If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   The Democratic paradise of Washington, DC has some of the most restrictive handgun laws in the nation, which means that the 1400 armed robberies that took place there last year are, like, totally a figment of your imagination   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 443
    More: Obvious, robbery, handguns, imaginations  
•       •       •

860 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jan 2014 at 12:20 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



443 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-01-05 09:53:10 AM  
Authorities in Worcester, Mass. credited gun control with increasing the number of knife crimes, which still count as armed.

/DNRTFA
 
2014-01-05 09:58:00 AM  
NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.
 
2014-01-05 10:07:56 AM  
So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no crime?

/it's too early for this bullsh*t
 
2014-01-05 10:16:40 AM  
Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.
 
2014-01-05 10:19:50 AM  
Why have any laws at all?
 
2014-01-05 10:24:05 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


Well, if everyone's packing we don't need any, obviously

/think of the money we can save on police alone
 
2014-01-05 10:24:24 AM  
They also have some of the most restrictive laws against burglary, car theft, robbery and murder in the country, too, yet there are burglaries, car theft, robberies and murders all the time.

Get rid of all those laws, because they clearly don't work.
 
2014-01-05 10:37:01 AM  
Yup, because, correlation equals causation. Fine homework there, Lou...
 
2014-01-05 10:47:30 AM  
So we should, like, have the government hand out free guns to every citizen?

Wait... That's socialism...
 
2014-01-05 10:58:09 AM  
submitter's logic:

murder is illegal

there are still murders

therefore murder should be legal.

QED
 
2014-01-05 11:03:21 AM  
Gun laws don't generally correlate one way or another to crime rates.
 
2014-01-05 11:12:45 AM  
The value I see in gun laws is sentence enhancement. You lump it in with related crime(s) the defendant committed to either elevate the other charges or otherwise get a tougher sentence. They're also there so you can do something if that's all you can get on them. Kind of like sending Capone to prison for tax evasion. It's pretty much the reason any criminal law is in place - not as a magical deterrent, but as an expression of what the people in a particular jurisdiction deem unacceptable and worthy of punishment if you get caught.
 
2014-01-05 11:13:19 AM  
DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-05 11:39:37 AM  
Well, it certainly means that the 2800 armed robberies that would have occurred are something we have to imagine.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-01-05 11:47:49 AM  
It's really interesting to compare the firearms death rate for different states.  DC is right at the top, but it's interesting to see how the states rank.

The gun loving states are right at the top.
 
2014-01-05 11:54:26 AM  

vpb: It's really interesting to compare the firearms death rate for different states.  DC is right at the top, but it's interesting to see how the states rank.

The gun loving states are right at the top.


That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.
 
2014-01-05 12:10:20 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


Exactly. If the law doesn't stop 100% of the problem don't bother with it. Not to mention the guns could never have come from somewhere else.
 
2014-01-05 12:12:10 PM  
Deep red parts of the county I live in don't even have police departments. Keller, Southlake, Colleyville. Don't have them. Totally non-existent because there are no crimes and loose gun laws. Any criminal activity there is a figment of the imagination. True story. All of it. Look it up
 
2014-01-05 12:13:11 PM  
More gun laws won't stop gun violence but more abortion laws will stop abortion, in rightwing bizarroland.
 
2014-01-05 12:13:21 PM  

Fark It: Gun laws don't generally correlate one way or another to crime rates.


Are you feeling ok?
 
2014-01-05 12:23:09 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.


Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.
 
2014-01-05 12:23:39 PM  
Try banning water from the center of your bathtub.
 
2014-01-05 12:24:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.


I believe it. I believe NY's gun laws work because CT and NJ have similarly strict gun laws. Actually, I'm not sure what NJ's are like.
 
2014-01-05 12:25:09 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


So that we can have courts where any disputes between individuals can be settled according to common law.
 
2014-01-05 12:25:28 PM  
I like the availability of firearms. But I just don't feel like going over the same debates with the same people today.
 
2014-01-05 12:25:37 PM  
I wonder where those guns could be coming from... hmm...

wwp.greenwichmeantime.com
 
2014-01-05 12:28:46 PM  
Obviously it means we should ban money so we can prevent others from shooting each other over it. Go back to bartering.
 
2014-01-05 12:32:36 PM  

vpb: It's really interesting to compare the firearms death rate for different states.  DC is right at the top, but it's interesting to see how the states rank.

The gun loving states are right at the top.


When did DC become a state?
 
2014-01-05 12:33:10 PM  
Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.
 
2014-01-05 12:35:24 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


Exactly! I've never murdered anyone! And none of my friends have been murdered!
 
2014-01-05 12:36:53 PM  
If getting rid of the weapons doesn't solve the problem, maybe we should consider getting rid of the people who use them instead.

/just sayin'
 
2014-01-05 12:37:41 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?

Well, if everyone's packing we don't need any, obviously

/think of the money we can save on police alone


Not to mention the boom in the morturary and trauma surgeon industries.
 
2014-01-05 12:38:22 PM  

Superjew: If getting rid of the weapons doesn't solve the problem, maybe we should consider getting rid of the people who use them instead.

/just sayin'


The police?
 
2014-01-05 12:38:28 PM  

Superjew: If getting rid of the weapons doesn't solve the problem, maybe we should consider getting rid of the people who use them instead.

/just sayin'


Some sort of 'final solution', you might say?
 
2014-01-05 12:39:34 PM  
I love the dumb stuff on. weekend Fark. Reminds me I have shiat to do.
 
2014-01-05 12:40:28 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.


This. A short ride on the Metro gets you to one of the most permissive states.
 
2014-01-05 12:41:54 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.


Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.

It's almost like, gasp, guns are not a cause of crime.

Find me the poverty, I'll find you the crooks.
 
2014-01-05 12:42:00 PM  
Gun violence is not a function of law, or accessibility, or availability, or anything that has to do with guns. It is a function of culture.

Until you change the culture, the violence will persist.
 
2014-01-05 12:43:21 PM  
 
2014-01-05 12:44:07 PM  

doglover: Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.


Guns in Chicago primarily come from out of county/state. And in 2013 Chicago had the fewest murders since 1965.
 
2014-01-05 12:46:06 PM  
1400? That's a big number! I'm convinced - without any further need for context, comparison or explanation.
 
2014-01-05 12:48:47 PM  

doglover: cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.

Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.

It's almost like, gasp, guns are not a cause of crime.

Find me the poverty, I'll find you the crooks.


Guns are not the cause of crime, but access to guns allows criminals to do more damage.

Isolated gun control laws will never be as effective as nationwide ones.  The UK and Japan both have very low rates of firearm violence because they have strict firearm control laws and can mostly prevent them from entering the country.  There's no way that Chicago can do that effectively, but if gun controls were established nationwide it would do a lot to reduce gun crime over time (it would take a while here just because of the sheer number of guns already in the country).

And sure, we're not an island, but Canada has effective firearm controls, so we wouldn't see much gun running from that border.  Mexico is another story, but effective policing near the border could hopefully catch a lot of the guns coming over and contain the gun violence closer to the border.
 
2014-01-05 12:49:56 PM  
This besides the fact that strict checkpoints at all access points to and from the city prevent anyone from bringing firearms in, from Virginia (unrestricted ownership with the exception of machine guns--hey, I have to register my machine gun in Virginia? You bastards!) or from any of the other gun-besotted neo-confederacies of the Southeast.  Most guns used in crime have either been stolen (around 15%) or transferred between individuals after the original purchase (i.e., picked up no questions asked at the local gun fair). Given that these guns are almost inevitably disposed of as too incriminating, if guns were outlawed for a short while only outlaws would have guns. And then no one would have guns.

I wish there were a sensible way to discuss this situation. I understand completely why people in the flyover states cling to their guns; they need long barrel guns to put food on the table (you sure can't afford meat at Walmart wages) and they need hand guns to protect themselves from the other poverty-stricken meth-addled hicks they share their little corner of hell with. I'm prepared to accept 30,000 annual gun deaths in this country  as the price of maintaining our Second Amendment rights. I'd just settle for a few common sense restrictions on high capacity magazines so that the next time some nutbar decides to decorate the walls at the local elementary school with children's brains, he has to stop to reload a little sooner and maybe keep the cost of freedom down just a little.
 
2014-01-05 12:52:36 PM  

sammyk: Fark It: Gun laws don't generally correlate one way or another to crime rates.

Are you feeling ok?


He's right, actually. Strict gun laws do not correlate to low crime or high crime very well. Open carry correlates to low crime mainly because the areas with open carry are rural areas which are not prone to high crime in the first place. However, cities need strict gun laws to prevent even worse death rates than currently exist, mainly because people have bad safety, poor aim, and there are a ton of bystanders around and windows for stray bullets to go through. Plus, guns are not very good self-defense in many street-crime situations in, say, here in NYC, since you don't have time to deploy your weapon and gain the advantage. Not to mention that pesky bystander and stray bullet travel problem. In home invasion style robberies, it works well. May even work well for carjackings, depending on the particulars.

In large, dense cities, gun control makes sense to me, provided law enforcement doesn't suck (most egregiously seen in Detroit and Camden). In other areas, I don't care, give them out at drive-thrus for all I care. Put in some controls for people with mental problems so they don't get guns easily. No gun control scenario will work as well as the proponents want it to work, but it's literally better than nothing in most cases. In the end, the illegal guns come from somewhere. Find a better way to crack down on that, and you have a much bigger impact.

Want the real answer to gun violence? Changing how Americans think. This "I am a man and I have to prove my mainliness and not appear weak and not getting disrespected" shiat is the absolute root of violence in the US. Solve that and you solve the real issue.

So in conclusion, gun control is certainly a bit of a misdirection in terms of result, and much of it is just legislative masturbation to respond to some outrage, but applied in the right area, with the right law-enforcement framework, will likely help. Just don't expect it to be the solution.

I don't own a gun. I like shooting guns. I don't really have skin in this game one way or the other, so I shrug more than anything.
 
2014-01-05 12:52:49 PM  

FlashHarry: submitter's logic:

murder is illegal

there are still murders

therefore murder should be legal.

QED


Look, they only want murder of "those people" to be legal.  You know the ones.
 
m00
2014-01-05 12:53:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.


They also have stop-and-frisk. Which is a whole different conversation. I was in New York for the holidays, and there was NO WHERE on the island that felt unsafe. I guess totalitarianism really can guarantee safety -- there was a cop on every corner empowered to frisk you (I made a game of "how many seconds I can go without seeing a cop"), and "if you see something, say something" posters everywhere.

The Federal Government fails because it takes away our freedoms and makes us less safe. At least in New York you get safety in exchange. So I wouldn't chalk up lowering crime rate in NYC to the gun laws alone... it's a total commitment to crime prevention at the expense of all other sensibilities.
 
2014-01-05 01:00:51 PM  

Ishkur: Gun violence is not a function of law, or accessibility, or availability, or anything that has to do with guns. It is a function of culture.

Until you change the culture, the violence will persist.


Then who will fight our wars for us?
 
2014-01-05 01:01:52 PM  

Sleeping Monkey: More gun laws won't stop gun violence but more abortion laws will stop abortion, in rightwing bizarroland.


And just the opposite in leftwing bizarroland
 
2014-01-05 01:01:59 PM  

vpb: It's really interesting to compare the firearms death rate for different states.  DC is right at the top, but it's interesting to see how the states rank.

The gun loving states are right at the top.


when i clicked on Louisiana the stats included lynchings. this caused me to question the validity of their methodology.
 
2014-01-05 01:02:49 PM  

rjakobi: Obviously it means we should ban money so we can prevent others from shooting each other over it. Go back to bartering.


How much health care can I get for this chicken?
 
2014-01-05 01:04:11 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?



IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?
 
2014-01-05 01:04:22 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.

Guns in Chicago primarily come from out of county/state. And in 2013 Chicago had the fewest murders since 1965.


So a mere 5 years after citizens were allowed to own handguns, murders dropped?
 
2014-01-05 01:05:02 PM  
never once saw a pistol rob someone.


but the Owners would enjoy disarming this Nation so they can ram that cock even further up the bottom 90%'s ass.  they love their Freedom, but only for themselves.  everyone else should be under their control.  can't do that if they're armed to the teeth.
 
2014-01-05 01:05:55 PM  

clambam: This besides the fact that strict checkpoints at all access points to and from the city prevent anyone from bringing firearms in, from Virginia (unrestricted ownership with the exception of machine guns--hey, I have to register my machine gun in Virginia? You bastards!) or from any of the other gun-besotted neo-confederacies of the Southeast.  Most guns used in crime have either been stolen (around 15%) or transferred between individuals after the original purchase (i.e., picked up no questions asked at the local gun fair). Given that these guns are almost inevitably disposed of as too incriminating, if guns were outlawed for a short while only outlaws would have guns. And then no one would have guns.

I wish there were a sensible way to discuss this situation.


No you don't.
 
2014-01-05 01:06:02 PM  

Sidecrab: Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.


"About 17% of D.C. residents were age 18 or younger in 2010; lower than the U.S. average of 24%. However, at 34 years old, the District had the lowest median age compared to the 50 states."

Yep, those young'uns tend to be a bit more ready to sling lead than older folks. I can totally see where you're coming from.

/that is what you meant by "demographics", right?
 
2014-01-05 01:06:05 PM  

AngryDragon: Sleeping Monkey: More gun laws won't stop gun violence but more abortion laws will stop abortion, in rightwing bizarroland.

And just the opposite in leftwing bizarroland


I don't think gun regulation proponents believe that a few regulations will end gun violence and crime. But you're already aware of that
 
2014-01-05 01:07:42 PM  

Sidecrab: Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.



Timothy McVeigh loves you!  keep up the good Propaganda.   do it for the Motherland.
 
2014-01-05 01:07:58 PM  

Frank N Stein: So a mere 5 years after citizens were allowed to own handguns, murders dropped?


Lost on this one.
 
2014-01-05 01:08:20 PM  
Liberal, but NRA member.

Still not going to worry my pretty little head about the gun laws in DC.  It's only one city, it is the nation's capital with attendant security demands, and it's not like we're holding the population captive or anything.
 
2014-01-05 01:09:16 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Want the real answer to gun violence? Changing how Americans think. This "I am a man and I have to prove my mainliness and not appear weak and not getting disrespected" shiat is the absolute root of violence in the US. Solve that and you solve the real issue.

So in conclusion, gun control is certainly a bit of a misdirection in terms of result, and much of it is just legislative masturbation to respond to some outrage, but applied in the right area, with the right law-enforcement framework, will likely help. Just don't expect it to be the solution.

I don't own a gun. I like shooting guns. I don't really have skin in this game one way or the other, so I shrug more than anything.


Why did the U.S. attack Iraq again?
 
2014-01-05 01:10:36 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Guns are not the cause of crime, but access to guns allows criminals to do more damage.




i.dailymail.co.uk

Let's get rid of them all.

I wouldn't mind ruling over all the tiny people without guns.
 
2014-01-05 01:11:16 PM  

m00: cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.

They also have stop-and-frisk. Which is a whole different conversation. I was in New York for the holidays, and there was NO WHERE on the island that felt unsafe. I guess totalitarianism really can guarantee safety -- there was a cop on every corner empowered to frisk you (I made a game of "how many seconds I can go without seeing a cop"), and "if you see something, say something" posters everywhere.

The Federal Government fails because it takes away our freedoms and makes us less safe. At least in New York you get safety in exchange. So I wouldn't chalk up lowering crime rate in NYC to the gun laws alone... it's a total commitment to crime prevention at the expense of all other sensibilities.


In fairness, NYC is a special case, even among cities.  Ten of the top eleven most densely populated regions in the US are in the NY metro area.  No other city even comes close.
 
2014-01-05 01:11:33 PM  

The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?


It's ex-smoker logic being used in the troll.
 
2014-01-05 01:19:23 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

It's ex-smoker logic being used in the troll.


Uh, the troll would be the gun logic that those places with restrictive gun laws have crime therefore there is no reason for gun laws. If you think that response about not having any laws at all makes no sense, it's just the extension of what subby is implying the headline
 
2014-01-05 01:19:28 PM  

Sidecrab: Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.


I know, right? Any time you put that many politicians, bureaucrats, staffers, and lobbyists together you get crime!

Who's idea was that, anyhow, to put all of those politicians together in one place?
 
2014-01-05 01:20:30 PM  
I can say that the large part of West Virginia's firearm death rate is less street crime and more Bubba thought Festus was a deer.
/or a rabbit
//or a squirrel
///or the gun discharged while falling out of a tree
////etc etc etc
 
2014-01-05 01:23:14 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: StoPPeRmobile: The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

It's ex-smoker logic being used in the troll.

Uh, the troll would be the gun logic that those places with restrictive gun laws have crime therefore there is no reason for gun laws. If you think that response about not having any laws at all makes no sense, it's just the extension of what subby is implying the headline


I don't think anyone here wants to abolish all gun laws, so you can give up that straw man. It's just the extent of gun laws, the effectiveness of certain gun laws, and if one feels said gun certain gun laws are overly restrictive that is being debated. For instance, I don't think you'll find anyone here who is in favor getting rid of NICS checks.
 
2014-01-05 01:25:08 PM  
Virginia makes money off unrestricted gun sales, D.C. deals with the consequences, and Jefferson Davis is laughing in his grave.
 
2014-01-05 01:25:59 PM  

Linux_Yes: never once saw a pistol rob someone.


but the Owners would enjoy disarming this Nation so they can ram that cock even further up the bottom 90%'s ass.  they love their Freedom, but only for themselves.  everyone else should be under their control.  can't do that if they're armed to the teeth.


I don't know what you're talking about. They're doing a pretty good job of taking advantage of the working poor right now with poverty rates correlating to gun ownership rates.

In other words, the places with the most guns are the places where the poor are being taken advantage of the most. The places with fewer guns tend to have less poverty and slightly more income equality, not that that means a whole lot in the US.
 
2014-01-05 01:27:29 PM  
Utah had a ban on gay marriage, and yet it turns out that state was still overflowing with fabulous. What ya gonna do?
 
2014-01-05 01:29:30 PM  

Frank N Stein: Peter von Nostrand: StoPPeRmobile: The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

It's ex-smoker logic being used in the troll.

Uh, the troll would be the gun logic that those places with restrictive gun laws have crime therefore there is no reason for gun laws. If you think that response about not having any laws at all makes no sense, it's just the extension of what subby is implying the headline

I don't think anyone here wants to abolish all gun laws, so you can give up that straw man. It's just the extent of gun laws, the effectiveness of certain gun laws, and if one feels said gun certain gun laws are overly restrictive that is being debated. For instance, I don't think you'll find anyone here who is in favor getting rid of NICS checks.


Depends. How much do we pay for that?
 
2014-01-05 01:30:25 PM  

Frank N Stein: I don't think anyone here wants to abolish all gun laws, so you can give up that straw man. It's just the extent of gun laws, the effectiveness of certain gun laws, and if one feels said gun certain gun laws are overly restrictive that is being debated.


But the argument that the 2nd Amendment folks apply to proposed laws could be applied to all gun laws and indeed laws in general: "Well, criminals will always get a hold of guns somehow, so expanding background checks won't really do anything and we shouldn't do it."  Not to mention that debating the restrictiveness of gun laws in the US is like debating the speed of glacier flows in the Sahara.
 
2014-01-05 01:31:36 PM  
Because the one thing we truly need in an expanding police state is more gun control.

Start with the police. They have armored vehicles, automatic weapons and farking drones.
 
2014-01-05 01:31:47 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no crime?

/it's too early for this bullsh*t


Yeah, I know. False dichotomy fallacies piss me off too.
 
2014-01-05 01:33:53 PM  
My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.

If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.
 
2014-01-05 01:34:48 PM  

socoloco: Because the one thing we truly need in an expanding police state is more gun control.


Were our 300 million guns being used to actually wage literal class warfare, you'd have a point.
 
2014-01-05 01:37:03 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?

Well, if everyone's packing we don't need any, obviously

/think of the money we can save on police alone



Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people - but on the other hands arming everyone will somehow result in less gun deaths/incidents.

And everyone knows that armed amateur cop wannabes *cough* Zimmerman *cough* are waaaay better at stopping crime than trained professional police officers.

Now lets wait for someone to point to abusive police as a reason to have armed citizens everywhere rather than cops - as though the answer to police abuse is to abolish the police (rather than, you know, common sense things like training, regulation, and effective oversight).

It's funny how conservatives so often rely on insanely broad propositions like "government is incompetent or tyrannical, police are evil" to justify bad ideas. Like libertarians who argue "Congress is corrupt and gives too many regulatory handouts/tax breaks to big business. Therefore, the solution is to eliminate all regulations and tax benefits for everyone."  That's some deep thinking there.
 
2014-01-05 01:37:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.


Along with the country as a whole, and due at least in part to some innovative enforcement strategies. Now, however, Mayor De Blasio has changed the equation with his altering of the "stop and frisk" policies of the NYPD, so New York City is about to become the petri dish in an experiment of what happens when you take fewer pro-active steps to enforce your laws, gun and otherwise.
 
2014-01-05 01:38:45 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Isolated gun control laws will never be as effective as nationwide ones.


Screw that.

My Monroebots with HDBBS technology will stop more crime than strict gun laws.
 
2014-01-05 01:40:00 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: AngryDragon: Sleeping Monkey: More gun laws won't stop gun violence but more abortion laws will stop abortion, in rightwing bizarroland.

And just the opposite in leftwing bizarroland

I don't think gun regulation proponents believe that a few regulations will end gun violence and crime. But you're already aware of that


Then what's the point?
 
2014-01-05 01:40:23 PM  

The Name: Frank N Stein: I don't think anyone here wants to abolish all gun laws, so you can give up that straw man. It's just the extent of gun laws, the effectiveness of certain gun laws, and if one feels said gun certain gun laws are overly restrictive that is being debated.

But the argument that the 2nd Amendment folks apply to proposed laws could be applied to all gun laws and indeed laws in general: "Well, criminals will always get a hold of guns somehow, so expanding background checks won't really do anything and we shouldn't do it."  Not to mention that debating the restrictiveness of gun laws in the US is like debating the speed of glacier flows in the Sahara.


Instead of having your head in the clouds and arguing from a philosophical/deconstructionist standpoint, you'd be better served to have your boots in the mud and debate what's actually being discussed, which is handgun laws. Of course you could zoom out and say argue "well then why have laws at all, why does anything actually matter?"  But that won't serve the debate at all, and really just becomes an exercise in bullshiat.

