it doesn't negate the fact that the framers desired to keep the People in power and on equal footing with the ability to defend themselves from dictatorships that may arise.

 

[see4]

"a" (singular?) Sure. But what about a "few" (plural) armed banditos?

That's why clips are quickly interchangeable.


But yea, I get your point. I've got 2, 100 round drums myself.

 

[budlover13]

Do you think he would want us spending trillions in defense budget only to glow be the worlds police? Isn't that what he fought against?

And if enough people agreed and had equal arms we wouldn't be doing that now would we? He'd lead the charge and be labeled a terrorist.

 

[see4]

No. Packaging them together is the soul of logical fallacy. Slavery and pedo-sex were subjected to the full legal and legislative review and repealed within the system.

If the nation wishes to repeal the 2nd, there exists a specified mechanism. I'll submit to it being done thus but not the current way, with weaselry such as trying to destructively redefine people, militia, well-regulated.

Just because 2 of the 3 were reviewed and were subject to change, does not preclude the 3rd to be held to the same subjugation. Furthermore, the change in the two aforementioned laws were after the fact. Can't have cake and eat it too.

 

[see4]

And if enough people agreed and had equal arms we wouldn't be doing that now would we? He'd lead the charge and be labeled a terrorist.

Exactly.