Also, your implication that the US doesn't have gun laws is patently false. I don't see what you have to gain by saying such a lie.
 
2014-01-05 01:41:28 PM  

Chummer45: It's funny how conservatives so often rely on insanely broad propositions like "government is incompetent or tyrannical, police are evil" to justify bad ideas. Like libertarians who argue "Congress is corrupt and gives too many regulatory handouts/tax breaks to big business. Therefore, the solution is to eliminate all regulations and tax benefits for everyone." That's some deep thinking there.


Yup.  And in the process they miss the whole premise of democracy: that the people should be able to keep an eye on these things and make changes as needed.  It's not a matter of implementing one or another ideology.  It's a matter of just paying some farking attention and approaching problems in a practical way.  But that's too much to ask of Americans.
 
2014-01-05 01:48:15 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.


I often see Mexico's restrictive gun laws and out-of-proportion murder rates used as justification to abolish gun laws.  The same principle applies.  Find the location with the lax gun laws that is supplying the weapons and make the laws more restrictive there.

Pffft who am I kidding.  Congress wouldn't even vote to keep felons and crazy people from buying guns at gun shows and from private sellers.
 
2014-01-05 01:48:50 PM  
Oh, subby.  Maybe you could also imagine, like, the correlation between being a dumbass and being butthurt.
 
2014-01-05 01:51:09 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: doglover: Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws now and historically. They've been a war zone more than once and will be again.

Guns in Chicago primarily come from out of county/state. And in 2013 Chicago had the fewest murders since 1965.


The guns aren't coming from Chicago because there are *zero* gun stores inside the city limits. Even after a lost lawsuit in the 7th district court of appeals, they still aren't allowing them. Unsurprisingly there is a lawsuit pending to rectify that. Aside from that, the largest source of guns in Chicago is Cook County, and that's with half of the county unable to sell guns. The surrounding counties chip in quite a bit as well.
 
2014-01-05 01:52:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: vpb: It's really interesting to compare the firearms death rate for different states.  DC is right at the top, but it's interesting to see how the states rank.

The gun loving states are right at the top.

That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.


Because a single city is always representative of the entire state?  So say the gun nutz
 
2014-01-05 01:53:59 PM  

The Name: And in the process they miss the whole premise of democracy: that the people should be able to keep an eye on these things and make changes as needed.


That's not the premise of democracy. The premise of democracy is that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, gets a say.

What you're saying is merely the premise of amendments. Some governments had no system in place to amend their laws. They've all failed spectacularly or invented one along the way; often both.

America is a representative republic. Our premise is that everyone* should get a say at some level, but that certain people* should get the real say and everyone* else should only get to pick those people.

(*white man with property over 21 years old)
 
2014-01-05 01:54:25 PM  

Superjew: If getting rid of the weapons doesn't solve the problem, maybe we should consider getting rid of the people who use them instead.

/just sayin'


We already have more people in prison that China and Russia combined.  The incarceration cubbard is bare $ wise.
 
2014-01-05 01:54:59 PM  
Forgot this:

i25.photobucket.com
 
2014-01-05 01:56:50 PM  

The Name: socoloco: Because the one thing we truly need in an expanding police state is more gun control.

Were our 300 million guns being used to actually wage literal class warfare, you'd have a point.



I would add that private ownership of guns somehow reigns in the police state?  Have the gun nuts ever considered that the proliferation of gun ownership just helps the police convince lawmakers and judges that they need military grade equipment and increased authority and discretion to protect themselves against all of the high powered deadly weaponry out there?

I don't know, I feel like maybe the answer to the police state is to elect politicians who actually support meaningful police reform?  I guess genuine policy reform isn't as sexy or shiny as guns.  So, the gun nuts will continue to vote for regressive politicians who maintain a favorable NRA rating by refusing to enact even the most reasonable gun regulations, but then enable and expand the police state by passing and supporting laws like the PATRIOT Act.

The political philosophy of gun nuts is just based on this idiotic red herring that private ownership of small arms somehow protects people from an abusive or repressive government.  Of course, theOnion has perfectly demonstrated how silly this political philosophy is:


http://www.theonion.com/articles/62yearold-with-gun-only-one-standin g- between-natio,30984/
 
2014-01-05 01:57:11 PM  

ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.
If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.


You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.
 
2014-01-05 01:57:25 PM  
Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.
 
2014-01-05 02:05:51 PM  

Frank N Stein: Superjew: If getting rid of the weapons doesn't solve the problem, maybe we should consider getting rid of the people who use them instead.

/just sayin'

The police?


upload.wikimedia.org

fark 'em
 
2014-01-05 02:08:41 PM  

Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.


Say that when they bring up "Chicago"

/Escambia County, FL (more churches per capita than any other place in the US) has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but you  won't see it mentioned by the gun nutz for two reasons:

1. It has lax gun laws

2. They often don't grasp the concept of murder "rate" as opposed to net numbers.
 
2014-01-05 02:09:46 PM  

Linux_Yes: never once saw a pistol rob someone.


but the Owners would enjoy disarming this Nation so they can ram that cock even further up the bottom 90%'s ass.  they love their Freedom, but only for themselves.  everyone else should be under their control.  can't do that if they're armed to the teeth.


The liberal leaders you always defend do not want your armed. Their bodyguards will remain armed though.
 
2014-01-05 02:09:50 PM  

The Name: Chummer45: It's funny how conservatives so often rely on insanely broad propositions like "government is incompetent or tyrannical, police are evil" to justify bad ideas. Like libertarians who argue "Congress is corrupt and gives too many regulatory handouts/tax breaks to big business. Therefore, the solution is to eliminate all regulations and tax benefits for everyone." That's some deep thinking there.

Yup.  And in the process they miss the whole premise of democracy: that the people should be able to keep an eye on these things and make changes as needed.  It's not a matter of implementing one or another ideology.  It's a matter of just paying some farking attention and approaching problems in a practical way.  But that's too much to ask of Americans.



Yup.  It's much easier to get distracted by superficial things than to genuinely try and understand the problem and develop a logical, common-sense solution.

Gun politics are like abortion politics - they are trumped up wedge issues created and used by the GOP to maintain and gain the support of single-issue voters.

It's completely ridiculous that a person who purports to be outraged by the police state and opposes an overreaching criminal justice/law enforcement system is so often willing to sacrifice those principles by voting for GOP politicians who have TERRIBLE records on those issues, all in the name of defending unregulated gun ownership.

It's like libertarians who constantly complain about the government being beholden to moneyed interests, but then voting for people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, who have built their entire political career by sucking up to big moneyed interests.  It's like libertarians conflate bad or corrupt government with government in general.  So they vote for these assholes who are bought and paid for by big moneyed interests like the Koch brothers.

It's always most amusing when libertarians - who constantly bemoan how corrupt our government is - then turn around and go through the mental gymnastics required to defend Citizens United as good policy - because freedom, or something.
 
m00
2014-01-05 02:09:55 PM  

doglover: America is a representative republic


As long as we're being pedantic, we're a constitutional republic.
 
2014-01-05 02:10:41 PM  

Ishkur: You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.


This.  Gun rights supporters would do well to create a culture of responsible gun ownership to counteract the current anti-social NRA-centered version that uses gun ownership as an implied threat of violence, and uses that implied threat as a source of political power.

Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.
 
2014-01-05 02:14:08 PM  

Nemo's Brother: The liberal leaders you always defend do not want your armed. Their bodyguards will remain armed though.


Arguing that you need guns because politicians' bodyguards are armed makes pretty much the opposite point you seem to think it does.
 
2014-01-05 02:15:08 PM  

Ishkur: ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.
If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.

You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.



Agree - I do believe (and hope) that we have reached the high water mark of the gun culture in this country, and we see a cultural shift on this as more and more people realize that the political positions promoted by the gun culture result in really bad public policy and consequences in the real world.  I hope the libertarianism fad goes away for the same reason.
 
2014-01-05 02:17:28 PM  

Turbo Cojones: Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.

Say that when they bring up "Chicago"

/Escambia County, FL (more churches per capita than any other place in the US) has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but you  won't see it mentioned by the gun nutz for two reasons:

1. It has lax gun laws

2. They often don't grasp the concept of murder "rate" as opposed to net numbers.


Median household income, 2008-2012

Escambia $43,806 vs FL $47,309

Chicago $47,408 vs IL $56,853

New York City $57,683 vs NY $53,046

Which city is the safest of the three? Why New York, the area with the highest median income. In fact, it's the area with median income higher than the state around it. It's also FAAAR safer.

But tell me again about gun laws.
 
2014-01-05 02:18:16 PM  

Chummer45: Agree - I do believe (and hope) that we have reached the high water mark of the gun culture in this country, and we see a cultural shift on this as more and more people realize that the political positions promoted by the gun culture result in really bad public policy and consequences in the real world.  I hope the libertarianism fad goes away for the same reason


Gun violence has fallen 50% in 20 years despite concealed carry spreading to almost all 50 states and the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban expiring.  The only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further.
 
2014-01-05 02:19:28 PM  

udhq: Ishkur: You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.

This.  Gun rights supporters would do well to create a culture of responsible gun ownership to counteract the current anti-social NRA-centered version that uses gun ownership as an implied threat of violence, and uses that implied threat as a source of political power.

Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.


But the NRA conducts more gun safety courses than any other organization.
 
2014-01-05 02:21:08 PM  

udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.


yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.
 
2014-01-05 02:23:06 PM  

AngryDragon: Gun violence has fallen 50% in 20 years


And yet it's still at a much higher rate than that of the rest of the developed world.
 
2014-01-05 02:25:04 PM  

udhq: Ishkur: You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.

This.  Gun rights supporters would do well to create a culture of responsible gun ownership to counteract the current anti-social NRA-centered version that uses gun ownership as an implied threat of violence, and uses that implied threat as a source of political power.

Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.



100% this.  It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy.  We typically call people who use violence to make political statements terrorists, but somehow that doesn't apply to "second amendment patriots" in the hypothetical world the gun culture has created.

The only way the gun culture can make this argument appealing is by implying that U.S. is somehow on the brink of turning into Nazi Germany, or by arguing that gun control is something that only Nazis do - which, when you think about it for more than 5 seconds, is completely absurd.   And that is also why it always cracks me up when the gun culture folks attack gun control advocates for relying on arguments "based on emotion and fear rather than evidence and logic."  Holy projection batman.
 
2014-01-05 02:27:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.

I believe it. I believe NY's gun laws work because CT and NJ have similarly strict gun laws. Actually, I'm not sure what NJ's are like.


So... neighboring Vermont and New Hampshire with their liberal gun laws don't exist or something?
 
2014-01-05 02:28:33 PM  

Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy


No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.
 
2014-01-05 02:30:14 PM  

AngryDragon: Chummer45: Agree - I do believe (and hope) that we have reached the high water mark of the gun culture in this country, and we see a cultural shift on this as more and more people realize that the political positions promoted by the gun culture result in really bad public policy and consequences in the real world.  I hope the libertarianism fad goes away for the same reason

Gun violence has fallen 50% in 20 years despite concealed carry spreading to almost all 50 states and the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban expiring.  The only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further.



I'm not sure what stats you are purporting to rely on, but isn't it silly to argue that proliferation of guns is responsible for lower levels of gun violence?  Have you undertaken a comprehensive, peer reviewed study and accounted for other factors that could contribute to lower crime rates?  Are you claiming that no comprehensive study has shown that gun control works?  I feel like the answer to all of these questions is no, and you're just cherry picking a statistic that may or may not be accurate for the purpose of supporting your stupid political position.

And "the only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further?"  Holy moly that's some crazy projection on your part.  I guess the NRA and all those single issue gun culture voters aren't trying to further a political agenda.  Give me a farking break.
 
2014-01-05 02:31:19 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.



Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.
 
2014-01-05 02:32:35 PM  

AngryDragon: Peter von Nostrand: AngryDragon: Sleeping Monkey: More gun laws won't stop gun violence but more abortion laws will stop abortion, in rightwing bizarroland.

And just the opposite in leftwing bizarroland

I don't think gun regulation proponents believe that a few regulations will end gun violence and crime. But you're already aware of that

Then what's the point?


None if you're an idiot, I suppose
 
2014-01-05 02:34:16 PM  

HeadLever: Randy Weaver


www.godlikeproductions.com
 
2014-01-05 02:34:20 PM  

Frank N Stein: Peter von Nostrand: StoPPeRmobile: The_Sponge: NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

It's ex-smoker logic being used in the troll.

Uh, the troll would be the gun logic that those places with restrictive gun laws have crime therefore there is no reason for gun laws. If you think that response about not having any laws at all makes no sense, it's just the extension of what subby is implying the headline

I don't think anyone here wants to abolish all gun laws, so you can give up that straw man. It's just the extent of gun laws, the effectiveness of certain gun laws, and if one feels said gun certain gun laws are overly restrictive that is being debated. For instance, I don't think you'll find anyone here who is in favor getting rid of NICS checks.


*facepalm*
 
2014-01-05 02:34:36 PM  

HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.


Guns ownership does not entitle you to opt out of due process.  Randy Weaver would be better off if he had known that.
 
2014-01-05 02:36:13 PM  

violentsalvation: cameroncrazy1984: Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.

I believe it. I believe NY's gun laws work because CT and NJ have similarly strict gun laws. Actually, I'm not sure what NJ's are like.

So... neighboring Vermont and New Hampshire with their liberal gun laws don't exist or something?


Vermont and New Hampshire border on New York City?  Because that's what he's talking about.  And Vermont has 7 people and 6 of them are hippies.
 
2014-01-05 02:37:34 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.


well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.
 
2014-01-05 02:38:27 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.


There are a few but here is one I like: A cop tries to run over a couple and shoots at them with no provocation after following the woman to her house

http://www.thv11.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700">http://www.thv1 1.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700
 
2014-01-05 02:39:21 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


If the law hasn't affected crime rates the way they hoped it would, maybe it is time to rethink that particular law.  If banning guns only keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but fails to significantly reduce the number of crimes committed with a gun, what good has that law really done?  Maybe a different approach besides "moar lawz" needs to be tried. But liberals hate to admit failure, so we get to deal with these threads repeatedly about how great these gun free utopias are if it wasn't for those meddling free states all around there!
 
2014-01-05 02:39:47 PM  

Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.



And I'm sure judges take that fact into careful consideration.
 
2014-01-05 02:40:05 PM  

jjorsett: cameroncrazy1984: NYC has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and their crime rate has been going down for a long time.

Along with the country as a whole, and due at least in part to some innovative enforcement strategies. Now, however, Mayor De Blasio has changed the equation with his altering of the "stop and frisk" policies of the NYPD, so New York City is about to become the petri dish in an experiment of what happens when you take fewer pro-active steps to enforce your laws, gun and otherwise.


NYC has been cooking its books in regards to its crime stats
 
2014-01-05 02:40:46 PM  

Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.


You'll find similar problems in any urbanized area, but they don't get as extreme.
The real problem is you get a political leader who reaches for an obvious solution, like a gun ban, and when the solution doesn't work they either get stuck on stupid (gun ban HARDER!!) or look for someone to blame (like the state next door).
What they don't do is figure out whats driving the violence.


Crime is a complex problem of economics and culture. If you try to eliminate the tool then you either fail terribly or succeed just enough that the criminals start changing methods. The end result is no one's happy.  People lose rights and your crime rates don't change.

If you skip the tool-ban and look to the roots of the problem, (poverty, drug war, rent too damn high and such), you get alot more progress out of your legislative dollar. I believe that's what happened in CCW states.

/People have always had the guns, obviously, so allowing it legally didn't change much.
/But it did remove the scapegoat from the room and let leaders start thinking about real solutions.
 
2014-01-05 02:40:50 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.



Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.  I see that argument made a lot by gun nuts as an excuse to view the second amendment as more important than every other constitutional protection.

But as a practical matter, does it mean that if the police illegally search your home you have a right to shoot them?  Does it mean that you have the right to shoot a judge who imposes an unconstitutional gag order on you?  How do you draw that line?

And who decides what is a violation of a fundamental right sufficient to legitimize the use of deadly force?  Here's the problem with your argument - it is an argument that the second amendment allows an individual to disregard the rule of law when the government violates their fundamental rights.  But then it doesn't define "fundamental rights," and doesn't explain what types of action by government officials justify the use of "second amendment remedies" (i.e., killing government officials).

It's all just abstract bullshiat used by gun enthusiasts as an excuse to support a bad public policy.  The second amendment arguments all just exploit the fears of gun enthusiasts by conjuring up the idea that government is inherently evil and will become a totalitarian state if people aren't allowed to own small arms.
 
2014-01-05 02:42:27 PM  

HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.


He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.
 
2014-01-05 02:42:49 PM  
Chummer45:
As I've mentioned, it is legal to shoot police who enter your residence illegally. At least in some places.
 
2014-01-05 02:43:14 PM  

Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.



Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?
 
2014-01-05 02:43:29 PM  

Ishkur: ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.
If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.

You can't change gun culture. But what you can do is create a new culture to supplant it. We've done that several times with other undesirable cultures. Every time, a new generation that did not share their values outlived them. Just as with racism, with smoking, with hardcore evangelism, and we're even seeing it right now with gay rights -- no one's minds are being changed, the stuffy old bigots are just dying off as the new generation moves into positions in power. It takes generations for these things to happen.

The same thing can happen with gun culture.


http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/23/the-new-gun-culture/

Indeed
 
2014-01-05 02:44:43 PM  

doglover: Turbo Cojones: Target Builder: Comparing DC to the whole of another state is a screwy way to look at things - try comparing it to the crime rates in the densest cities in each state and see if there is any correlation between gun laws and crime rates.

Say that when they bring up "Chicago"

/Escambia County, FL (more churches per capita than any other place in the US) has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but you  won't see it mentioned by the gun nutz for two reasons:

1. It has lax gun laws

2. They often don't grasp the concept of murder "rate" as opposed to net numbers.

Median household income, 2008-2012

Escambia $43,806 vs FL $47,309

Chicago $47,408 vs IL $56,853

New York City $57,683 vs NY $53,046

Which city is the safest of the three? Why New York, the area with the highest median income. In fact, it's the area with median income higher than the state around it. It's also FAAAR safer.

But tell me again about gun laws.


 In 2010, the median wage in the UK for all jobs was £20,801 and there were fewer than 600 homicides in the entire country.  Low income and tough gun laws = fewer murders?

Lots of guns = the opportunity for lots of violence
 
2014-01-05 02:44:48 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.  I see that argument made a lot by gun nuts as an excuse to view the second amendment as more important than every other constitutional protection.

But as a practical matter, does it mean that if the police illegally search your home you have a right to shoot them?  Does it mean that you have the right to shoot a judge who imposes an unconstitutional gag order on you?  How do you draw that line?

And who decides what is a violation of a fundamental right sufficient to legitimize the use of deadly force?  Here's the problem with your argument - it is an argument that the second amendment allows an individual to disregard the rule of law when the government violates their fundamental rights.  But then it doesn't define "fundamental rights," and doesn't explain what types of action by government officials justify the use of "second amendment remedies" (i.e., killing government officials).

It's all just abstract bullshiat used by gun enthusiasts as an excuse to support a bad public policy.  The second amendment arguments all just exploit the fears of gun enthusiasts by conjuring up the idea that government is inherently evil and will become a totalitarian state if people aren't allowed to own small arms.


Yes but it makes for good FW:FWD:FWD:FWD: emails with crying eagles so freedom and furthurmoar comma
 
2014-01-05 02:46:44 PM  

Chummer45: Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.


Get ready for a lot of paranoia, followed by a lot of backpedaling, followed by a spontaneous outburst of apocalyptic ravings, followed by more backpedaling, followed by "fine! Be that way, you statists!"
 
2014-01-05 02:48:09 PM  

Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.


Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?


My description is simplified, but how is it inaccurate?
 
2014-01-05 02:48:33 PM  

redmid17: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

There are a few but here is one I like: A cop tries to run over a couple and shoots at them with no provocation after following the woman to her house

http://www.thv11.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700">http://www.thv1 1.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700



redmid17: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

There are a few but here is one I like: A cop tries to run over a couple and shoots at them with no provocation after following the woman to her house

http://www.thv11.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700">http://www.thv1 1.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700



Um.... the story said that the officer returned fire after the guy shot at him.  Please explain again why it was a good thing that the citizen was armed in that scenario?

Look, there's a way to deal with abusive police tactics.  It's through substantive public policy reforms, oversight, and civil rights lawsuits.

The worst way to voice your objection to abusive police practices is by drawing a gun and shooting at the officer, as perfectly illustrated by the story you linked to.
 
2014-01-05 02:52:19 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.

He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.


I mean he's still alive, so I don't think he really caused his demise. And from his perspective, do you really think he was going to turn himself over to a system that he felt turned him into a criminal for nothing? Even if the gun charges were 100% true ( he was acquitted at trial), the issue of the bench warrant even after the gov't admitted they gave him the wrong time/date to show up and the grand jury where they omitted and lied about the bad letter is pretty huge.
 
2014-01-05 02:54:08 PM  

Frank N Stein: Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.


Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?

My description is simplified, but how is it inaccurate?



Here's a pretty good article that explains why your description is wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions- _b _1596846.html


Also, as a practical matter, even if the police are entering your house illegally, the worst thing that you can do is start shooting at them.  You're almost definitely going to lose the gunfight, and if you're not killed you will probably get prosecuted.  Also, how do you know that the police don't have a warrant (i.e., that the search is illegal)? That's a pretty big gamble.

And even then, the best case scenario is that you kill a police officer and avoid prosecution.  I don't know, I feel like it's just an all-around bad idea to respond to police entering your home by shooting at them.

Like I said, abusive police practices can be handled through civil litigation and more effective police oversight.  But this example just perfectly illustrates why owning a gun only provides a person with the illusion of protection from abusive police.
 
2014-01-05 02:55:27 PM  

Chummer45: AngryDragon: Chummer45: Agree - I do believe (and hope) that we have reached the high water mark of the gun culture in this country, and we see a cultural shift on this as more and more people realize that the political positions promoted by the gun culture result in really bad public policy and consequences in the real world.  I hope the libertarianism fad goes away for the same reason

Gun violence has fallen 50% in 20 years despite concealed carry spreading to almost all 50 states and the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban expiring.  The only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further.


I'm not sure what stats you are purporting to rely on, but isn't it silly to argue that proliferation of guns is responsible for lower levels of gun violence?  Have you undertaken a comprehensive, peer reviewed study and accounted for other factors that could contribute to lower crime rates?  Are you claiming that no comprehensive study has shown that gun control works?  I feel like the answer to all of these questions is no, and you're just cherry picking a statistic that may or may not be accurate for the purpose of supporting your stupid political position.

And "the only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further?"  Holy moly that's some crazy projection on your part.  I guess the NRA and all those single issue gun culture voters aren't trying to further a political agenda.  Give me a farking break.


Claiming gun proliferation increases, decreases, or is net neutral of crime are VERY different claims
 
2014-01-05 02:56:57 PM  

Turbo Cojones: TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.

I often see Mexico's restrictive gun laws and out-of-proportion murder rates used as justification to abolish gun laws.  The same principle applies.  Find the location with the lax gun laws that is supplying the weapons and make the laws more restrictive there.

Pffft who am I kidding.  Congress wouldn't even vote to keep felons and crazy people from buying guns at gun shows and from private sellers.


If a person has been committed to a mental institution or is a convicted felon, it's already against the law for them to possess a firearm.

What more do you want?


/we really need a sarcasm font
 
2014-01-05 02:58:11 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

There are a few but here is one I like: A cop tries to run over a couple and shoots at them with no provocation after following the woman to her house

http://www.thv11.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700">http://www.thv1 1.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=116700

Um.... the story said that the officer returned fire after the guy shot at him.  Please explain again why it was a good thing that the citizen was armed in that scenario?

Look, there's a way to deal with abusive police tactics.  It's through substantive public policy reforms, oversight, and civil rights lawsuits.

The worst way to voice your objection to abusive police practices is by drawing a gun and shooting at the officer, as perfectly illustrated by the story you linked to.


You don't read too well. The cop hit the guy with the truck, shot at him, and then the homeowner shot him back. There's a reason why the prosecutor sided with the homeowner, not the cop. I agree that substantive changes need to be made to curb abusive police. I also don't think it's a bad idea to defend yourself when someone tries to kill you twice (truck, gun).
 
2014-01-05 02:58:19 PM  
This is why gun laws need to be made that are sane and are not "Gotta Ban 'Em All" like the left wants.  Nor allow anyone to have a gun like the Right wants.

Maybe you should have to get a license to own firearms.  With some nice long training sessions and maybe some range practice.  After that, there isn't much point, so licensees can then buy what they feel they need, as long as they store it properly.

Gun deaths have very little to do with guns.
 
2014-01-05 02:59:47 PM  

redmid17: TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: udhq: Implying that you're willing to use your guns against a democratically elected government doesn't make you a patriot, it makes you a fascist and a tyrant.

yep, because Randy Weaver was a fascist and a tyrant. I know that it is hard for some to fathom, but no matter what type of government you have, you should always have the right to defend yourself.

He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.

I mean he's still alive, so I don't think he really caused his demise. And from his perspective, do you really think he was going to turn himself over to a system that he felt turned him into a criminal for nothing? Even if the gun charges were 100% true ( he was acquitted at trial), the issue of the bench warrant even after the gov't admitted they gave him the wrong time/date to show up and the grand jury where they omitted and lied about the bad letter is pretty huge.


I'm not saying the government didn't make some mistakes handling his case, but those are things he should have brought to the attention of his lawyer and handled through due process in the courts.  There's no excuse for getting into a standoff with the police.
 
2014-01-05 03:01:28 PM  

Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.  I see that argument made a lot by gun nuts as an excuse to view the second amendment as more important than every other constitutional protection.

But as a practical matter, does it mean that if the police illegally search your home you have a right to shoot them?  Does it mean that you have the right to shoot a judge who imposes an unconstitutional gag order on you?  How do you draw that line?

And who decides what is a violation of a fundamental right sufficient to legitimize the use of deadly force?  Here's the problem with your argument - it is an argument that the second amendment allows an individual to disregard the rule of law when the government violates their fundamental rights.  But then it doesn't define "fundamental rights," and doesn't explain what types of action by government officials justify the use of "second amendment remedies" (i.e., killing government officials).

It's all just abstract bullshiat used by gun enthusiasts as an excuse to support a bad public policy.  The second amendment arguments all just exploit the fears of gun enthusiasts by conjuring up the idea that government is inherently evil and will become a totalitarian state if people aren't allowed to own small arms.


The founding fathers had an inherent distrust of government and posited its tendency to grow ripe/corrupt. Not an entirely off-base assumption.
 
2014-01-05 03:01:48 PM  

Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.


Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?

My description is simplified, but how is it inaccurate?


Here's a pretty good article that explains why your description is wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions- _b _1596846.html


Also, as a practical matter, even if the police are entering your house illegally, the worst thing that you can do is start shooting at them.  You're almost definitely going to lose the gunfight, and if you're not killed you will probably get prosecuted.  Also, how do you know that the police don't have a warrant (i.e., that the search is illegal)? That's a pretty big gamble.

And even then, the best case scenario is that you kill a police officer and avoid prosecution.  I don't know, I feel like it's just an all-around bad idea to respond to police entering your home by shooting at them.

Like I said, abusive police practices can be handled through civil litigation and more effective police oversight.  But this example just perfectly illustrates why owning a gun only provides a person with the illusion of protection from abusive police.


Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?
 
2014-01-05 03:02:29 PM  

Myria: This is why gun laws need to be made that are sane and are not "Gotta Ban 'Em All" like the left wants.  Nor allow anyone to have a gun like the Right wants.

Maybe you should have to get a license to own firearms.  With some nice long training sessions and maybe some range practice.  After that, there isn't much point, so licensees can then buy what they feel they need, as long as they store it properly.

Gun deaths have very little to do with guns.


Someone is going is going to have to shell out money for the training and range practice, and I doubt it'd fly if it were coming from the person trying to do it.
 
2014-01-05 03:06:11 PM  

Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?


It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.
 
2014-01-05 03:08:05 PM  

Chummer45: I'm not sure what stats you are purporting to rely on, but isn't it silly to argue that proliferation of guns is responsible for lower levels of gun violence?  Have you undertaken a comprehensive, peer reviewed study and accounted for other factors that could contribute to lower crime rates?  Are you claiming that no comprehensive study has shown that gun control works?  I feel like the answer to all of these questions is no, and you're just cherry picking a statistic that may or may not be accurate for the purpose of supporting your stupid political position.

And "the only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further?"  Holy moly that's some crazy projection on your part.  I guess the NRA and all those single issue gun culture voters aren't trying to further a political agenda.  Give me a farking break.


I wasn't arguing that the proliferation of guns was responsible for lower crime rates.  I was pointing out that DESPITE the proliferation of guns, the crime rates have dropped precipitously.  Ergo gun control has no impact positive or negative on the levels of violence in the USA.  Ergo establishing additional restrictions on law abiding citizens who are exercising their rights is abhorrent.

That being said, if gun control, or the lack therof, has no impact on gun crime then why are we trying to control it?  At what point have we hit the law of diminishing returns?
 
2014-01-05 03:08:30 PM  

redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.


I never said it was indiscriminate. The original poster asked if there was ever a reason to shoot a cop legally. The state of Indiana thinks that there is
 
2014-01-05 03:08:37 PM  

Doom MD: The founding fathers had an inherent distrust of government and posited its tendency to grow ripe/corrupt. Not an entirely off-base assumption.


We've made huge advances in political science and sociology since the founding fathers.  They were great men of their time, but seriously, we need to stop using their opinions as the yardstick for public policy.
 
2014-01-05 03:11:49 PM  

Frank N Stein: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

I never said it was indiscriminate. The original poster asked if there was ever a reason to shoot a cop legally. The state of Indiana thinks that there is


You didn't say indiscriminate outright, but the way you phrased it more or less gives the homeowner the carte blanche. Illegally entering a home can be anything from walking through an open door to see if there is a crime in progress to driving their Charger through the front of your house.
 
2014-01-05 03:12:05 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Why have any laws at all?


Clearly more laws will fix this!
 
2014-01-05 03:13:26 PM  

redmid17: Frank N Stein: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

I never said it was indiscriminate. The original poster asked if there was ever a reason to shoot a cop legally. The state of Indiana thinks that there is

You didn't say indiscriminate outright, but the way you phrased it more or less gives the homeowner the carte blanche. Illegally entering a home can be anything from walking through an open door to see if there is a crime in progress to driving their Charger through the front of your house.


true. It was simplified. But I just wanted to get the point across that  the state of Indiana does recognize that there are circumstances in which shooting a police officer is justified.
 
2014-01-05 03:17:35 PM  

Frank N Stein: redmid17: Frank N Stein: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

I never said it was indiscriminate. The original poster asked if there was ever a reason to shoot a cop legally. The state of Indiana thinks that there is

You didn't say indiscriminate outright, but the way you phrased it more or less gives the homeowner the carte blanche. Illegally entering a home can be anything from walking through an open door to see if there is a crime in progress to driving their Charger through the front of your house.

true. It was simplified. But I just wanted to get the point across that  the state of Indiana does recognize that there are circumstances in which shooting a police officer is justified.


Very true. Sad thing is that if the Indiana Supreme Court hadn't needlessly overreached, the law wouldn't even have been necessary. They could have just thrown it out as exigent circumstances or something. Instead they went against common law history and 2 supreme court decisions which said otherwise.
 
2014-01-05 03:19:38 PM  
Standard gun thread post.

~~Here some advice for the Gun Grabbing Marxist Menace Obama if he wants to stop this sort of violence.
 In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
 ~ In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
 ~ In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
 ~ In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
 ~ In1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
 ~ In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
 ~ In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
 ~ In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
 ~ In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the USA
 ~ In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
 ~ In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
 ~ In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others
 ~ In 2011 a registeredDemocrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
 ~ In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
 ~ In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
 ~ As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard. One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or any Republican conservatives were involved in these shootings and murders.

 SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.
 
2014-01-05 03:20:53 PM  

AngryDragon: Ergo gun control has no impact positive or negative on the levels of violence in the USA. Ergo establishing additional restrictions on law abiding citizens who are exercising their rights is abhorrent.


No, it's not abhorrent.  Murder, torture and sexual assault are abhorrent.  Taking your guns away is not abhorrent.


AngryDragon: That being said, if gun control, or the lack therof, has no impact on gun crime then why are we trying to control it? At what point have we hit the law of diminishing returns?


We probably hit the law of diminishing returns around the time we had roughly .75 guns for every 1 person circulating freely in the population.  You see, the reason gun control "has no impact on gun crime" in the US is because the only gun control that can be passed in this country pales in comparison to the scope of the problem we have with guns.  It's like taking a thimble of water out of a lake and expecting the water level to fall by a measurable degree.
 
2014-01-05 03:21:08 PM  

Chummer45: Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.


It's posturing.  The really rabid 2nd Amendment supporters are pretty much all armchair revolutionaries. Their daydreams about using their toys are always much more satisfying than the reality of using them.
 
2014-01-05 03:23:16 PM  

m00: They also have stop-and-frisk. Which is a whole different conversation. I was in New York for the holidays, and there was NO WHERE on the island that felt unsafe.


I wasn't aware New York was an island...
 
2014-01-05 03:25:17 PM  

whcrow: Standard gun thread post.

~~Here some advice for the Gun Grabbing Marxist Menace Obama if he wants to stop this sort of violence.
 In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
 ~ In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.
 ~ In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
 ~ In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
 ~ In1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
 ~ In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
 ~ In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
 ~ In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
 ~ In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the USA
 ~ In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
 ~ In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
 ~ In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others
 ~ In 2011 a registeredDemocrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
 ~ In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
 ~ In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a sch ...


Pretty sure Seung - Hui Cho  wasn't a registered democrat. He couldn't even vote. I'm 100% sure that the list is inaccurate and stupid to post even if it were true.
 
2014-01-05 03:29:11 PM  

The Name: Doom MD: The founding fathers had an inherent distrust of government and posited its tendency to grow ripe/corrupt. Not an entirely off-base assumption.

We've made huge advances in political science and sociology since the founding fathers.  They were great men of their time, but seriously, we need to stop using their opinions as the yardstick for public policy.


So you don't think governments have a tendency to accrue power and become corrupt? Please feel free to propose amendments, you know, the ability to modify government the founding fathers came up with.
 
2014-01-05 03:30:55 PM  

clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.


You would consider.me a "gun nut". I don't think that gun laws are the cause of gun violence and neither does anyone that I know.  We also don't think that they are a symptom of gun violence.  They are a treatment that has been suggested to eliminate the gun violence.  The problem is we have tried it for 40 years and it really hasn't worked.  How long do we wait before we look for another solution?
 
2014-01-05 03:32:32 PM  

redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.


Also, regardless of the final legal outcome, let's not forget that your chances of emerging from the repercussions of such an action dead, or pooping in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life are quite high.  Kill a cop for ANY reason, and you're going to face his brothers in blue before you set foot in a courtroom.
 
2014-01-05 03:34:39 PM  

clambam: This besides the fact that strict checkpoints at all access points to and from the city prevent anyone from bringing firearms in, from Virginia (unrestricted ownership with the exception of machine guns--hey, I have to register my machine gun in Virginia? You bastards!) or from any of the other gun-besotted neo-confederacies of the Southeast.  Most guns used in crime have either been stolen (around 15%) or transferred between individuals after the original purchase (i.e., picked up no questions asked at the local gun fair). Given that these guns are almost inevitably disposed of as too incriminating, if guns were outlawed for a short while only outlaws would have guns. And then no one would have guns.

I wish there were a sensible way to discuss this situation. I understand completely why people in the flyover states cling to their guns; they need long barrel guns to put food on the table (you sure can't afford meat at Walmart wages) and they need hand guns to protect themselves from the other poverty-stricken meth-addled hicks they share their little corner of hell with. I'm prepared to accept 30,000 annual gun deaths in this country  as the price of maintaining our Second Amendment rights. I'd just settle for a few common sense restrictions on high capacity magazines so that the next time some nutbar decides to decorate the walls at the local elementary school with children's brains, he has to stop to reload a little sooner and maybe keep the cost of freedom down just a little.


In the 90s a shiatload of the guns in DC came from law enforcement in Virginia.  Lots of corrupt county sheriffs and deputies in bugfark small Virginia counties were actually operating major gunrunning routes.  I'd post a link except the stories seem to have been scrubbed very well from the net.  But I had a friend whose daughter was shot by her husband, and the local cops ruled it a suicide because her husband gave them his big cache of over 60 weapons in exchange.
 
2014-01-05 03:40:16 PM  

Doom MD: So you don't think governments have a tendency to accrue power and become corrupt?


That's not the point.  The point is that we should be consulting living Ph.D.s about public policy, not centuries-dead landowners who spoke in witticisms and believed in phrenology.

HK-MP5-SD: clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.

You would consider.me a "gun nut". I don't think that gun laws are the cause of gun violence and neither does anyone that I know.  We also don't think that they are a symptom of gun violence.  They are a treatment that has been suggested to eliminate the gun violence.  The problem is we have tried it for 40 years and it really hasn't worked.  How long do we wait before we look for another solution?


Again, saying that American gun control laws don't work to curb gun violence, and thus we should stop trying, is like saying that a square millimeter of bandage does nothing to close a foot-long knife-wound, and thus bandages don't work.
 
2014-01-05 03:41:10 PM  

Z-clipped: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

Also, regardless of the final legal outcome, let's not forget that your chances of emerging from the repercussions of such an action dead, or pooping in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life are quite high.  Kill a cop for ANY reason, and you're going to face his brothers in blue before you set foot in a courtroom.


I don't think police should act like thugs in the face of a citizen utilizing their rights. But yeah, this is the real world
 
2014-01-05 03:42:20 PM  

HK-MP5-SD: clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.

You would consider.me a "gun nut". I don't think that gun laws are the cause of gun violence and neither does anyone that I know.  We also don't think that they are a symptom of gun violence.  They are a treatment that has been suggested to eliminate the gun violence.  The problem is we have tried it for 40 years and it really hasn't worked.  How long do we wait before we look for another solution?


I'd call you a gun nut because you apparently like HK, the Apple of the firearms world :)
 
2014-01-05 03:42:28 PM  

Frank N Stein: Z-clipped: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

Also, regardless of the final legal outcome, let's not forget that your chances of emerging from the repercussions of such an action dead, or pooping in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life are quite high.  Kill a cop for ANY reason, and you're going to face his brothers in blue before you set foot in a courtroom.

I don't think police should act like thugs in the face of a citizen utilizing their rights. But yeah, this is the real world


I'd like to think citizens (and the police as well for that matter) shouldn't have a 'shoot first and ask questions later' attitude.
 
2014-01-05 03:43:10 PM  

The Name: Doom MD: So you don't think governments have a tendency to accrue power and become corrupt?

That's not the point.  The point is that we should be consulting living Ph.D.s about public policy, not centuries-dead landowners who spoke in witticisms and believed in phrenology.

HK-MP5-SD: clancifer: Gun nuts like to think of gun laws as the cause of gun violence rather than a symptom.

You would consider.me a "gun nut". I don't think that gun laws are the cause of gun violence and neither does anyone that I know.  We also don't think that they are a symptom of gun violence.  They are a treatment that has been suggested to eliminate the gun violence.  The problem is we have tried it for 40 years and it really hasn't worked.  How long do we wait before we look for another solution?

Again, saying that American gun control laws don't work to curb gun violence, and thus we should stop trying, is like saying that a square millimeter of bandage does nothing to close a foot-long knife-wound, and thus bandages don't work.


No one is saying "stop trying" to reducing gun violence in this thread. They are saying "Let's try a different method."
 
2014-01-05 03:47:36 PM  

redmid17: No one is saying "stop trying" to reducing gun violence in this thread. They are saying "Let's try a different method."


But my point is that the method (legislation) could work quite well in the long run if we incrementally limited sales, ownership and manufacture of guns over an extended period of time.
 
2014-01-05 03:47:47 PM  

AngryDragon: Chummer45: I'm not sure what stats you are purporting to rely on, but isn't it silly to argue that proliferation of guns is responsible for lower levels of gun violence?  Have you undertaken a comprehensive, peer reviewed study and accounted for other factors that could contribute to lower crime rates?  Are you claiming that no comprehensive study has shown that gun control works?  I feel like the answer to all of these questions is no, and you're just cherry picking a statistic that may or may not be accurate for the purpose of supporting your stupid political position.

And "the only people who think this is bad public policy have an agenda to further?"  Holy moly that's some crazy projection on your part.  I guess the NRA and all those single issue gun culture voters aren't trying to further a political agenda.  Give me a farking break.

I wasn't arguing that the proliferation of guns was responsible for lower crime rates.  I was pointing out that DESPITE the proliferation of guns, the crime rates have dropped precipitously.  Ergo gun control has no impact positive or negative on the levels of violence in the USA.  Ergo establishing additional restrictions on law abiding citizens who are exercising their rights is abhorrent.

That being said, if gun control, or the lack therof, has no impact on gun crime then why are we trying to control it?  At what point have we hit the law of diminishing returns?


Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions.
 
2014-01-05 03:50:01 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Frank N Stein: Z-clipped: redmid17: Frank N Stein: Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT exempt public servants. Which means if a public servant illegally enters your home, you're authorized to use deadly force.

That's essentially what I said. Again, how was I inaccurate?

It's not indiscriminate authorization for deadly force. If a cop is trying to push his way into your house -- a la the case that spawned this law in the first place -- I doubt you'd be able to claim self-defense in shooting him. If a cop is kicking down your door with a gun drawn to come into your house sans warrant for whatever reason (excluding exigent circumstances), you could probably claim it.

Also, regardless of the final legal outcome, let's not forget that your chances of emerging from the repercussions of such an action dead, or pooping in a colostomy bag for the rest of your life are quite high.  Kill a cop for ANY reason, and you're going to face his brothers in blue before you set foot in a courtroom.

I don't think police should act like thugs in the face of a citizen utilizing their rights. But yeah, this is the real world

I'd like to think citizens (and the police as well for that matter) shouldn't have a 'shoot first and ask questions later' attitude.


I agree. Though I generally don't have a problem with someone using deadly force if someone illegal and forcibly enters ones residence
 
2014-01-05 03:50:46 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: Ergo gun control has no impact positive or negative on the levels of violence in the USA. Ergo establishing additional restrictions on law abiding citizens who are exercising their rights is abhorrent.

No, it's not abhorrent.  Murder, torture and sexual assault are abhorrent.  Taking your guns away is not abhorrent.


AngryDragon: That being said, if gun control, or the lack therof, has no impact on gun crime then why are we trying to control it? At what point have we hit the law of diminishing returns?

We probably hit the law of diminishing returns around the time we had roughly .75 guns for every 1 person circulating freely in the population.  You see, the reason gun control "has no impact on gun crime" in the US is because the only gun control that can be passed in this country pales in comparison to the scope of the problem we have with guns.  It's like taking a thimble of water out of a lake and expecting the water level to fall by a measurable degree.


Limiting any enumerated right in the Constitution for a law abiding citizen is abhorrent.  It is pretty much the worst thing a government can do.  It breaks the basic compact of the ruling to the people.  Yes, that is abhorrent.  That includes freedom of speech, assembly, the press, from search and seizure, of religion, rights to a trial, rights to a jury, and yes, the right to bear arms. Incidentally, not ONE of those rights have been exempt from pressure in the last 10 years because of TERRORISTS or FOR THE CHILDREN.  Americans are bringing this all on themselves because they are pants-wetting terrified of their own shadows.

There is absolutely no consistent difference in crime rate between locations in the US because of the availability of guns.  None.  DC has a horrific murder rate and guns have been all but unavailable.  Detroit also has a horrific crime rate but it is estimated that there are 500,000 concealed carry permits in the tri-county area.

It. Simply. Makes. No. Difference.

Now, you know what the difference is between Detroit and say San Francisco?  Poverty, lack of education, a corrupt culture; THOSE are the problems we should be going after.  Keep targeting an unrelated cause though.  It's having so much of a positive effect.
 
2014-01-05 03:53:35 PM  

Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions


So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.
 
2014-01-05 03:53:41 PM  

The Name: redmid17: No one is saying "stop trying" to reducing gun violence in this thread. They are saying "Let's try a different method."

But my point is that the method (legislation) could work quite well in the long run if we incrementally limited sales, ownership and manufacture of guns over an extended period of time.


You could and it would take forever and still completely ignore the base problems. Doing the same thing to cars would likely drive down automobile related deaths. However it could also hurt a lot of people who need a car to get around for work and food. If one said "man we have a lot of car-related deaths. Let's promote mass transit, trains, and driver safety education," you're addressing the problem, the root cause(s), and not trampling on anyone.

Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them. However when you pick the worst* way of doing something, don't be surprised when people push back.

*Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.
 
2014-01-05 04:01:29 PM  
DC is a farking shiathole. I can tell Subby has never been there.
 
2014-01-05 04:02:25 PM  

redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.


But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.


Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.
 
2014-01-05 04:03:59 PM  

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.


Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".
 
2014-01-05 04:08:34 PM  
What's so "obvious" when you've got some of the most wealthy and impoverished rubbing elbows daily?

Opportunists vs, the suckers
 
2014-01-05 04:08:49 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.


I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.
 
2014-01-05 04:11:07 PM  

Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".


Okay don't tell him. Tell me then. I think the first step should really be to end the war on drugs and give everyone access to medicaid/medicare type health coverage.
 
2014-01-05 04:11:20 PM  

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?


We obey laws every day that are "unfair" to law abiding citizens out of the principle that such universal conformity helps prevent more serious violations.  That's why you stop at a stop light even though nobody's coming the other way
 
2014-01-05 04:11:45 PM  

Myria: This is why gun laws need to be made that are sane and are not "Gotta Ban 'Em All" like the left wants.  Nor allow anyone to have a gun like the Right wants.

Maybe you should have to get a license to own firearms.  With some nice long training sessions and maybe some range practice.  After that, there isn't much point, so licensees can then buy what they feel they need, as long as they store it properly.

Gun deaths have very little to do with guns.


What effect will this have on the gangbangers that are the chief reason we have daily Fark gun control discussion threads?  I'm guessing 90 percent or better shootings in the US are by people already illegally carrying a weapon.

The gun laws we have now ARE sane (and overreaching in a lot of places).  Despite the juvenille attempt of leftys to crow about how gun enthusiasts think we need less laws (or no laws in some cases), chances are we would have better luck enforcing a few well-crafted laws targeting the core of the problem rather than a web of contradictory laws that lead to tighter and more ridiculous restrictions on you and me.
 
2014-01-05 04:14:38 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.


Do consider alcohol related accidental or preventable?
 
2014-01-05 04:14:55 PM  
So, this is journalism?
 
2014-01-05 04:16:11 PM  

Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".


I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.
 
2014-01-05 04:18:57 PM  

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".

I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.



Criminals don't bother reading the PDF because words.
 
2014-01-05 04:19:09 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?

We obey laws every day that are "unfair" to law abiding citizens out of the principle that such universal conformity helps prevent more serious violations.  That's why you stop at a stop light even though nobody's coming the other way


Perfect example.  Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way.  So you will pass a law making it even more illegal?  It makes no sense.
 
2014-01-05 04:19:47 PM  

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".

I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.


By convincing himself that you're an extremist he's able to disregard your opinion. It's a defense mechanism in the face of someone with differing opinions
 
2014-01-05 04:22:43 PM  

clowncar on fire: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.

Do consider alcohol related accidental or preventable?


Depends on the type of death.

Drunken driving death - preventable
Drank and fell down the stairs - accident

Those are just direct causes. I don't particularly want to get long term conditions into the mix, but I would consider things like cirrhosis and liver failure preventable. However I don't know how germane that is to guns.
 
2014-01-05 04:24:11 PM  

AngryDragon: Perfect example. Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way. So you will pass a law making it even more illegal? It makes no sense.


Um . . . no . . .

"Running a red light" is illegal, because "Okay, if you're a responsible driver you can go ahead and run it but if you hit someone you'll be in BIG trouble, mister" wouldn't work.  Thus everyone just stops at the crimson light, no matter what.  Gun owners seem to want all gun laws to be of the "Okay, if you're a responsible gun owner . . . " variety, but that isn't how laws work.
 
2014-01-05 04:25:20 PM  

AngryDragon: The Name: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?

We obey laws every day that are "unfair" to law abiding citizens out of the principle that such universal conformity helps prevent more serious violations.  That's why you stop at a stop light even though nobody's coming the other way

Perfect example.  Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way.  So you will pass a law making it even more illegal?  It makes no sense.


So some people are "wired" to ignore laws, conformity, common sense, or whatever you want to call it.  Rather than the creation of redundant laws shouldn't we be posting "enforcers" to carry out justice on some of the more blatant violators by removing them from the population as a whole.


What can I say?  I keep getting told there's a million people out there that can fill my shoes if I can't conform.
 
2014-01-05 04:30:32 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: Perfect example. Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way. So you will pass a law making it even more illegal? It makes no sense.

Um . . . no . . .

"Running a red light" is illegal, because "Okay, if you're a responsible driver you can go ahead and run it but if you hit someone you'll be in BIG trouble, mister" wouldn't work.  Thus everyone just stops at the crimson light, no matter what.  Gun owners seem to want all gun laws to be of the "Okay, if you're a responsible gun owner . . . " variety, but that isn't how laws work.


What?

What gun law is optional because you're a responsible gun owner?  Name one.  If anything violation of a gun law or committing a crime with a firearm yield a MORE draconian sentence and less consideration for leniency.  As it should be.  Every idiot who commits a gun crime makes it harder for those of us who don't.
 
2014-01-05 04:31:10 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: Perfect example. Running a red light is already illegal yet some may run it if no one is coming the other way. So you will pass a law making it even more illegal? It makes no sense.

Um . . . no . . .

"Running a red light" is illegal, because "Okay, if you're a responsible driver you can go ahead and run it but if you hit someone you'll be in BIG trouble, mister" wouldn't work.  Thus everyone just stops at the crimson light, no matter what.  Gun owners seem to want all gun laws to be of the "Okay, if you're a responsible gun owner . . . " variety, but that isn't how laws work.


So we're back to the song and dance, what laws are you trying to propose? I haven't read all your posts in the thread, so I apologize if I'm missing something or get mixed up. However it seems like you just want to reduce the number of people with weapons so they don't get misused. That's the equivalent of saying "Some people run this red light, so I want Detroit to stop selling as many cars."

Most gun misuse is already illegal. Punishment could probably serve to be more often and evenly served, but that's a different bag than "limit the number of guns."
 
2014-01-05 04:31:13 PM  

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".

I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.


First of all, that "300 pages is sooooo much" argument is stupid. If Green Eggs and Ham were written in Legalese it would be 50 pages.

Secondly, when you say things like "Any limits are abhorrent" you sound like an extremist.

Third, looking into the gun laws of Michigan, they seem comprehensive and logical, and it seems to work, among the ocean of articles bashing Detroit and holding it up as an example of how gun control doesn't work, I managed to find some (old) articles talking about the dramatic fall in gun violence in Michigan.
 
2014-01-05 04:31:47 PM  

redmid17: clowncar on fire: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.

Do consider alcohol related accidental or preventable?

Depends on the type of death.

Drunken driving death - preventable
Drank and fell down the stairs - accident

Those are just direct causes. I don't particularly want to get long term conditions into the mix, but I would consider things like cirrhosis and liver failure preventable. However I don't know how germane that is to guns.



Drunk and fell down the stairs-  preventable.  Drunk was applying to a large amount of the "preventable " car accidents resulting in death.

I imagine this could apply to gun related deaths as well.  Most gun deaths fall into suicide or accidental category (and involve alcohol)-  not intentional.  Most gun play does not necessarily result in death.
 
2014-01-05 04:36:59 PM  
It's apples to something or other but we dont  know with so many conservative states now suppressing data relating to the use of weapons in crime.
 
2014-01-05 04:38:36 PM  

AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: AngryDragon: Dan the Schman: Just because you say it has no impact doesn't mean it's true. Gun violence is a disease and like many diseases it requires more than a simple ban in a handful of cities, it will require a variety of laws at every level, but in order to do that we'll require cooperation from gun rights advocates, and hopefully they'll come around sooner than later because neither ignoring the problem nor "MOAR GUNS" are viable solutions

So what do you propose that isn't unfair to law abiding citizens?  Seriously.  I'm interested in what laws you believe are not in effe ct that should be enacted.

Since you're an extremist who thinks any limits are an outrage, you're not worth having a debate with, because you wouldn't actually debate, which is why we can't work out a solution, because your side's only ideas are either do nothing or "MOAR GUNS".

I'm an extremist.  I see.  Actually I live in Michigan where there are HEAVY restrictions on firearms that I am completely OK with.  No felons, some misdemeanors, no mental health issues, no private transfers, background checks required, no carrying while intoxicated, no PPOs, no domestic violence history of any kind, all totally reasonable.  The only law in Michigan that I have an issue with is gun free zones.   The summary is 300 pages long (PDF warning)

What else exactly would you enact in my state to impact gun crime?  Magazine restrictions?  Cosmetic restrictions?  Both pointless.  Perhaps you can see why as a law abiding gun owner already complying with 300 pages of state laws, not to mention federal, I might say that enough is enough.


Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

1. Require all guns be registered to a central federal database, updated automatically any time a gun is sold to someone else, with the owner required to report any stolen firearms immediately

2. Increase mandatory penalties for gun crimes.  I see two tiers.
Tier 1 - Use of a firearm with criminal intent - Robbing a store with a gun, mugging someone with a gun, shooting someone, etc.  Mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole, or whatever the maximum sentence is for juvenile offenders in those cases.
Tier 2 - Illegal use of a firearm without criminal intent - Accidental discharges (whether or not they hit someone), carrying an unregistered weapon or one not registered to you, Failure to follow the law in the sale/transfer of a firearm or failure to report a stolen gun as stolen, etc.  Mandatory fines of not less than $10,000 plus at least one month of jail time, and the loss of the right to own or carry a firearm from that point forward.  If someone is found to be in possession of a firearm after a Tier 2 conviction the mandatory sentence is life without parole.

3. Require all transfers of ownership of firearms to be done at a registered gun store with a background check, at a police station with a background check, or at a specified government office with a background check.
 
2014-01-05 04:39:52 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: Myria: This is why gun laws need to be made that are sane and are not "Gotta Ban 'Em All" like the left wants.  Nor allow anyone to have a gun like the Right wants.

Maybe you should have to get a license to own firearms.  With some nice long training sessions and maybe some range practice.  After that, there isn't much point, so licensees can then buy what they feel they need, as long as they store it properly.

Gun deaths have very little to do with guns.

What effect will this have on the gangbangers that are the chief reason we have daily Fark gun control discussion threads?  I'm guessing 90 percent or better shootings in the US are by people already illegally carrying a weapon.

The gun laws we have now ARE sane (and overreaching in a lot of places).  Despite the juvenille attempt of leftys to crow about how gun enthusiasts think we need less laws (or no laws in some cases), chances are we would have better luck enforcing a few well-crafted laws targeting the core of the problem rather than a web of contradictory laws that lead to tighter and more ridiculous restrictions on you and me.


The issue that these continuing threads generally fail to address is the gun control is essentially a red herring topic.

It's bait and switch.

BOTH sides are concerned with safety. Both sides are concerned with crime. That's the discussion that we need to have. That's a topic that we need to address. Crime and safety.

Gun control, as a debate is useless. It's useless because it does very little to address either safety nor crime. Unless you're talking about trigger locks, better safeties for weapons sold, and mandatory gun training for those who want to carry in public. Otherwise, gun control is pretty much a devisive tactic to keep us from looking at the real issues we face.

You want to address violence, you can't look at just the tools. Violence continues in Great Britain, despite their crack down on weapons. Same in Japan, despite the fact that they often reclasify a lot of murders as simply "missing persons" cases if the bodies happen to wind up in foundations that their Yakuza owned construction companies have laid down across the nation, or wound up as fish chum. The real issue isn't the tools used in the violence--because any tool can be a weapon if you hold it right. The real issue is why do folks turn to violence in the first place.

What are the causative factors? Economic instability? Mental instability? Lack of education and poor impulse control coupled with economic instability and a rising tide of financial inequality, while inundated of images of a "good life" with huge sums to be made on an illegal black market that requires some risk/reward assessments that those with limited opportunities thanks to that limited education and widespread economic instability might provide? You want to curb violence--and I mean violence in general, not just guns, not just knives, not just hammers, random beatings, or domestic violence even--you have to address the issues that cause folks to do that risk/reward assessment.

You want to address violence in this country we have to look primarily at education, economic opportunity, and decent healthcare. We have to give folks better options. A kid who grew up in a sh*tty neighborhood, who was underserved in his schools, can make the choice to walk the straight and narrow, and watch as his peers plunge headlong into crimes that have some element of reward. That can grate, fair fast. That breeds a brand of resentment. That can be a white kid, a black kid, a brown kid, yellow, red, mixed colors of the rainbow. Couple limited economic opportunity with limited education options, and you have a breeding ground for a lot of crime. It's a risk/reward assessment of being able to get something for you and yours, or grinding away without much hope. That's a hard one to sell. Likewise, it leads folks who have no real options for health care, mental or physical, and you get the powderkeg that we have in this country today. Folks who have mental health issues aren't diagnosed, aren't treated, aren't paid attention to, and without much hope for advancement, is it any wonder that folks snap?

Violence in this country is an issue. It's also the one that we don't like to talk about, so instead, we trot out arguments that have nothing to do with the real issue. Like gun control. Because it's talking about doing something, as opposed to doing something useful. You want to address issues of violence in this country, then we have to address issues of education, economic opportunity, and health. Get those issues into the stream, get a handle on the reasons that folks turn to violence, and you'll see it drop. You'll see folks who won't turn to violence as their go-to solution. You'll see folks calm the f*ck down. You'll also see growth, improved real estate values, and less money thrown into the criminal justice system, and that means money that we can throw around toward helping folks create their own businesses, or cut our tax rates and let folks do it their own damn selves.

Gun control is a false debate. And for all the vitriol on BOTH sides of the issue, y'all want the same damn thing: safer streets. The question is how to get that?  It's not as easy a path as saying, "NO MOAR GUNS!" or "MOAR GUNS FOR EVERYONE!" It's a lot harder, and it has the potential to strip away some fairly well cherished myths that this country likes to hold onto as the "Land of Opportunity" and it is a damn sight more expensive than just adding some more laws to the books to limit the tools for crimes, but then again, it's damn expensive to keep housing prisoners, and keep our education systems sliding down, and letting our citizens slip down a fair dark path of desperation.

It's not an easy conversation to have. But it's the one we need to have, as opposed to this nonsense about the tools, when the reasons that folks to crime are pretty well ignored. You want to protect your guns? Good, support education reform, economic stability, and health care--both mental and physical--and folks won't turn to violence so often, and your precious guns won't be at risk, because you insist on turning conversations TO that issue, as opposed to the real one.
 
2014-01-05 04:41:24 PM  

clowncar on fire: redmid17: clowncar on fire: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Gun deaths and car deaths are obviously different, and I'm not equating them.

But you kind of are . . .

redmid17: Worst is subjective but when it's constitutionally dubious and massively unpopular, the shoe fits.

Meh.  The Constitution should be changed (not violated).  Western Europe seems to survive somehow without a second amendment. And most Americans can't tell their ass from a hole in the ground, so just because they're against something doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

I'm equating them in the way they are both deaths. Car-related deaths are almost exclusively accidents. Gun deaths are overwhelmingly purposely inflicted.

Until the Constitution is changed, what you're proposing is not going to work. Free free to work to amend the constitution. See if you can't get some more protection for the 1st and 4th amendments too.

Do consider alcohol related accidental or preventable?

Depends on the type of death.

Drunken driving death - preventable
Drank and fell down the stairs - accident

Those are just direct causes. I don't particularly want to get long term conditions into the mix, but I would consider things like cirrhosis and liver failure preventable. However I don't know how germane that is to guns.


Drunk and fell down the stairs-  preventable.  Drunk was applying to a large amount of the "preventable " car accidents resulting in death.

I imagine this could apply to gun related deaths as well.  Most gun deaths fall into suicide or accidental category (and involve alcohol)-  not intentional.  Most gun play does not necessarily result in death.


Accidental gun deaths number in the hundreds. People trying to kill themselves typically are intentionally doing so. You can argue over their state of mind if you want, but homicides and suicides are intentional.

Drinking and walking are far different than drinking and driving. Humans have been getting drunk and making ambulatory movements for thousands of years. They haven't really been doing that with cars for as long. It's accidental, not preventable, when someone falls down the stairs like that.
 
2014-01-05 04:43:38 PM  

AngryDragon: What gun law is optional because you're a responsible gun owner?


I'm not arguing that any law is actually like that.  I'm arguing against Responsible Gun Owners who complain about getting their toes stepped on by laws designed to make sure that they are, in fact, responsible.

redmid17: However it seems like you just want to reduce the number of people with weapons so they don't get misused. That's the equivalent of saying "Some people run this red light, so I want Detroit to stop selling as many cars."


The argument for expanding and encouraging public transportation is actually the perfect analogy for the gun argument.  In fact, it's not even an analogy, it's the same principle.  Make owning a car more of a hassle (through taxes, for example) while expanding public transportation services, and you'll get a cleaner, less traffic-ridden city.  Similarly, if you make gun ownership more of a hassle (maybe by requiring re-certification every six months), drive up the price of guns by making them more scarce, and encourage non-firearm related outdoor activities, you can lower the number of guns circulating and thus, in theory, gun crime.
 
2014-01-05 04:46:36 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: What gun law is optional because you're a responsible gun owner?

I'm not arguing that any law is actually like that.  I'm arguing against Responsible Gun Owners who complain about getting their toes stepped on by laws designed to make sure that they are, in fact, responsible.

redmid17: However it seems like you just want to reduce the number of people with weapons so they don't get misused. That's the equivalent of saying "Some people run this red light, so I want Detroit to stop selling as many cars."

The argument for expanding and encouraging public transportation is actually the perfect analogy for the gun argument.  In fact, it's not even an analogy, it's the same principle.  Make owning a car more of a hassle (through taxes, for example) while expanding public transportation services, and you'll get a cleaner, less traffic-ridden city.  Similarly, if you make gun ownership more of a hassle (maybe by requiring re-certification every six months), drive up the price of guns by making them more scarce, and encourage non-firearm related outdoor activities, you can lower the number of guns circulating and thus, in theory, gun crime.


Without trying to sound too crass, no shiat. That's why I made the partial argument in the first place. The difference is that you don't have a constitutional right to own and operate a car. You do have one to own and use a gun. You don't need to marginalize gun owners and violate rights to reduce violent crime.
 
2014-01-05 04:47:52 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: What gun law is optional because you're a responsible gun owner?

I'm not arguing that any law is actually like that.  I'm arguing against Responsible Gun Owners who complain about getting their toes stepped on by laws designed to make sure that they are, in fact, responsible.


Also what law? I'd love to see an example or two.
 
2014-01-05 04:47:56 PM  
FARKLIBS be like
www.troll.me
 
2014-01-05 04:48:52 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no crime?

/it's too early for this bullsh*t

So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no

GUN crime. There would only be common place everyday crime.

It's never too early.
 
2014-01-05 04:49:07 PM  

hubiestubert: etc.


Dude, stop with the rational thought.  This is a gun thread.

That said, I live in the district.  The concentration of people who make for tempting targets and the number of visitors here makes stricter gun control than the average place pretty reasonable.  Also, Congress lets us have only as much say in this kind of thing as they want to let us get away with, being the only place in the nation that can't vote for anyone with any power in congress.
 
2014-01-05 04:50:58 PM  

redmid17: The difference is that you don't have a constitutional right to own and operate a car. You do have one to own and use a gun.


Yeah, and that's a problem that should be remedied through a constitutional amendment.  You just said "no shiat" to my proposal to reduce gun crime.  So, would you support a constitutional amendment?  Forget whether it's politically possible or not.  If it were to come up for a vote, would you vote for or against?
 
2014-01-05 04:52:33 PM  

plewis: hubiestubert: etc.

Dude, stop with the rational thought.  This is a gun thread.

That said, I live in the district.  The concentration of people who make for tempting targets and the number of visitors here makes stricter gun control than the average place pretty reasonable.  Also, Congress lets us have only as much say in this kind of thing as they want to let us get away with, being the only place in the nation that can't vote for anyone with any power in congress.


I never understood how they let you guys get away with this.  It's like a troll, in license plate form.

www.dcvote.org
 
2014-01-05 04:52:36 PM  

FlashHarry: submitter's logic:

murder is illegal

there are still murders

therefore murder should be legal.

QED


Murder is a verb, Gun is a noun. Laws against Murder are to outlaw a violent act, laws against Guns are to provide helpless victims. If you don't have a crisis to exploit you have to create one out of thin air.
 
2014-01-05 04:54:06 PM  

Dan the Schman: First of all, that "300 pages is sooooo much" argument is stupid. If Green Eggs and Ham were written in Legalese it would be 50 pages.

Secondly, when you say things like "Any limits are abhorrent" you sound like an extremist.

Third, looking into the gun laws of Michigan, they seem comprehensive and logical, and it seems to work, among the ocean of articles bashing Detroit and holding it up as an example of how gun control doesn't work, I managed to find some (old) articles talking about the dramatic fall in gun violence in Michigan


First of all the "300 pages (PDF Warning)" was a courtesy.  I had already summarized the significant provisions.

Secondly, I said any limits are abhorrent on enumerated rights.  So if I say limits on trial by jury or search and seizure are acceptable does that prevent me from being an extremist?  No, that just makes me an extremist.  Why would the right to bear arms be any different?  That being said, I am OK with the reasonable restrictions in place.

Third, that was exactly my point.  Michigan went from very tightly controlled firearms regulations to very loose and gun crime has plummeted.  I'm not saying that the relaxation of gun ownership is the cause.  I am saying that since it didn't get worse, the tight regulations that everyone wants to put back in place are simply not effective.  You don't have to like it,  but it is fact.
 
2014-01-05 04:55:49 PM  

whcrow: Standard gun thread post.

~~Here some advice for the Gun Grabbing Marxist Menace Obama if he wants to stop this sort of violence.
 In 1863 a Democrat Conservative shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
 ~ In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat mentally deranged man who supported Garfield's presidential campaign, and was therefore a Republican, shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound because he thought a speech in support of Garfield he printed up was the reason he won, and expected a political appointment as a reward, which was denied.
 ~ In 1963 a radical left wing socialist Communist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, who had a long history of trying to kill Fidel Castro or otherwise take down the Communist Government in Cuba.
 ~ In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat Manson family member with ties to the Aryan Brotherhood fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1983 a registered Democrat mentally deranged man of unknown political affiliation from a staunchly Conservative Republican family, who previously stalked President Jimmy Carter shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States to impress actress Jodi Foster.


The closest you have to an argument is with Squeaky Fromme. She was a radical left-winger (though allied with the Aryan Brotherhood, which is in conflict with that statement). Unfortunately, her being a Manson Family member overrides any political angle.

The rest I won't spent time debunking, but I assume they have the same "accuracy"

 ~ In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
 ~ In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
 ~ In1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
 ~ In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
 ~ In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
 ~ In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
 ~ In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the USA
 ~ In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
 ~ In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
 ~ In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others
 ~ In 2011 a registeredDemocrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
 ~ In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
 ~ In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a sch ...
 
2014-01-05 04:57:13 PM  
Dan the Schman:

Secondly, when you say things like "Any limits are abhorrent" you sound like an extremist.

Third, looking into the gun laws of Michigan, they seem comprehensive and logical, and it seems to work, among the ocea ...


Saying that a law-abiding citizen, who can pass a Federal background check, and does not have anything disqualifying in his history, cannot buy any gun he wants is extremist??  Saying that we don't need a law telling you that 11 rounds is too many for one rifle magazine is extremist?  Saying that it's wrong to make it illegal to add a forward grip to a semi-automatic rifle is extremist?  I'm sorry, but I will have to disagree with you.
 
2014-01-05 05:00:22 PM  

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]


You know, a big part of the reason that your perceived constitutional rights are being discussed and renegotiated is that whenever the topic comes, there are throngs of people on your side who insist upon behaving like anti-social douchebags.

You would think people like you would learn that you're not helping your own cause when you post like someone who we could imagine shooting up a primary school.
 
2014-01-05 05:02:15 PM  
TuteTibiImperes:

1. Require all guns be registered to a central federal database, updated automatically any time a gun is sold to someone else, with the owner required to report any stolen firearms immediately

What purpose would this registry serve?
 
2014-01-05 05:02:28 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

1. Require all guns be registered to a central federal database, updated automatically any time a gun is sold to someone else, with the owner required to report any stolen firearms immediately

2. Increase mandatory penalties for gun crimes.  I see two tiers.
Tier 1 - Use of a firearm with criminal intent - Robbing a store with a gun, mugging someone with a gun, shooting someone, etc.  Mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole, or whatever the maximum sentence is for juvenile offenders in those cases.
Tier 2 - Illegal use of a firearm without criminal intent - Accidental discharges (whether or not they hit someone), carrying an unregistered weapon or one not registered to you, Failure to follow the law in the sale/transfer of a firearm or failure to report a stolen gun as stolen, etc.  Mandatory fines of not less than $10,000 plus at least one month of jail time, and the loss of the right to own or carry a firearm from that point forward.  If someone is found to be in possession of a firearm after a Tier 2 conviction the mandatory sentence is life without parole.

3. Require all transfers of ownership of firearms to be done at a registered gun store with a background check, at a police station with a background check, or at a specified government office with a background check


1.  Prove that a registry wouldn't lead to confiscation.  And don't say it's a remote possibility.   It has already happened.

2.  That already happens.  Felony murder?  And all I hear all the time is stories about how the poor criminal shouldn't be sent to jail for life because he didn't pull the trigger, someone else did.  So which is it?

3.  I am completely OK with this one.

The problem is that it's never enough for people who want to restrict firearms.  Those of us who believe in firearms ownership dig in our heels because we KNOW that firearms laws are a slippery slope every time.  It may not be this administration but the next.  Governmental power granted is never relinquished and ALWAYS expanded.
 
2014-01-05 05:03:48 PM  

AngryDragon: Third, that was exactly my point. Michigan went from very tightly controlled firearms regulations to very loose and gun crime has plummeted. I'm not saying that the relaxation of gun ownership is the cause. I am saying that since it didn't get worse, the tight regulations that everyone wants to put back in place are simply not effective.


And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower.

Of course, we'd also have a lot of dead FBI and ATF agents if we started enforcing European gun laws.
 
2014-01-05 05:04:32 PM  
Gun nuts are generally overcompensated pussies afraid to leave their homes unarmed, but case law HSS idiotically interpreted the archaic second amendment in an overly broad manner (typical activist conservative judges), so alas the only remedy is a constitutional amendment... Which ain't gonna happen.
 
2014-01-05 05:07:16 PM  

SCUBA_Archer: TuteTibiImperes:

1. Require all guns be registered to a central federal database, updated automatically any time a gun is sold to someone else, with the owner required to report any stolen firearms immediately

What purpose would this registry serve?


To determine if someone with a firearm has a legal right to have that firearm, and to be able to track firearms used in crimes back to their source more effectively.

AngryDragon:

2.  That already happens.  Felony murder?  And all I hear all the time is stories about how the poor criminal shouldn't be sent to jail for life because he didn't pull the trigger, someone else did.  So which is it?

For felony murder?  Sure, it happens sometimes.  I propose making it for all crimes involving a gun, whether it's shot or not.  You rob a liquor store with a gun?  You go away for life instead of getting a short stay in county or probation like happens often enough now.  You pull a gun on someone in an altercation?  You go away for life, no slaps on the wrist.
 
2014-01-05 05:07:34 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: whcrow: Standard gun thread post.

~~Here some advice for the Gun Grabbing Marxist Menace Obama if he wants to stop this sort of violence.
 In 1863 a Democrat Conservative shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
 ~ In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat mentally deranged man who supported Garfield's presidential campaign, and was therefore a Republican, shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound because he thought a speech in support of Garfield he printed up was the reason he won, and expected a political appointment as a reward, which was denied.
 ~ In 1963 a radical left wing socialist Communist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, who had a long history of trying to kill Fidel Castro or otherwise take down the Communist Government in Cuba.
 ~ In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat Manson family member with ties to the Aryan Brotherhood fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
 ~ In 1983 a registered Democrat mentally deranged man of unknown political affiliation from a staunchly Conservative Republican family, who previously stalked President Jimmy Carter shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States to impress actress Jodi Foster.

The closest you have to an argument is with Squeaky Fromme. She was a radical left-winger (though allied with the Aryan Brotherhood, which is in conflict with that statement). Unfortunately, her being a Manson Family member overrides any political angle.

The rest I won't spent time debunking, but I assume they have the same "accuracy"

 ~ In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
 ~ In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
 ~ In1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
 ~ In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
 ~ In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
 ~ In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
 ~ In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the USA
 ~ In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
 ~ In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
 ~ In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others
 ~ In 2011 a registeredDemocrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
 ~ In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
 ~ In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a sch ...


I spot checked just one of them and find it to be wrong.

Jared Lee Loughner was a registered independent, not a democrat.

This seems to be a list of Fox news quality.
 
2014-01-05 05:08:01 PM  

Frank N Stein: Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: Frank N Stein: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Ok - please explain the scenarios where it is acceptable to shoot a police officer.

well in Indiana it's legal to shoot a cop that illegally enters your residence.


Ok - assuming that you've accurately described the law (which you haven't), are you saying that is good public policy?

My description is simplified, but how is it inaccurate?


Here's a pretty good article that explains why your description is wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/radley-balko/myths-and-misconceptions- _b _1596846.html


Also, as a practical matter, even if the police are entering your house illegally, the worst thing that you can do is start shooting at them.  You're almost definitely going to lose the gunfight, and if you're not killed you will probably get prosecuted.  Also, how do you know that the police don't have a warrant (i.e., that the search is illegal)? That's a pretty big gamble.

And even then, the best case scenario is that you kill a police officer and avoid prosecution.  I don't know, I feel like it's just an all-around bad idea to respond to police entering your home by shooting at them.

Like I said, abusive police practices can be handled through civil litigation and more effective police oversight.  But this example just perfectly illustrates why owning a gun only provides a person with the illusion of protection from abusive police.

Your article said that a revision to the Indiana castle doctrine explicitly does NOT e ...



That's just not true.  You don't get to shoot a police officer just because he or she enters your house illegally.  You have to be reasonably in fear for your life, which takes into account the totality of the circumstances.  If the circumstances indicate that it is a cop, then your defense is almost certain to fail.

It's not like you get a golden ticket to kill a cop just because they are there illegally.
 
2014-01-05 05:08:04 PM  

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]

You know, a big part of the reason that your perceived constitutional rights are being discussed and renegotiated is that whenever the topic comes, there are throngs of people on your side who insist upon behaving like anti-social douchebags.

You would think people like you would learn that you're not helping your own cause when you post like someone who we could imagine shooting up a primary school.


That picture was just for you.  You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.
 
2014-01-05 05:08:40 PM  

ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.

If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.


I agree. The best way to give up arms is willingly. Inventing phasers wouldn't hurt either.
 
2014-01-05 05:11:36 PM  

ex-nuke: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no GUN crime. There would only be common place everyday crime.


Commonplace everyday  crime does not result in a classroom full of dead kids.  Crime sucks, but it's crime + guns that give us the massive body counts.

When's the last time we've had a spree killing with anything but a gun in this country?  And yes, spree killings are the exception, but unfortunately, they are now common enough that they have become their own distinct social problem that must either be dealt with (the left) or accepted as a consequence of freedom (the right.)
 
2014-01-05 05:13:30 PM  

The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower


Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

TuteTibiImperes: For felony murder?  Sure, it happens sometimes.  I propose making it for all crimes involving a gun, whether it's shot or not.  You rob a liquor store with a gun?  You go away for life instead of getting a short stay in county or probation like happens often enough now.  You pull a gun on someone in an altercation?  You go away for life, no slaps on the wrist


Agreed.  Let's make it happen.  You will find that law abiding gun owners will be overwhelmingly in favor of this type of legislation.  Know why?  Because it will never affect us because we aren't criminals.  Unfortunately, the liberals can't propose that type of legislation and would never support it because it's too draconian.  So they resort to gun control legislation which finds us right back at square one.
 
2014-01-05 05:14:23 PM  

udhq: ex-nuke: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no GUN crime. There would only be common place everyday crime.

Commonplace everyday  crime does not result in a classroom full of dead kids.  Crime sucks, but it's crime + guns that give us the massive body counts.

When's the last time we've had a spree killing with anything but a gun in this country?  And yes, spree killings are the exception, but unfortunately, they are now common enough that they have become their own distinct social problem that must either be dealt with (the left) or accepted as a consequence of freedom (the right.)


These are also starting to happen in other countries with far stricter gun legislation than we have.
 
2014-01-05 05:14:46 PM  

AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.


Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.
 
2014-01-05 05:16:12 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.


Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.
 
2014-01-05 05:17:31 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.


I can settle for that.
 
2014-01-05 05:18:20 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The difference is that you don't have a constitutional right to own and operate a car. You do have one to own and use a gun.

Yeah, and that's a problem that should be remedied through a constitutional amendment.  You just said "no shiat" to my proposal to reduce gun crime.  So, would you support a constitutional amendment?  Forget whether it's politically possible or not.  If it were to come up for a vote, would you vote for or against?


I'd vote against. I don't like giving away rights and all crime can be drastically reduced if we concentrated on fixing the root causes. I'm a bigger fan of non-punitive measures when it comes to crime. If you fix the war on drugs, make sure people have access to healthcare, and provide decent educational opportunities, you'd do far more to fix any crime issue than you would by restricting access to guns.

Now things like stricter and harsher sentencing for committing crimes with a gun I can support.
 
2014-01-05 05:18:35 PM  

Doom MD: Chummer45: HeadLever: Chummer45: It also means that you view the use of deadly force as a legitimate way to protest government policy

No it does not.  No mater what kind of government you have, they are not always going to be 100% respectful of your rights.  You should always have the right of self defense against anyone that threatens your unalienable rights.  That includes government. Whether they are democratically elected, representative republic, a monarchy or a dictatorship is immaterial.


Also, please explain what "the second amendment protects every other right in the constitution" means.  I see that argument made a lot by gun nuts as an excuse to view the second amendment as more important than every other constitutional protection.

But as a practical matter, does it mean that if the police illegally search your home you have a right to shoot them?  Does it mean that you have the right to shoot a judge who imposes an unconstitutional gag order on you?  How do you draw that line?

And who decides what is a violation of a fundamental right sufficient to legitimize the use of deadly force?  Here's the problem with your argument - it is an argument that the second amendment allows an individual to disregard the rule of law when the government violates their fundamental rights.  But then it doesn't define "fundamental rights," and doesn't explain what types of action by government officials justify the use of "second amendment remedies" (i.e., killing government officials).

It's all just abstract bullshiat used by gun enthusiasts as an excuse to support a bad public policy.  The second amendment arguments all just exploit the fears of gun enthusiasts by conjuring up the idea that government is inherently evil and will become a totalitarian state if people aren't allowed to own small arms.

The founding fathers had an inherent distrust of government and posited its tendency to grow ripe/corrupt. Not an entirely off-base assumption.



Ok...  My point is that private ownership of small arms does not in any way, shape, or form prevent government corruption or tyranny.  So your statement is complete nonsense.

I'm guessing you just want to have this lead down the road where we have a technical argument about the history, intent, and judicial construction of the second amendment.  No thanks.   We could talk about that all day - it won't make your theory that the second amendment somehow protects people from government oppression any less absurd.

I don't know, maybe you think that the second amendment protects the private ownership of nuclear weapons, tanks, aircraft carriers, and smart weapons (you know, to level the playing field).  But again, that just illustrates how silly and divorced from reality the gun culture's belief system is.
 
2014-01-05 05:21:21 PM  

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.


And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.
 
2014-01-05 05:25:43 PM  

redmid17: If you fix the war on drugs, make sure people have access to healthcare, and provide decent educational opportunities, you'd do far more to fix any crime issue than you would by restricting access to guns.


media.tumblr.com

You said that the measures I proposed to restrict gun ownership would reduce crime.  Why not make a double-pronged attack at it?   And do you really think gun ownership is that important of a right?  Do you really think the rest of the developed world feels unduly restricted because they're not guaranteed the right to own a gun?
 
2014-01-05 05:30:49 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.


Good luck with that.  Thankfully the precedent is already set.
 
2014-01-05 05:32:25 PM  

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.

And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.



To be fair, gun culture political beliefs are pretty deranged.  Once a person has accepted the proposition that owning a gun is a political statement, and that it is important to own a gun to protect you from our democratically elected government, then it's hard to consider that person anything other than somewhat delusional or deranged.

I'm a gun owner that gets completely disgusted by gun politics and gun fetishists.  Although I would not be in favor of outright bans on most weapons, I am in favor of regulating guns in a comprehensive and common-sense way.  I also have contempt for the insanely irresponsible and unethical gun industry and its political arm, the NRA.
 
2014-01-05 05:33:46 PM  

AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.

Good luck with that.  Thankfully the precedent is already set.


Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't have to abide by precedent :-)  Better start stockpiling!
 
2014-01-05 05:36:45 PM  

The Name: redmid17: If you fix the war on drugs, make sure people have access to healthcare, and provide decent educational opportunities, you'd do far more to fix any crime issue than you would by restricting access to guns.

[media.tumblr.com image 400x389]

You said that the measures I proposed to restrict gun ownership would reduce crime.  Why not make a double-pronged attack at it?   And do you really think gun ownership is that important of a right?  Do you really think the rest of the developed world feels unduly restricted because they're not guaranteed the right to own a gun?


No need to do so. If I told you that I could achieve the exact same results without reducing the number of guns in the country, would you still push for it?

The other countries of the world, a few aside, have never had a right to own a gun. England and the UK did until the mid 1750s. It's been pretty heavily curtailed since then. Switzerland has a right to own a weapon, but I can't think of any others. I don't really think the 3rd amendment is real pertinent for 99.99999% of people in the US* but I don't want to get rid of it. I think particular applications of the 8th amendment (banned methods of execution like firing squad or electric chair**) should be legal, but I'm not
clamoring for them to amend that one either.

* There are probably some aleutian islanders who would disagree
** varies by state
 
2014-01-05 05:39:04 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.

Good luck with that.  Thankfully the precedent is already set.

Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't have to abide by precedent :-)  Better start stockpiling!


They aren't bound to follow precedent but the vast majority of cases do follow precedent, especially when the exact same issue is being revisited.
 
2014-01-05 05:40:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: SCUBA_Archer: TuteTibiImperes:

1. Require all guns be registered to a central federal database, updated automatically any time a gun is sold to someone else, with the owner required to report any stolen firearms immediately

What purpose would this registry serve?

To determine if someone with a firearm has a legal right to have that firearm, and to be able to track firearms used in crimes back to their source more effectively.


Oh yeah, THOSE guns.  Naw all I have in my possession are these 80% completed lower receivers.  Not illegal to own a piece of metal is it?  Those guns were lost in a tragic boating accident last year.  Never got around to replacing them.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

And California has had a handgun registry since 1994.  How many crimes have they solved with it?
 
2014-01-05 05:41:50 PM  

udhq: ex-nuke: So, therefore, if there were no gun laws, there would be no GUN crime. There would only be common place everyday crime.

Commonplace everyday  crime does not result in a classroom full of dead kids.  Crime sucks, but it's crime + guns that give us the massive body counts.

When's the last time we've had a spree killing with anything but a gun in this country?  And yes, spree killings are the exception, but unfortunately, they are now common enough that they have become their own distinct social problem that must either be dealt with (the left) or accepted as a consequence of freedom (the right.)


Boston marathon says sup
 
2014-01-05 05:47:17 PM  

redmid17: If I told you that I could achieve the exact same results without reducing the number of guns in the country, would you still push for it?


Probably not.  But you're really flying off into fantasy land if you think reducing gun ownership wouldn't have any place in the ideal crime-reduction program.  You're basically banking on the hope that no Responsible Gun Owners will ever get angry and snap or decide to rob a convenience store.

redmid17: The other countries of the world, a few aside, have never had a right to own a gun. England and the UK did until the mid 1750s. It's been pretty heavily curtailed since then. Switzerland has a right to own a weapon, but I can't think of any others.


Yup.  And today most of those nations enjoy a higher quality of life and even greater freedom than Americans (not arguing causality, just saying you don't need your guns).

redmid17: I think particular applications of the 8th amendment (banned methods of execution like firing squad or electric chair**) should be legal, but I'm not clamoring for them to amend that one either.


It's kind of creepy that you put that much thought into it, and it doesn't help your image as a gun enthusiast, either.
 
2014-01-05 05:51:32 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.


There is ONE dealer with a FFL in DC who does a handful of sales per year by appointment only. There are NO felons who can legally buy a gun in DC (or the rest of the country). I'd wager that there has never been a crime committed in DC that was committed by a gun without a criminal attached. 

There are no car manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the cars used in car crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO distillerys in DC.  I'd wager most of the booze used in drunk driving crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO legal growers in DC. I'd wager most of the pot used in pot crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO Computer manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the computers used in computer crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are almost zero shark attacks in the middle of the Sahara Desert so it must be SAFER to live there than the Australian Coast.
 
2014-01-05 05:56:47 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: TuteTibiImperes: The Name: AngryDragon: The Name: And again, if we had European-style gun laws with strict enforcement, we'd have an even lower level of gun crime than the historically low levels we have now.  You're talking about this plummet in gun crime as if has brought us down to an acceptable level, when all it's really done is brought us a little closer to the level of gun crime in the rest of the developed world -which is still way, way lower

Which would be a violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Yup.  So we'll need to amend it first.

Or wait until the Supreme Court finally swings towards a liberal bias and let rulings on relevant cases have the same effect.

Good luck with that.  Thankfully the precedent is already set.

Thankfully the Supreme Court doesn't have to abide by precedent :-)  Better start stockpiling!


They don't have to, but they do the vast majority of the time.

Incidentally, so it's ok to take repeated runs at DC v Heller, but Roe v. Wade should be sacrosanct?
 
2014-01-05 05:59:08 PM  

AngryDragon: Incidentally, so it's ok to take repeated runs at DC v Heller, but Roe v. Wade should be sacrosanct?


Where did that gigantic assumption come from?
 
2014-01-05 06:01:43 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: Incidentally, so it's ok to take repeated runs at DC v Heller, but Roe v. Wade should be sacrosanct?

Where did that gigantic assumption come from?


Flip side of the political spectrum.  Yes it was an assumption, but it seemed appropriate.  Incidentally, I have no opinion on R v W.
 
2014-01-05 06:04:34 PM  

The Name: AngryDragon: Incidentally, so it's ok to take repeated runs at DC v Heller, but Roe v. Wade should be sacrosanct?

Where did that gigantic assumption come from?


Unintended consequences
 
2014-01-05 06:06:43 PM  

Sidecrab: Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.


More politicians per capita than ANY OTHER region! I think you're onto something!
 
2014-01-05 06:06:47 PM  

Linux_Yes: never once saw a pistol rob someone.


but the Owners would enjoy disarming this Nation so they can ram that cock even further up the bottom 90%'s ass.  they love their Freedom, but only for themselves.  everyone else should be under their control.  can't do that if they're armed to the teeth.


I never once saw a chemical weapon burn someone all on its own.

Therefore there is no need to regulate it.
 
Rat
2014-01-05 06:06:59 PM  
TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?

 
2014-01-05 06:09:27 PM  

Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Under what bizarre definition does "compromise" means that both parties receive something that they desire?
 
2014-01-05 06:13:31 PM  

Dimensio: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Under what bizarre definition does "compromise" means that both parties receive something that they desire?



com·pro·mise
ˈkämprəˌmīz/
noun
1.
an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

If each side is making concessions then each side is getting something they want.
 
2014-01-05 06:22:13 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: sammyk: Fark It: Gun laws don't generally correlate one way or another to crime rates.

Are you feeling ok?

He's right, actually. Strict gun laws do not correlate to low crime or high crime very well. Open carry correlates to low crime mainly because the areas with open carry are rural areas which are not prone to high crime in the first place. However, cities need strict gun laws to prevent even worse death rates than currently exist, mainly because people have bad safety, poor aim, and there are a ton of bystanders around and windows for stray bullets to go through. Plus, guns are not very good self-defense in many street-crime situations in, say, here in NYC, since you don't have time to deploy your weapon and gain the advantage. Not to mention that pesky bystander and stray bullet travel problem. In home invasion style robberies, it works well. May even work well for carjackings, depending on the particulars.

In large, dense cities, gun control makes sense to me, provided law enforcement doesn't suck (most egregiously seen in Detroit and Camden). In other areas, I don't care, give them out at drive-thrus for all I care. Put in some controls for people with mental problems so they don't get guns easily. No gun control scenario will work as well as the proponents want it to work, but it's literally better than nothing in most cases. In the end, the illegal guns come from somewhere. Find a better way to crack down on that, and you have a much bigger impact.

Want the real answer to gun violence? Changing how Americans think. This "I am a man and I have to prove my mainliness and not appear weak and not getting disrespected" shiat is the absolute root of violence in the US. Solve that and you solve the real issue.

So in conclusion, gun control is certainly a bit of a misdirection in terms of result, and much of it is just legislative masturbation to respond to some outrage, but applied in the right area, with the right law-enforcement framework, will likely help. ...


Very well said
 
2014-01-05 06:29:14 PM  

Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.
 
2014-01-05 06:32:26 PM  

Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Safer communities and a higher quality of life.  That's what you get.
 
2014-01-05 06:43:14 PM  
I would, sarcastically, suggest that the city would have experienced even more armed robberies had unreasonably restrictive firearm laws not been in place, but a known civilian disarmament advocate, who described a proposal to ban all semi-automatic rifles in California as warranting the "Cool" tag, has already seriously claimed it.
 
2014-01-05 06:45:23 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.


You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?
 
2014-01-05 06:46:26 PM  

The Name: Safer communities and a higher quality of life.  That's what you get.


Bingo.
 
2014-01-05 06:57:12 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?


How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.
 
2014-01-05 07:01:47 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?

How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.


Are you referring to the liberty already established by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986? Are you saying that, as part of the "compromise", firearm owners would be afforded a liberty already available to them for twenty-eight years?
 
2014-01-05 07:03:10 PM  

The Name: redmid17: If I told you that I could achieve the exact same results without reducing the number of guns in the country, would you still push for it?

Probably not.  But you're really flying off into fantasy land if you think reducing gun ownership wouldn't have any place in the ideal crime-reduction program.  You're basically banking on the hope that no Responsible Gun Owners will ever get angry and snap or decide to rob a convenience store.

redmid17: The other countries of the world, a few aside, have never had a right to own a gun. England and the UK did until the mid 1750s. It's been pretty heavily curtailed since then. Switzerland has a right to own a weapon, but I can't think of any others.

Yup.  And today most of those nations enjoy a higher quality of life and even greater freedom than Americans (not arguing causality, just saying you don't need your guns).

redmid17: I think particular applications of the 8th amendment (banned methods of execution like firing squad or electric chair**) should be legal, but I'm not clamoring for them to amend that one either.

It's kind of creepy that you put that much thought into it, and it doesn't help your image as a gun enthusiast, either.


Put that much thought into it? It was off the top of my head and ironically learned during a few Fark threads on capital punishment, and you're projecting.

Firing squads are allowable but most states have banned the practice. The armed forces use lethal injection. A few states still allow/use electric chairs.
 
2014-01-05 07:04:53 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?

How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.

Are you referring to the liberty already established by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986? Are you saying that, as part of the "compromise", firearm owners would be afforded a liberty already available to them for twenty-eight years?


Well, that allows for 'short stops for food or gas' but no extended stays.  I wouldn't object to modifying it to allow for stays up to a week (say you're driving from SC to Maine and decide to stop and visit your in-laws in NY for a few days) provided that the gun never leaves the lockbox while in the prohibited state.
 
2014-01-05 07:05:14 PM  
So a single city, which is part of a larger country and therefore unable to set up border checkpoints, has found its gun laws unable to stem the flow of guns?  This clearly means that a large country which controls its own borders will be unable to do the same with strict gun laws.

/Cities and states which ban guns don't get much use out of the laws
//Nations which ban guns, however, are often able to make gun crime drop as a result
 
2014-01-05 07:05:36 PM  

ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.

If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.


Low crime like Pax Romana?
 
2014-01-05 07:06:01 PM  

The Name: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Safer communities and a higher quality of life.  That's what you get.


lol
 
KIA
2014-01-05 07:06:17 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):


There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of  First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.

And, of course, none of that goes as far as I'd like to go with you, but, you know, the law is the law and all.


clambam: I wish there were a sensible way to discuss this situation.


Try being sensible.
 
2014-01-05 07:14:03 PM  

The_Sponge: IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?


Aren't you the guy who used to own slaves, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own any?

/aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
 
2014-01-05 07:16:27 PM  

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]

You know, a big part of the reason that your perceived constitutional rights are being discussed and renegotiated is that whenever the topic comes, there are throngs of people on your side who insist upon behaving like anti-social douchebags.

You would think people like you would learn that you're not helping your own cause when you post like someone who we could imagine shooting up a primary school.


Sweet mother of God! This X 1000!!!

I'd be more sympathetic to the pro-gun people's cause if they didn't act like a bunch of self-righteous douchebags all the goddamn time.
 
2014-01-05 07:19:39 PM  

Chummer45: udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.

And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.


To be fair, gun culture political beliefs are pretty deranged.  Once a person has accepted the proposition that owning a gun is a political statement, and that it is important to own a gun to protect you from our democratically elected government, then it's hard to consider that person anything other than somewhat delusional or deranged.

I'm a gun owner that gets completely disgusted by gun politics and gun fetishists.  Although I would not be in favor of outright bans on most weapons, I am in favor of regulating guns in a comprehensive and common-sense way.  I also have contempt for the insanely irresponsible and unethical gun industry and its political arm, the NRA.


I didn't know reasonable people like you existed.

Seriously, I understand the right to own a gun, a lot of my family hunts and I understand the need to protect your property. But I also understand the need to regulate who can own a gun to minimize the chances that it will fall into the wrong hands.

Isn't there any way we can reach some middle ground in which all parties involved can be happy about something AND actually do something meaningful on this issue for once?
 
2014-01-05 07:24:34 PM  
So has Fark reached consensus on whether or not gun crime rates are related to gun control laws yet?
 
2014-01-05 07:30:31 PM  

KIA: There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.


Except none of those other constitutional rights have come into direct conflict with the general welfare clause like the 2nd Amendment has when paired with modern technology the founders couldn't have imaged.

And when those other rights DO conflict with \general welfare, they ARE subject to restrictions, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater.
 
2014-01-05 07:31:21 PM  
Not bothering to read thread, just skipping straight to telling any idiot that hasn't figured it out yet that it's a very short trip with no border controls from Virginia, where there are much looser gun laws, to DC. This is a demonstration that small territories can't ban things on their own than that gun laws don't work.
 
2014-01-05 07:33:13 PM  

poot_rootbeer: The_Sponge: IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

Aren't you the guy who used to own slaves, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own any?

/aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?


Are you for real making this argument?
 
2014-01-05 07:33:33 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: ox45tallboy: My opinion on guns is very similar to my opinion on abortion. I'm in favor of it being legal, but I think we need to do more in our society to discourage both.

If we lower poverty, we lower crime. If we lower crime, not only will there be fewer criminals using guns, there will also be fewer people buying guns to protect themselves against criminals. I'm not in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but I am in favor of making it as much of a relic of an antiquated past as the 3rd.

Low crime like Pax Romana?


You tell me. Ancient Rome still had poverty, and the government did distribute quite a lot of food to the poor in those times.
 
2014-01-05 07:38:54 PM  

ex-nuke: Dusk-You-n-Me: cameroncrazy1984: That's why you only hear about cities like Chicago. Actually pretty much only Chicago.

Like Chicago, I'd wager most of the guns used in gun crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There is ONE dealer with a FFL in DC who does a handful of sales per year by appointment only. There are NO felons who can legally buy a gun in DC (or the rest of the country). I'd wager that there has never been a crime committed in DC that was committed by a gun without a criminal attached. 

There are no car manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the cars used in car crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO distillerys in DC.  I'd wager most of the booze used in drunk driving crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO legal growers in DC. I'd wager most of the pot used in pot crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are NO Computer manufacturers in DC. I'd wager most of the computers used in computer crime in DC come from out of town/district.

There are almost zero shark attacks in the middle of the Sahara Desert so it must be SAFER to live there than the Australian Coast.


Funny thing, there is at least one distillery in DC

http://greenhatgin.com/
 
2014-01-05 07:46:00 PM  

Frank N Stein: poot_rootbeer: The_Sponge: IIRC, aren't you the guy who used to own an AR-15, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own one?

Aren't you the guy who used to own slaves, and now has the chutzpah to tell other people that they should not be allowed to own any?

/aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?

Are you for real making this argument?


Clarence Thomas argued against race-based affirmative action.

#thinkaboutit
 
2014-01-05 07:50:19 PM  

Turbo Cojones: We already have more people in prison that China and Russia combined.  The incarceration cubbard is bare $ wise.


I don't remember mentioning incarceration.
 
2014-01-05 07:55:02 PM  

super_grass: So has Fark reached consensus on whether or not gun crime rates are related to gun control laws yet?


They aren't. There's no correlation. The problem isn't guns, or gun laws.

The problem is America: It's full of total shiatbags.
 
2014-01-05 07:56:08 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?

How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.

Are you referring to the liberty already established by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986? Are you saying that, as part of the "compromise", firearm owners would be afforded a liberty already available to them for twenty-eight years?

Well, that allows for 'short stops for food or gas' but no extended stays.  I wouldn't object to modifying it to allow for stays up to a week (say you're driving from SC to Maine and decide to stop and visit your in-laws in NY for a few days) provided that the gun never leaves the lockbox while in the prohibited state.


This is a breadcrumb no one is clamorong for. Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.
 
2014-01-05 07:58:28 PM  

udhq: KIA: There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.

Except none of those other constitutional rights have come into direct conflict with the general welfare clause like the 2nd Amendment has when paired with modern technology the founders couldn't have imaged.

And when those other rights DO conflict with \general welfare, they ARE subject to restrictions, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater.


Being responsible for the consequences of yelling fire in a crowded theater is vastly different than the mere act of owning a firearm. My owning a firearm does not interfere with your welfare.
 
2014-01-05 08:00:24 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Isn't there any way we can reach some middle ground in which all parties involved can be happy about something AND actually do something meaningful on this issue for once?


Not so long as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Mr. Ted Nugent continue to speak.
 
2014-01-05 08:00:36 PM  

Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.


No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.
 
2014-01-05 08:02:05 PM  

Doom MD: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



None of those would restrict law abiding gun owners negatively at all.

You did not address the question: what new benefits or liberties would firearm owners receive in return, as part of the "compromise", for the restrictions that you propose?

How about registered and licensed owners of firearms are free to transport their firearms through states or municipalities, even those where their particular firearm may be banned or license invalid, provided the firearm is stored unloaded in an inaccessible lockbox for the duration of the trip.

Are you referring to the liberty already established by the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986? Are you saying that, as part of the "compromise", firearm owners would be afforded a liberty already available to them for twenty-eight years?

Well, that allows for 'short stops for food or gas' but no extended stays.  I wouldn't object to modifying it to allow for stays up to a week (say you're driving from SC to Maine and decide to stop and visit your in-laws in NY for a few days) provided that the gun never leaves the lockbox while in the prohibited state.

This is a breadcrumb no one is clamorong for. Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.


TuteTibiImperes actually advocates eliminating all concealed weapons permit systems, revoking all existing permits and completely prohibiting the carrying of firearms by civilians, despite any evidence that such a policy would in any way reduce rates of violent crime.
 
2014-01-05 08:03:50 PM  

The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.


Did I hallucinate his support of a new awb or his executive orders? Just because he failed doesn't mean he didnt try.
 
2014-01-05 08:07:00 PM  

Dimensio: Mrtraveler01: Isn't there any way we can reach some middle ground in which all parties involved can be happy about something AND actually do something meaningful on this issue for once?

Not so long as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Mr. Ted Nugent continue to speak.


Heh.  I like how the representatives of gun control here are a Senator and a Rep, and the pro-gun representative is a pants-shiatting lunatic draft-dodger.
 
2014-01-05 08:07:33 PM  

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]


Login:Elvis Presleys Death Throne    (What's
Fark account number:830200
Account created:2012-12-20 07:46:53 (1 year ago)
 
2014-01-05 08:08:26 PM  
WHY CAN'T I CARRY A BAZOOKA ONTO A JETLINER IS ALL I WANT TO KNOW
 
2014-01-05 08:09:17 PM  

Doom MD: The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.

Did I hallucinate his support of a new awb or his executive orders? Just because he failed doesn't mean he didnt try.


Oooooohh, okay.  THAT justifies all the outrage.  You're right, he's coming for your guns any moment in his black UN helicopters.
 
2014-01-05 08:11:22 PM  

The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.


No they probably would. Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon. It wouldn't give Obama a complete pass on gun rights but it would certainly help while being a complete 180 on his state and federal voting record and platforms.

Obama's "expansion" of gun rights was something he was strong-armed into AFTER his administration declined to appeal the court injunction against Bush's rule. He's also actively pushed new gun laws, which ended up failing on the federal level.
 
2014-01-05 08:11:49 PM  

The Name: Dimensio: Mrtraveler01: Isn't there any way we can reach some middle ground in which all parties involved can be happy about something AND actually do something meaningful on this issue for once?

Not so long as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Mr. Ted Nugent continue to speak.

Heh.  I like how the representatives of gun control here are a Senator and a Rep, and the pro-gun representative is a pants-shiatting lunatic draft-dodger.


That would suggest that the firearm regulation advocates are more dangerous, as they are actually in a position to push forth their irrational agenda, while Mr. Nugent is able only to further show off his incontinence.
 
2014-01-05 08:12:00 PM  

The Name: Doom MD: The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.

Did I hallucinate his support of a new awb or his executive orders? Just because he failed doesn't mean he didnt try.

Oooooohh, okay.  THAT justifies all the outrage.  You're right, he's coming for your guns any moment in his black UN helicopters.


You brought up Obama as a distraction and it wasn't even a correct statement. Obama would've had more success if he offered a legit compromise rather than make demands followed by an embarassing hissy fit when his efforts fell flat on its face.
 
2014-01-05 08:12:52 PM  

The Name: Doom MD: The Name: Doom MD: Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

No, they wouldn't.  Obama did nothing but EXPAND gun rights, and they STILL hate him for "trying to take our guns away."  I can only imagine their reaction if there were actual concessions involved.

Did I hallucinate his support of a new awb or his executive orders? Just because he failed doesn't mean he didnt try.

Oooooohh, okay.  THAT justifies all the outrage.  You're right, he's coming for your guns any moment in his black UN helicopters.


Said no one in this thread but you
 
2014-01-05 08:13:35 PM  

redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.


Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.
 
2014-01-05 08:14:16 PM  
The District of Columbia Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Mr. Paul Quander, explains that being a victim who suffers injury when confronted with an armed robber is preferable to being an armed citizen who engages in self-defense, and also predicts that legally armed citizens will ultimately cause injury to other bystanders, a claim which he backs up through absolutely no examples in any other states where citizen carry is allowed.
Unfortunately, Chicago has just lost this battle and must soon confront the horror of a small minority of citizens being legally permitted to carry concealed firearms.
 
2014-01-05 08:17:22 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: He was however a criminal who caused his own demise by choosing to hole up instead of surrendering to the authorities.


You know that Randy Weaver is still alive and a free man, right?

/Vicki Weaver on the other hand.....
 
2014-01-05 08:17:36 PM  

Doom MD: Obama would've had more success if he offered a legit compromise rather than make demands followed by an embarassing hissy fit when his efforts fell flat on its face.


Said every Republican every time Obama has offered a legitimate compromise on anything.

Dimensio: That would suggest that the firearm regulation advocates are more dangerous, as they are actually in a position to push forth their irrational agenda, while Mr. Nugent is able only to further show off his incontinence.


"Dangerous" and "effective" are two different things, and you're not even correct about which is which.
 
2014-01-05 08:18:47 PM  

Doom MD: This is a breadcrumb no one is clamorong for. Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.


Ah yes, when the goal is to reduce the body counts of spree killings, the problem is the lack of availability of fully automatic weapons.

I'm also not too keen on forcing major cities to abide by rules that may work fine for more rural areas.  In terms of gun laws, a little localization is probably good for everybody. Letting places like NYC, Chicago and DC set their own limits is a big part of why more comprehensive nationwide legislation has not been put forward.  Besides, 99% of the people who biatch about the municipal gun restrictions of major cities are people who don't live there.
 
2014-01-05 08:19:45 PM  
DC murder rate has been in freefall for the past two decades or so and is reaching the lowest level in around a hundred years.

www.slate.com

We're all gonna make it brah.
 
2014-01-05 08:20:01 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I'm not saying the government didn't make some mistakes handling his case, but those are things he should have brought to the attention of his lawyer and handled through due process in the courts.


You mean the same 'due process' that gave Lon the orders to shoot any armed male on sight?  Why should you respect due process when the other side has orders to kill you on sight?
 
2014-01-05 08:20:18 PM  

udhq: Ah yes, when the goal is to reduce the body counts of spree killings, the problem is the lack of availability of fully automatic weapons.


"Spree killings" committed with use of fully automatic weapons were not occurring with any frequency at all prior to the 1986 Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Concern regarding occurrences of such incidents in the future is therefore not rationally justified.
 
2014-01-05 08:21:19 PM  

super_grass: DC murder rate has been in freefall for the past two decades or so and is reaching the lowest level in around a hundred years.

[www.slate.com image 659x410]

We're all gonna make it brah.


That chart is inaccurate, as it does not document the substantial increase in homicides that must have occurred in the city following the overturning of the city's ban on civilian firearm ownership in 2008.
 
2014-01-05 08:21:28 PM  

Chummer45: Ok...  My point is that private ownership of small arms does not in any way, shape, or form prevent government corruption or tyranny.


It was not meant to.  it was there to allow the folks to rebuff said system instead of become slaves.
 
2014-01-05 08:22:53 PM  

HeadLever: Chummer45: Ok...  My point is that private ownership of small arms does not in any way, shape, or form prevent government corruption or tyranny.

It was not meant to.  it was there to allow the folks to rebuff said system instead of become slaves.


I have a cat.  I do not have a cat.
 
2014-01-05 08:23:21 PM  

Dimensio: super_grass: DC murder rate has been in freefall for the past two decades or so and is reaching the lowest level in around a hundred years.

[www.slate.com image 659x410]

We're all gonna make it brah.

That chart is inaccurate, as it does not document the substantial increase in homicides that must have occurred in the city following the overturning of the city's ban on civilian firearm ownership in 2008.


That dip after '08 is actually represents the waterfall of virgin toddler blood on the capital steps after the overturned gun ban.
 
2014-01-05 08:30:52 PM  

The Name: redmid17: No one is saying "stop trying" to reducing gun violence in this thread. They are saying "Let's try a different method."

But my point is that the method (legislation) could work quite well in the long run if we incrementally limited sales, ownership and manufacture of guns over an extended period of time.


What specific limitations do you propose? How would those limitations survive a Constitutional challenge?
 
2014-01-05 08:33:18 PM  

The Name: I have a cat that ran away.  I do not have a cat.

would have been a better response.


Having the ability to rebuff the bad to maintain the good is not a mutually exclusive concept.
 
2014-01-05 08:35:11 PM  

udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.

And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.


It's funny you should mention that, because as an Army Veteran and recovering long time Liberal, I've always seen guns as nothing more than tools, which can be used for mundane tasks or terrible evil, and similar to a hammer are not themselves responsible for those acts.  That position is typical of the gun lobby and I'm surprised that you are trying to lay claim to it.

This is the second time you've asserted that I'm an unhinged, anti-social, school shooter type person, I'm assuming on the basis that I used a Dawsons Creek meme unbelievably common to Fark.  I've said nothing to indicate instability, save for committing the terrible sin of disagreeing with your position.

Allow me to clarify this.

I have no criminal record.
I am college educated.
I'm an active Catholic, who disagrees with the church on abortion, but believes strongly enough to know that I may not be right.
I run a hockey team.
I'm a Lifetime NRA member, as well as a member of the 2nd Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America.
I served in combat, and am obviously very well trained in firearms.  I always took their safe handling and secure storage very seriously.
I never saw my substantial collection of firearms, including AR15's, High-Cap Handguns, Sporting Guns and .22's as something to piss people off.  I purchased and kept them because I enjoyed shooting them.
When I found that I didn't have the time to enjoy them, and felt that there were other activities I would enjoy more for the money(namely motorcycling) I sold my collection.  Make your jokes; I'm indifferent.

I support Constutional Gun Rights as much as I ever have.  The source of that support is not in owning a massive personal arsenal; it's in being a member of organizations which fight for those rights, and voting my beliefs at the ballot box and with my feet by choosing to live in a state that will treat me with the respect assured in the Constitution and it's Amendments, which is due to responsible adults.

Now how about if you grow up, develop an opinion outside of what Pierce Morgan pumps into you, and think for yourself just a little bit.
 
2014-01-05 08:35:23 PM  

udhq: Doom MD: This is a breadcrumb no one is clamorong for. Offer up to repeal the Hughes amendment and establish nationwide ccw reciprocity and not only would you get your demands but 2A advocates would be jumping for joy in the process.

Ah yes, when the goal is to reduce the body counts of spree killings, the problem is the lack of availability of fully automatic weapons.

I'm also not too keen on forcing major cities to abide by rules that may work fine for more rural areas.  In terms of gun laws, a little localization is probably good for everybody. Letting places like NYC, Chicago and DC set their own limits is a big part of why more comprehensive nationwide legislation has not been put forward.  Besides, 99% of the people who biatch about the municipal gun restrictions of major cities are people who don't live there.


Please look up the number of times nfa items have EVER been used in a crime in this country. You can count them on one hand, and that's including the decades before the Hughes amendment was passed.

As for the other part, if you believe your initial proposal is so helpful perhaps it would be worth the trade.
 
2014-01-05 08:40:09 PM  

Doom MD: udhq: KIA: There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.

Except none of those other constitutional rights have come into direct conflict with the general welfare clause like the 2nd Amendment has when paired with modern technology the founders couldn't have imaged.

And when those other rights DO conflict with \general welfare, they ARE subject to restrictions, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater.

Being responsible for the consequences of yelling fire in a crowded theater is vastly different than the mere act of owning a firearm. My owning a firearm does not interfere with your welfare.


Yes it does.  Actuarially speaking, choosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household, as well as that of your neighbors.  No matter how safe you think you are, gun ownership is inherently risky and it is more likely to kill or injure a member of your household than it is to deter a crime.

That's not necessarily an argument for prohibition, but the statistics themselves are not all even controversial.
 
2014-01-05 08:42:14 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: FARKLIBS be like
[www.troll.me image 550x413]

Login:Elvis Presleys Death Throne    (What's
Fark account number:830200
Account created:2012-12-20 07:46:53 (1 year ago)


Ahh, the Ultimate Lib Defense.  I had an account long before that one was created, 6 days after Sandy Hook.

I created a new one because a Liberal had made a death threat to someone on one of the Fark AWB threads at the time, and my handle had the remote possibility of revealing my identity and location.

I enjoy Fark, but not enough to worry about crazy people coming after me.
 
2014-01-05 08:42:26 PM  

Dimensio: What specific limitations do you propose?


The ones where I offer something reasonable, though vague, because this is a Fark thread, not a Congressional committee, that seems capable of accomplishing the goal of reducing gun crime without violating anyone's rights, and you pedantically nitpick them to death with ways they can be evaded while I try to explain to you that the possibility of evading detection is no reason not to have a law if the law in itself is reasonable.  Glad we got that out of the way.

Dimensio: How would those limitations survive a Constitutional challenge?


They probably wouldn't, which is why the Constitution would probably need amending first.
 
2014-01-05 08:42:30 PM  

udhq: hoosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household,


Higher than 100%?  Well, color me shocked.  Most of my math classes said 100% was as high as you could go.
 
2014-01-05 08:43:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Chummer45: udhq: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: That picture was just for you. You're only mad because you couldn't post it yourself, for gun owners who's constitutional rights had been stripped away.

No matter; that "discussed and renegotiated" thing got its ass kicked last year and I don't expect we'll be hearing from it any time soon.

It is good to see that your ilk never tire of that whole standing on the graves of dead kids thing though.

And your ilk never gets tired of enabling those who want to make more dead kids.

The right likes to say that the left is afraid of guns, but that's not true.  Guns are tools, and in the hands of well trained people, they can be used for good.  What we fear are guns in the hands of unhinged, anti-social people like you who see their guns not as a grave set of rights and responsibilities,  but as something to wave in the air to piss off the right people.

You don't seem to take gun ownership seriously at all, and the good gun owners out there should want you to sit down, shut up and stop making them all look like deranged adolescents.


To be fair, gun culture political beliefs are pretty deranged.  Once a person has accepted the proposition that owning a gun is a political statement, and that it is important to own a gun to protect you from our democratically elected government, then it's hard to consider that person anything other than somewhat delusional or deranged.

I'm a gun owner that gets completely disgusted by gun politics and gun fetishists.  Although I would not be in favor of outright bans on most weapons, I am in favor of regulating guns in a comprehensive and common-sense way.  I also have contempt for the insanely irresponsible and unethical gun industry and its political arm, the NRA.

I didn't know reasonable people like you existed.

Seriously, I understand the right to own a gun, a lot of my family hunts and I understand the need to protect your property. But I also understand the need to regulate who can ow ...



Yes.  But the problem is that the policy debate is, to a large extent, controlled by the NRA on the right.  And the NRA takes the absolutist view that any gun control is a slippery slope towards tyranny.

Of course, in practice the NRA is just a vehicle to promote insanely irresponsible policies that benefit the gun industry.  But their rhetorical strategy is to scare their members with the abstract notion that any gun regulations will lead directly to mass confiscation.  That's how they justify opposing even the most basic, common-sense regulations like closing the gun show loophole (which the vast majority of Americans - including most gun owners - support).  Of course, the real reason the NRA opposes closing the gun show loophole is because the gun industry wants the "freedom" to sell its wares with as little regulation as possible.
 
2014-01-05 08:43:54 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.


The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there
 
2014-01-05 08:44:50 PM  

The Name: Dimensio: What specific limitations do you propose?

The ones where I offer something reasonable, though vague, because this is a Fark thread, not a Congressional committee, that seems capable of accomplishing the goal of reducing gun crime without violating anyone's rights, and you pedantically nitpick them to death with ways they can be evaded while I try to explain to you that the possibility of evading detection is no reason not to have a law if the law in itself is reasonable.  Glad we got that out of the way.

You are "poisoning the well".

 
2014-01-05 08:45:04 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there



Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.
 
2014-01-05 08:48:03 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.


If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.
 
2014-01-05 08:48:55 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.


Glad you support repealing the Hughes amendment
 
2014-01-05 08:49:33 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.


I suspect that few firearm owners in this nation would be amenable to imposing a regulation that mandated explicit approval by a local sheriff and then imposed a twelve to eighteen month wait for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives prior to pickup of any purchased firearm.
 
2014-01-05 08:52:09 PM  

udhq: Doom MD: udhq: KIA: There won't be any such "compromise" unless you're prepared to register all of your means of First Amendment communication and subject them to regular inspection and fill out paperwork whenever they are transferred, then register your religion(s) along with the manner(s) in which you intend to practice them, and the place(s) in which you intend to assert privilege against illegal search and seizure, fill out applications for due process, knowing that if you make any mistake in any of that paperwork, your right will evaporate, then condition your rights to trial by jury, privilege against self-incrimination, and acknowledge that you have no protection against cruel or unusual punishments unless you've registered with some bureaucratic institution somewhere.

Except none of those other constitutional rights have come into direct conflict with the general welfare clause like the 2nd Amendment has when paired with modern technology the founders couldn't have imaged.

And when those other rights DO conflict with \general welfare, they ARE subject to restrictions, i.e. yelling "fire" in a theater.

Being responsible for the consequences of yelling fire in a crowded theater is vastly different than the mere act of owning a firearm. My owning a firearm does not interfere with your welfare.

Yes it does.  Actuarially speaking, choosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household, as well as that of your neighbors.  No matter how safe you think you are, gun ownership is inherently risky and it is more likely to kill or injure a member of your household than it is to deter a crime.

That's not necessarily an argument for prohibition, but the statistics themselves are not all even controversial.


You clearly didnt grasp the nuance. Committing an action that hurts people (yelling fire in a theater) and owning a piece of metal and plastic ( a gun) are very different things.
 
2014-01-05 08:52:40 PM  

The Name: Dimensio: What specific limitations do you propose?

The ones where I offer something reasonable, though vague, because this is a Fark thread, not a Congressional committee, that seems capable of accomplishing the goal of reducing gun crime without violating anyone's rights, and you pedantically nitpick them to death with ways they can be evaded while I try to explain to you that the possibility of evading detection is no reason not to have a law if the law in itself is reasonable.  Glad we got that out of the way.

Dimensio: How would those limitations survive a Constitutional challenge?

They probably wouldn't, which is why the Constitution would probably need amending first.



To the latter point, Heller was a 5-4 decision.  All the Supreme Court needs is one conservative justice to retire and a progressive justice to take its place, and Heller (which overturned centuries of settled precedent)can be reversed.  Also, Heller itself was a very narrow holding, and only stands for the proposition that a jurisdiction cannot completely ban gun ownership.  Also, even the conservative Heller majority was careful to make clear that all sorts of gun regulations would be acceptable under the conservative majority's interpretation of the second amendment.
 
2014-01-05 08:52:43 PM  

redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.


Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."
 
2014-01-05 08:53:20 PM  

plewis: hubiestubert: etc.

Dude, stop with the rational thought.  This is a gun thread.

That said, I live in the district.  The concentration of people who make for tempting targets and the number of visitors here makes stricter gun control than the average place pretty reasonable.  Also, Congress lets us have only as much say in this kind of thing as they want to let us get away with, being the only place in the nation that can't vote for anyone with any power in congress.


A roll of coins in the hand would take your fatass out.
 
2014-01-05 08:54:19 PM  

Dimensio: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

I suspect that few firearm owners in this nation would be amenable to imposing a regulation that mandated explicit approval by a local sheriff and then imposed a twelve to eighteen month wait for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives prior to pickup of any purchased firearm.


You can get around the sheriff signature easily enough with a gun trust. I'd be more concerned jurisdictions that do not allow NFA weapons at all. I have a feeling it would take a while to get that sorted out in the courts.
 
2014-01-05 08:54:28 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."


You are certainly welcome to advocate amendment of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, by attaining support of two-thirds of each branch of Congress and three-fourths of the states.
 
2014-01-05 08:56:59 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."


I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible. Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.
 
2014-01-05 08:57:48 PM  

Dimensio: "Spree killings" committed with use of fully automatic weapons were not occurring with any frequency at all prior to the 1986 Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Concern regarding occurrences of such incidents in the future is therefore not rationally justified.


But several have taken place since with weapons that violate the Hughs Amendment.  Technology has changed since then, and these weapons are better and more portable than they were when the ban was put in place.
 
2014-01-05 08:59:23 PM  

udhq: Dimensio: "Spree killings" committed with use of fully automatic weapons were not occurring with any frequency at all prior to the 1986 Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Concern regarding occurrences of such incidents in the future is therefore not rationally justified.

But several have taken place since with weapons that violate the Hughs Amendment.  Technology has changed since then, and these weapons are better and more portable than they were when the ban was put in place.


Uhhhh, no.
 
2014-01-05 09:00:48 PM  

udhq: Dimensio: "Spree killings" committed with use of fully automatic weapons were not occurring with any frequency at all prior to the 1986 Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owner's Protection Act. Concern regarding occurrences of such incidents in the future is therefore not rationally justified.

But several have taken place since with weapons that violate the Hughs Amendment.  Technology has changed since then, and these weapons are better and more portable than they were when the ban was put in place.


Name one. Also might want to look up what the Hughes Amendment did, if you're not familiar with it.
 
2014-01-05 09:03:05 PM  

redmid17: I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible.


But it would be somewhat effective, right?  Are you just not that serious about reducing crime?  Again, let's assume you get a direct vote on it.  Would you vote to repeal it to help fight crime?

redmid17: Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.


As I said to Dimensio above, I'm not biting on logistics/enforcement concern trolling.
 
2014-01-05 09:03:24 PM  

HeadLever: udhq: hoosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household,

Higher than 100%?  Well, color me shocked.  Most of my math classes said 100% was as high as you could go. I have no idea how actuarial science works.


FTFY
 
2014-01-05 09:03:45 PM  

Doom MD: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

Glad you support repealing the Hughes amendment



wut
 
2014-01-05 09:05:45 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."

I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible. Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.



Oh my, I know.  It's not like I am against changing the 2nd amendment. It's just that it would be sooooo hard to do it.  And quit blaming guns for stuff. They never hurt anyone!

Therefore, I am against changing the 2nd amendment.
 
2014-01-05 09:05:56 PM  

The Name: redmid17: I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible.

But it would be somewhat effective, right?  Are you just not that serious about reducing crime?  Again, let's assume you get a direct vote on it.  Would you vote to repeal it to help fight crime?

redmid17: Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

As I said to Dimensio above, I'm not biting on logistics/enforcement concern trolling.


I've already said I would vote no. I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.
 
2014-01-05 09:10:49 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible.

But it would be somewhat effective, right?  Are you just not that serious about reducing crime?  Again, let's assume you get a direct vote on it.  Would you vote to repeal it to help fight crime?

redmid17: Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

As I said to Dimensio above, I'm not biting on logistics/enforcement concern trolling.

I've already said I would vote no. I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.


For fair consideration, providing specifics creates a real risk of factual refutation. As an example, an advocate of a federal "assault weapons ban" may be faced with being asked to explain why this is a legitimate civilian firearm, yet this is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian use and thus be forced to ignore the question entirely, to admit that the classification is entirely arbitrary and thus not in any way focused upon public safety or to admit a complete lack of understanding of the firearms technology that they advocate regulating.
 
2014-01-05 09:10:54 PM  

Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."
I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible. Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

Oh my, I know.  It's not like I am against changing the 2nd amendment. It's just that it would be sooooo hard to do it.  And quit blaming guns for stuff. They never hurt anyone!

Therefore, I am against changing the 2nd amendment.


I have actively said the entire thread I'm against changing the second amendment but I suppose reading is hard?
Feel free to check my post at 2014-01-05 05:18:20 PM.

And yes any kind of sweeping gun legislation needs to have logistics thought about very hard and very carefully. There are 310 or so million guns in the US. There are a million or so cops. A few agencies would have a hand as far as registration enforcement would go. ATF has a pretty sweet history of incompetence and a nice vindictive streak. The gov't would have to pour in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to even get started.
 
2014-01-05 09:11:26 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."



Hahah, exactly.  It's a multilayered approach to trying to justify terrible gun policy.  Like, once you can't justify your silly philosophical points any more, you retreat to "well, I'm not saying it's right.. the founding fathers said I'm right - right there in the constitution."  Like the views of the "founding fathers" (whatever that means) constitute decrees of infallible demigods.

And then when you say - why not amend it, they say "oh man, you know, that would just be so hard.  Plus criminals are the real problem.  plus blah blah blah guns don't kill people blah blah law abiding citizens liberty blah"

I
 
2014-01-05 09:11:57 PM  

Dimensio: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible.

But it would be somewhat effective, right?  Are you just not that serious about reducing crime?  Again, let's assume you get a direct vote on it.  Would you vote to repeal it to help fight crime?

redmid17: Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

As I said to Dimensio above, I'm not biting on logistics/enforcement concern trolling.

I've already said I would vote no. I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.

For fair consideration, providing specifics creates a real risk of factual refutation. As an example, an advocate of a federal "assault weapons ban" may be faced with being asked to explain why this is a legitimate civilian firearm, yet this is a deadly semi-automatic assault weapon with no possible legitimate civilian use and thus be forced to ignore the question entirely, to admit that the classification is entirely arbitrary and thus not in any way focused upon public safety or to admit a complete lack of understanding of the firearms technology that they advocate regulating.


That one is easy. Someone could poke their eye out on that threaded barrel. Not all of us want to live dangerously.
 
2014-01-05 09:12:47 PM  

redmid17: I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.


But why not address the symptom, too?  You've already come out in support of an unprecedentedly ambitious program of social welfare that would be incredibly difficult to implement in this country.  Why is the second amendment completely off the table?

redmid17: You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.


Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear some specifics on how you'd address the root of the problem.  Please use footnotes, not endnotes.  I don't like having to flip to the back all the time.
 
2014-01-05 09:13:02 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.



It's cute that you really believe that. Let us know when you grow up and join the real world.
 
2014-01-05 09:13:51 PM  
The figment of your imagination is that loose handgun laws limit crime.
 
2014-01-05 09:14:31 PM  

redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Chummer45: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: Even the derpiest Teahadist would like the chance to own an affordable NFA weapon.

Oh goody . . . wouldn't that be nice.

The amount of time and effort you have to expend to get an NFA weapon pretty much precludes the person from using it in a crime. There were over 200K NFA machine guns in 1995. There have been 2 crimes committed with an NFA registered machine gun since 1934, one of which was a cop with a department weapon.

Huge risk factor there


Interesting.  That seems to demonstrate that there might be something to that gun control thingy after all.

If you wanted to expand the NFA to all firearms, you better start with the 2nd amendment first.

Heh.  I like how so many of these conversations come down to: Farker: "Well, if we just got really serious about restricting gun ownership, then we'd have lower murder rates with little having been lost."  Fark gun nut: "You're right, but alas . . . . the second amendment."  Me: "Well, why don't we just amend it?"  Fark gun nut: "Um, no.  Because reasons."
I don't see a compelling reason to amend it given that there are other options which would be more effective at reducing the crime, politically feasible, and logistically possible. Even if the 2nd amendment were changed to accommodate that and the measure passed with overwhelming support, the sheer logistical and enforcement issues would be mind boggling.

Oh my, I know.  It's not like I am against changing the 2nd amendment. It's just that it would be sooooo hard to do it.  And quit blaming guns for stuff. They never hurt anyone!

Therefore, I am against changing the 2nd amendment.

I have actively said the entire thread I'm against changing the second amendment but I suppose reading is hard?
Feel free to check my post at 2014-01-05 05:18:20 PM.

And yes any kind of sweeping gun legislation needs to have logistics thought about very hard and very carefully. There are 310 or so millio ...



So you're pointing to a problem that the NRA and the gun culture created as an excuse not to change the law.

How convenient.  I guess creating problems that are hard to fix is good politics.
 
2014-01-05 09:15:16 PM  

Chummer45: The Name: Dimensio: What specific limitations do you propose?

The ones where I offer something reasonable, though vague, because this is a Fark thread, not a Congressional committee, that seems capable of accomplishing the goal of reducing gun crime without violating anyone's rights, and you pedantically nitpick them to death with ways they can be evaded while I try to explain to you that the possibility of evading detection is no reason not to have a law if the law in itself is reasonable.  Glad we got that out of the way.

Dimensio: How would those limitations survive a Constitutional challenge?

They probably wouldn't, which is why the Constitution would probably need amending first.


To the latter point, Heller was a 5-4 decision.  All the Supreme Court needs is one conservative justice to retire and a progressive justice to take its place, and Heller (which overturned centuries of settled precedent)can be reversed.  Also, Heller itself was a very narrow holding, and only stands for the proposition that a jurisdiction cannot completely ban gun ownership.  Also, even the conservative Heller majority was careful to make clear that all sorts of gun regulations would be acceptable under the conservative majority's interpretation of the second amendment.


Then magic, right. Magic and fairy tails, yeah.

What this country needs is it's guns ripped from them, then we can truly realize our dream.

Wake the fark up.
 
2014-01-05 09:16:06 PM  

theknuckler_33: The figment of your imagination is that loose handgun laws limit crime.


fark you asshole!

I watched a gun commit a crime on my way home from my volunteer work.

Right up your ass.
 
2014-01-05 09:17:27 PM  

redmid17: The gov't would have to pour in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to even get started.


Cut the military by a fraction of a percentage point, and you've got all the funding you need right there.
 
2014-01-05 09:21:44 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Try banning water from the center of your bathtub.


Better analogy is try having a no peeing section of your pool.
 
2014-01-05 09:27:13 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: theknuckler_33: The figment of your imagination is that loose handgun laws limit crime.

fark you asshole!

I watched a gun commit a crime on my way home from my volunteer work.

Right up your ass.


The readings on my sarcasm detector are inconclusive. Perhaps my model is obsolete.
 
2014-01-05 09:28:15 PM  

The Name: redmid17: I'd like to address the root of the problem, not the symptom.

But why not address the symptom, too?  You've already come out in support of an unprecedentedly ambitious program of social welfare that would be incredibly difficult to implement in this country.  Why is the second amendment completely off the table?

redmid17: You're not biting on the logistics/enforcement/likelihood aspects for the same reason you haven't given any specifics when asked. You have nothing productive to add.

Now that I think about it, I'd like to hear some specifics on how you'd address the root of the problem.  Please use footnotes, not endnotes.  I don't like having to flip to the back all the time.


Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do, on top of the fact I don't think it needs to be changed. All of the legal legwork has already been done for the healthcare part. ACA was declared constitutional. Medicaid and Medicare have been around for 50 years.  There isn't an enforcement issue. Everyone gets healthcare coverage by default. You don't have to worry about digging around through people's like you might have to do for guns. There's no arrests. You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it. It also wouldn't clog up the justice system.

Reid had the ability to nuke the filibuster when ACA was passed. The US could easily have had the single payer system Obama wanted. Now we have a pretty shiatty half-assed implementation that is pissing a lot of people off and enriching the companies who deserve it the least. shiat they could pass the single payer option this week if they wanted to.

Steps to reduce crime:
1) Release non-violent offenders from prison. shiat's expensive and keeping them in prison doesn't help anyting. Work on anti-recidivism programs. They're pretty successful in other countries
2) End the war on drugs (this one is obvious)
3) Expand healthcare like I noted above
4) Make sure mental healthcare is not stigmatized and available to everyone. Want to keep those spree shooters from happening
5) Provide job training and education opportunities for those who are unemployed or came from underprivileged backgrounds. Probably want to shift school funding from property taxes to a standardized per student model or something similar.

Those are all broad strokes. I've written this type of post before so I might be missing something really obvious.
 
2014-01-05 09:30:42 PM  

Chummer45: Like the views of the "founding fathers" (whatever that means) constitute decrees of infallible demigods.


Ugh, don't get me started on Americans and the Founding farking Fathers.
 
2014-01-05 09:31:57 PM  
Just to bring back some sanity to the gun thread for a moment, it's worth noting that there are gun laws that have historically had a positive effect.  Banning convicted criminals from owning guns has forced them largely to avoid temptation when they're trying to go legit, CCP training requirements certainly reduce the risk of licensed carriers doing something stupid with their guns, etc.

There are really only three centerpieces of gun control law that flat-out accomplish nothing: magazine size limits intentionally set several rounds below industry standards, flat-out municipal/state ownership bans, and cosmetic bans.  These are both kind of obviously stupid on basic logical grounds, and have proven ineffective when implemented.

A lot of the other stuff that's been proposed, like universalizing the ban on ownership by people that have been involuntarily committed to an institution, allowing the background check system to access mental health records where relevant, allowing anyone to access the background check system, and closing the stupid gun "collector" exemption loophole... are really good ideas.  And I say this as someone who has never  not had a gun or five somewhere in my living space.

//The gun-show loophole, especially, is  demonstrably the source of a decent portion of the guns used in crimes.  Arguing against closing that takes a pretty heavy dose of head-in-the sand.
//The main problem with the gun control movement is that the loudest people in it make the three completely discredited measures the centerpiece of their bullshiat.  If Obama was the visible leader of the gun-control push instead of Feinstein (he basically runs off of the last paragraph in what he's advocating) it'd be a lot more palatable to, y'know, sane people.
 
2014-01-05 09:32:12 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The gov't would have to pour in hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to even get started.

Cut the military by a fraction of a percentage point, and you've got all the funding you need right there.


I'd rather use that money for universal healthcare. When the DoD is actively telling Congress "we don't need more equipment" you know there is an issue.

Chummer45: So you're pointing to a problem that the NRA and the gun culture created as an excuse not to change the law.

How convenient.  I guess creating problems that are hard to fix is good politics.


Even if the NRA and gun culture disappeared overnight, changing an amendment is an incredibly high hurdle. 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the states? I mean the states couldn't even agree on the child labor amendment or the equal rights amendment.
 
2014-01-05 09:33:22 PM  

udhq: HeadLever: udhq: hoosing to own a gun raises the risk of death of everyone in your household,

Higher than 100%?  Well, color me shocked.  Most of my math classes said 100% was as high as you could go. I have no idea how actuarial science works.

FTFY


Please explain.  Or are you going to bring it the 'hard science' fact that those that posses more of x have a greater likelihood of dying from said possession.

x can equal swimming pools, cars, guns or or whatever you really want.
 
2014-01-05 09:41:35 PM  

redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do, on top of the fact I don't think it needs to be changed. All of the legal legwork has already been done for the healthcare part. ACA was declared constitutional. Medicaid and Medicare have been around for 50 years.  There isn't an enforcement issue. Everyone gets healthcare coverage by default. You don't have to worry about digging around through people's like you might have to do for guns. There's no arrests. You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it. It also wouldn't clog up the justice system.

Reid had the ability to nuke the filibuster when ACA was passed. The US could easily have had the single payer system Obama wanted. Now we have a pretty shiatty half-assed implementation that is pissing a lot of people off and enriching the companies who deserve it the least. shiat they could pass the single payer option this week if they wanted to.

Steps to reduce crime:
1) Release non-violent offenders from prison. shiat's expensive and keeping them in prison doesn't help anyting. Work on anti-recidivism programs. They're pretty successful in other countries
2) End the war on drugs (this one is obvious)
3) Expand healthcare like I noted above
4) Make sure mental healthcare is not stigmatized and available to everyone. Want to keep those spree shooters from happening
5) Provide job training and education opportunities for those who are unemployed or came from underprivileged backgrounds. Probably want to shift school funding from property taxes to a standardized per student model or something similar.

Those are all broad strokes. I've written this type of post before so I might be missing something really obvious.


I did miss a really obvious one: Prosecute people who lie on a 4473. You'd be surprised how many fugitives and felons try to buy a gun legally. That's a five year sentence that would keep them off the street. It's not like you don't know where the person lives either. Don't even have to pick him or her up on the spot.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
 
2014-01-05 09:41:47 PM  

redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do


Stop with the "It's tooo HHAAAAAARRRD" crap.  Tell me why it doesn't need to be changed.  You have said in this thread that doing so, and following it up with more restrictive gun legislation, would in fact lead to a reduction in gun crime, even if a little bit.  Tell me why that little bit isn't worth you voting, in our hypothetical scenario, to amend or repeal it.

redmid17: You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it.


You're proposing THAT as your eminently possible alternative to my idea?  Have you SEEN the current house of Reps?

redmid17: Those are all broad strokes.


Okay, so you've gotten us to America, circa 1950.  I can definitely see how some of those things would reduce crime, but you're not exactly setting up a Scandinavian welfare state.  You really, really oversold this plan.
 
2014-01-05 09:49:43 PM  

HeadLever: Please explain.  Or are you going to bring it the 'hard science' fact that those that posses more of x have a greater likelihood of dying from said possession.


A bit under 800 people in the US die from "accidental" (usually more like "negligent" but y'know, whatever) gunshot wounds in a given year.

Drowning in "recreational water settings" (the CDC's category, not mine-- so private pools, public pools, and self-contained/lifeguarded public swimming areas on lakes, basically) kills about 3000 to 4000 Americans a year.

As of 2010 apparently about 50% of households owned at least one firearm.  According to the CDC, roughly 40% of the US "cannot swim", so interaction in terms of "having this thing in the general area" is about the same.

So... there you go.  A swimming pool is statistically 5x more dangerous to have in your home than guns.  Actually, probably worse than that, since the CDC's drowning number doesn't tell me lifeguarded vs. non-lifeguarded and the unmonitored tub in your neighborhood your kid is playing around is probably in the latter category.

// That was kinda fun.  Usually you compare guns to cars, since they're both in the "useful equipment that's dangerous if you fark up while using it" category, and swimming pools are more... passive.  Cars kill 35-40 thousand Americans a year, btw, having an automobile is pretty much the biggest risk to your health outside of diet/heart disease.  Taking the bus statistically can easily save your life.
 
2014-01-05 09:53:32 PM  

Jim_Callahan: HeadLever: Please explain.  Or are you going to bring it the 'hard science' fact that those that posses more of x have a greater likelihood of dying from said possession.

A bit under 800 people in the US die from "accidental" (usually more like "negligent" but y'know, whatever) gunshot wounds in a given year.

Drowning in "recreational water settings" (the CDC's category, not mine-- so private pools, public pools, and self-contained/lifeguarded public swimming areas on lakes, basically) kills about 3000 to 4000 Americans a year.

As of 2010 apparently about 50% of households owned at least one firearm.  According to the CDC, roughly 40% of the US "cannot swim", so interaction in terms of "having this thing in the general area" is about the same.

So... there you go.  A swimming pool is statistically 5x more dangerous to have in your home than guns.  Actually, probably worse than that, since the CDC's drowning number doesn't tell me lifeguarded vs. non-lifeguarded and the unmonitored tub in your neighborhood your kid is playing around is probably in the latter category.

// That was kinda fun.  Usually you compare guns to cars, since they're both in the "useful equipment that's dangerous if you fark up while using it" category, and swimming pools are more... passive.  Cars kill 35-40 thousand Americans a year, btw, having an automobile is pretty much the biggest risk to your health outside of diet/heart disease.  Taking the bus statistically can easily save your life.


Swimming pools are not designed to kill, so the argument is invalid. Or something.
 
2014-01-05 09:53:49 PM  

The Name: redmid17: Because changing an amendment is incredibly hard to do

Stop with the "It's tooo HHAAAAAARRRD" crap.  Tell me why it doesn't need to be changed.  You have said in this thread that doing so, and following it up with more restrictive gun legislation, would in fact lead to a reduction in gun crime, even if a little bit.  Tell me why that little bit isn't worth you voting, in our hypothetical scenario, to amend or repeal it.

redmid17: You would have to raise taxes and probably merge medicare/medicaid into whatever bureau would run it.

You're proposing THAT as your eminently possible alternative to my idea?  Have you SEEN the current house of Reps?

redmid17: Those are all broad strokes.

Okay, so you've gotten us to America, circa 1950.  I can definitely see how some of those things would reduce crime, but you're not exactly setting up a Scandinavian welfare state.  You really, really oversold this plan.


1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.
2) I guarantee you my proposal has a lot better chance of happening in the near or remote future than your's does. Do you not remember 4 years ago when we were debating more or less exactly what I outlined? If the Democrats had been such chickenshiats, then we'd have it already.

There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.
 
2014-01-05 09:59:22 PM  

Truther: TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.


It's cute that you really believe that. Let us know when you grow up and join the real world.


It's pretty simple: more guns and easier access to guns leads to more gun violence.  Take a look at this:

www.washingtonpost.com

The US leads the developed world in gun violence.  Sure, there are cultural and economic factors as well, but you can't tell me that there's not poverty in Greece, Poland, Ireland, or other nations on that list.

Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Would expanding DC's restrictions to VA and MD completely solve the problem in DC?  No, guns would still find their way in, but it would certainly help reduce the number of guns going in and help alleviate the problem.  We'd need nationwide restrictions to really have a big effect.
 
2014-01-05 10:01:49 PM  

redmid17: There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.


Yeah, I understand all of that.  I still think your plan is very modest for what you promised, which was basically to bring gun crime down to European levels without doing a single thing with gun policy.

redmid17: 1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.


So, it's perfectly fine as it is, and it's preventing the passage of legislation that could save lives.  Why don't you just come out and say it?  I know you want to . . .


CUZ I WANT MY GUUUUUNS!!1

 
2014-01-05 10:02:24 PM  

Dimensio: Swimming pools are not designed to kill, so the argument is invalid. Or something.


He specifically asked for a comparative risk assessment vs having a swimming pool accessible to the household (i.e. in the neighborhood I'm assuming, since a backyard pool is typically used by everyone in the area).

And actually pools/drowning are the leading cause of death for certain age brackets (mostly children under 4) in the US, so there's a lot of literature that basically talks about them in the same way you'd talk about laying out a bear trap with toddler bait.  Apparently they might as well be designed to kill, heh.

I get what you're saying though, you get that a lot with the car comparison too... the actual response is that killing things is a perfectly legal and morally acceptable purpose for a tool to have, and is as valid a purpose as transportation.  Killing animals mostly, but there are certainly situations where it's not only legal but appropriate to kill a person as well.  It's sort of a hypocritical point to make, too, since none (or at least so few I've never met one) of the people making this stupid non-point like it means something are campaigning for blanket bans on mousetraps, ant poison, flyswatters or pet cats.

// Yes, cats are in fact "designed" to kill things.  We've put eight millennia or so of effort into engineering them to do it, so, y'know, respect the breed-engineers.
 
2014-01-05 10:03:25 PM  

The Name: redmid17: There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.

Yeah, I understand all of that.  I still think your plan is very modest for what you promised, which was basically to bring gun crime down to European levels without doing a single thing with gun policy.

redmid17: 1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.

So, it's perfectly fine as it is, and it's preventing the passage of legislation that could save lives.  Why don't you just come out and say it?  I know you want to . . .


CUZ I WANT MY GUUUUUNS!!1


Yes, we are aware that any crime reduction proposal that does not involve complete civilian disarmament is unacceptable to you.
 
2014-01-05 10:04:07 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Truther: TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.


It's cute that you really believe that. Let us know when you grow up and join the real world.

It's pretty simple: more guns and easier access to guns leads to more gun violence.  Take a look at this:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

The US leads the developed world in gun violence.  Sure, there are cultural and economic factors as well, but you can't tell me that there's not poverty in Greece, Poland, Ireland, or other nations on that list.

Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Would expanding DC's restrictions to VA and MD completely solve the problem in DC?  No, guns would still find their way in, but it would certainly help reduce the number of guns going in and help alleviate the problem.  We'd need nationwide restrictions to really have a big effect.


For what reason do you not compare the overall murder rates between nations, and focus only on "gun murder" rates?
 
2014-01-05 10:04:41 PM  

Dimensio: The Name: redmid17: There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.

Yeah, I understand all of that.  I still think your plan is very modest for what you promised, which was basically to bring gun crime down to European levels without doing a single thing with gun policy.

redmid17: 1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.

So, it's perfectly fine as it is, and it's preventing the passage of legislation that could save lives.  Why don't you just come out and say it?  I know you want to . . .


CUZ I WANT MY GUUUUUNS!!1

Yes, we are aware that any crime reduction proposal that does not involve complete civilian disarmament is unacceptable to you.


He doesn't like the elderly, females, or the poor being able to defend themselves.
 
2014-01-05 10:07:10 PM  

Doom MD: He doesn't like the elderly, females, or the poor being able to defend themselves.


Access to guns - The only time conservatives actually give a sh*t about the elderly, females, or the poor. Like spotting a unicorn in the wild. Shhhh...shhh. Just watch kids.
 
2014-01-05 10:07:58 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Doom MD: He doesn't like the elderly, females, or the poor being able to defend themselves.

Access to guns - The only time conservatives actually give a sh*t about the elderly, females, or the poor. Like spotting a unicorn in the wild. Shhhh...shhh. Just watch kids.


You are correct; anyone who does not oppose civilian disarmament is a "conservative".
 
2014-01-05 10:09:14 PM  
Haha.  The white knight brigade is rushing in to save redmid17.
 
2014-01-05 10:10:18 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Truther: TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.


It's cute that you really believe that. Let us know when you grow up and join the real world.

It's pretty simple: more guns and easier access to guns leads to more gun violence.  Take a look at this:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

The US leads the developed world in gun violence.  Sure, there are cultural and economic factors as well, but you can't tell me that there's not poverty in Greece, Poland, Ireland, or other nations on that list.

Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Would expanding DC's restrictions to VA and MD completely solve the problem in DC?  No, guns would still find their way in, but it would certainly help reduce the number of guns going in and help alleviate the problem.  We'd need nationwide restrictions to really have a big effect.

For what reason do you not compare the overall murder rates between nations, and focus only on "gun murder" rates?


Since we're talking about gun violence specifically that was the relevant statistic.  Once the gun violence has been addressed we can take a look at other problems, but when you're house is on fire you don't call a roofer to fix a leak.

Although, we're not doing so hot compared to other OECD countries when it comes to total homicide rates either:

img145.imageshack.us
 
2014-01-05 10:10:33 PM  

Dimensio: You are correct; anyone who does not oppose civilian disarmament is a "conservative".


Well, to be fair, people who use terms like "civilian disarmament" sound very conservative.
 
2014-01-05 10:11:36 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.


The Boston University study was (1) non-causative and (2) state-by state.  If you look at ownership rates and crime by, say, county instead of state you get a much different picture.

The reason why this is has a lot to do with the prevalence of gun-related sports (e.g. hunting) in states that also have the bulk of the US's organized crime activity (Montana has many if not most of the Cartels' grow ops, for instance, and New Mexico/Arizona are basically mexican gang territories.)  It's relatively coincidental, which is why of about fifteen major studies on the subject the one you're linking is the  only one that's even claiming a positive correlation.

Basically it takes a huge amount of spin and cherry-picking to reach the conclusion you're quoting.

// Not reacting this way because I'm pro-gun, reacting this way because I'm a researcher and I'm not a fan of idiots that corrupt the process to try to score political points with misdirection.
 
2014-01-05 10:13:16 PM  
Lol @ all this damage control by The Name.
 
2014-01-05 10:13:23 PM  

The Name: redmid17: There are some things you'd have to extrapolate from the plan. Fewer felons from the war on drugs means fewer people DQ'ed from job searches because of a criminal records. Lack of opportunities to earn money are the primary catalyst in criminal activity. If you take the economic incentive out of things like drug dealing and turf wars -- ending war on drugs also meant legalizing and regulating most types of drugs if I wasn't clear -- there is no reason so shoot up a corner so you can deal drugs. I think you're really underestimating how effective this would be. Frankly there are a lot of things I'd like to take from Scandinavian and Canadian models. Like I said, these are broad strokes.

Yeah, I understand all of that.  I still think your plan is very modest for what you promised, which was basically to bring gun crime down to European levels without doing a single thing with gun policy.


That's actually not what I promised. I never even gave a ballpark estimate. I believe I just said drastically and I never said I wouldn't do anything. I said I wouldn't do what you were planning. I also said I'd be in favor of mandatory sentences for committing a felony with a firearm. If you wanted to close the private sales angle, I'd be fine with how IL does it.

1) Show FOID to seller.
2) Seller calls IL state police to run check and make sure FOID is valid
3) Have to keep bill of transaction for ten years (name, make/model of gun, serial, et al).

I'd also be on board with teaching firearms safety and possibly usage in public schools. There'd need to be a lot of stuff sussed out on that one. Guns in school would require repealing several laws and would be very much against public sentiment.

The Name: redmid17: 1) I don't want it changed. How about that? In my view it's perfectly fine as is.
So, it's perfectly fine as it is, and it's preventing the passage of legislation that could save lives.  Why don't you just come out and say it?  I know you want to . . .
CUZ I WANT MY GUUUUUNS!!1


The cost benefit ratio of passing your sweeping, unconstitutional, and heinously underthought logistical problems would not make it worth it. Yes I like my guns. I derive pleasure from hunting and target shooting. It's a fun way to spend time with my dad and brother. Even if we switched to mandatory licensing and no right to own a gun, you still have to deal with the 300 million plus guns existing in the country, most without any record of ownership or possession past the initial sale. Spouting hypotheticals and focusing on them is counterproductive at best and downright stupid  and counterproductive at worst. I like to look at solutions which could feasibly happen and address social issues that Americans have been neglecting for far too long.
 
2014-01-05 10:13:56 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Truther: TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.


It's cute that you really believe that. Let us know when you grow up and join the real world.

It's pretty simple: more guns and easier access to guns leads to more gun violence.  Take a look at this:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

The US leads the developed world in gun violence.  Sure, there are cultural and economic factors as well, but you can't tell me that there's not poverty in Greece, Poland, Ireland, or other nations on that list.

Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Would expanding DC's restrictions to VA and MD completely solve the problem in DC?  No, guns would still find their way in, but it would certainly help reduce the number of guns going in and help alleviate the problem.  We'd need nationwide restrictions to really have a big effect.

For what reason do you not compare the overall murder rates between nations, and focus only on "gun murder" rates?

Since we're talking about gun violence specifically that was the relevant statistic.  Once the gun violence has been addressed we can take a look at other problems, but when you're house is on fire you don't call a roofer to fix a leak.

Although, we're not doing so hot compared to other OECD countries when it comes to total homicide rates either:

[img145.imageshack.us image 424x502]


I do not deny that the total homicide rate of the United States of America is substantially higher than that of other developed nations, but examining only "gun homicides" creates the impression that the United States is more than ten times as violent as other nations, which is clearly not the case if total homicide rates are examined. Reliance upon such a limited statistic, therefore, suggests an attempt to artificially magnify the perception of the increased homicide rate in the nation.

If substantial restrictions upon civilian firearm ownership were implemented, but overall homicide rates did not change (due to non-firearm homicides rising enough to offset any reduction in firearm-related homicides), would you then advocate removing those restrictions while examining other homicide-reducing policies?
 
2014-01-05 10:16:41 PM  

redmid17: Even if we switched to mandatory licensing and no right to own a gun, you still have to deal with the 300 million plus guns existing in the country, most without any record of ownership or possession past the initial sale.


In fact, addressing the solution is simple:

Repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Repeal the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Conduct regular, unannounced searches into homes for illegally possessed firearms.

If advocating repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is reasonable due to a claimed public safety increase, then advocating repeal of the Fourth Amendment to increase public safety must also be reasonable.
 
2014-01-05 10:19:06 PM  

Dimensio: redmid17: Even if we switched to mandatory licensing and no right to own a gun, you still have to deal with the 300 million plus guns existing in the country, most without any record of ownership or possession past the initial sale.

In fact, addressing the solution is simple:

Repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Repeal the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Conduct regular, unannounced searches into homes for illegally possessed firearms.

If advocating repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is reasonable due to a claimed public safety increase, then advocating repeal of the Fourth Amendment to increase public safety must also be reasonable.


Don't forget the massive public backlash and public demonstrations against the law. So might as well go after the 1st while we're at it. Better safe than sorry.
 
2014-01-05 10:23:28 PM  

The Name: Rat: TuteTibiImperes:

Here's what I'd do (this doesn't go as far as I'd like, but I feel it's a fair compromise):

Awesome!  I love compromise.  Those are some pretty hefty restrictions though, so whatcha got for me in return?



Safer communities and a higher quality of life.  That's what you get.


You mean safer like Washington DC with 1400 robberies? Or safer like Chicago the "Murder Capitol of the US"? I believe you actually mean that you can PRETEND to be SAFE by closing your eyes and turning up your earbuds. An ostrich doesn't really bury it's head in the sand to avoid danger but a liberal gun grabber does.
 
2014-01-05 10:25:49 PM  

redmid17: That's actually not what I promised. I never even gave a ballpark estimate. I believe I just said drastically and I never said I wouldn't do anything. I said I wouldn't do what you were planning. I also said I'd be in favor of mandatory sentences for committing a felony with a firearm. If you wanted to close the private sales angle, I'd be fine with how IL does it.

1) Show FOID to seller.
2) Seller calls IL state police to run check and make sure FOID is valid
3) Have to keep bill of transaction for ten years (name, make/model of gun, serial, et al).

I'd also be on board with teaching firearms safety and possibly usage in public schools. There'd need to be a lot of stuff sussed out on that one. Guns in school would require repealing several laws and would be very much against public sentiment.


Well, if your position on my proposal is that it's too ambitious to be worth considering, then I feel yours is too modest to get us to European-level gun crime rates.  I'd still take your proposal in a heartbeat, though.

redmid17: unconstitutional


You know that my proposal included amending the constitution, right?  I thought that's what we were arguing about.

redmid17: Even if we switched to mandatory licensing and no right to own a gun, you still have to deal with the 300 million plus guns existing in the country, most without any record of ownership or possession past the initial sale.


As someone else said above, don't point to the problem that your culture (gun culture) helped to create as a reason that we shouldn't try to solve the problem.
 
2014-01-05 10:27:29 PM  

ox45tallboy: Sidecrab: Look at DC's demographics, therein lies the answer.

I know, right? Any time you put that many politicians, bureaucrats, staffers, and lobbyists together you get crime!

Who's idea was that, anyhow, to put all of those politicians together in one place?


On the plus side, one small North Korean nuke would take care of most of our problems.
 
2014-01-05 10:28:56 PM  

Dimensio: redmid17: Even if we switched to mandatory licensing and no right to own a gun, you still have to deal with the 300 million plus guns existing in the country, most without any record of ownership or possession past the initial sale.

In fact, addressing the solution is simple:

Repeal the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Repeal the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Conduct regular, unannounced searches into homes for illegally possessed firearms.

If advocating repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is reasonable due to a claimed public safety increase, then advocating repeal of the Fourth Amendment to increase public safety must also be reasonable.


Yup, and we know how people are suffering under tyranny in the Netherlands and France, where there is no second amendment.
 
2014-01-05 10:29:52 PM  

Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: TuteTibiImperes: Truther: TuteTibiImperes: DC is also a small geographic area.  Expand DC's gun control laws to VA and MD and the gun crime rate in DC would drop further.


It's cute that you really believe that. Let us know when you grow up and join the real world.

It's pretty simple: more guns and easier access to guns leads to more gun violence.  Take a look at this:

[www.washingtonpost.com image 850x450]

The US leads the developed world in gun violence.  Sure, there are cultural and economic factors as well, but you can't tell me that there's not poverty in Greece, Poland, Ireland, or other nations on that list.

Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

Would expanding DC's restrictions to VA and MD completely solve the problem in DC?  No, guns would still find their way in, but it would certainly help reduce the number of guns going in and help alleviate the problem.  We'd need nationwide restrictions to really have a big effect.

For what reason do you not compare the overall murder rates between nations, and focus only on "gun murder" rates?

Since we're talking about gun violence specifically that was the relevant statistic.  Once the gun violence has been addressed we can take a look at other problems, but when you're house is on fire you don't call a roofer to fix a leak.

Although, we're not doing so hot compared to other OECD countries when it comes to total homicide rates either:

[img145.imageshack.us image 424x502]

I do not deny that the total homicide rate of the United States of America is substantially higher than that of other developed nations, but examining only "gun homicides" creates the impression that the United States is more than ten times as violent as other nations, which is clearly not the case if total homicide rates are examined. Reliance upon such a limited statistic, therefore, suggests an attempt to artificially magnify ...


2x-5x the homicide rate is still pretty damning.  I used the gun violence graph first because it's what we were talking about.  In a discussion of ways to reduce gun violence the number of murders via knife, club, or pitchfork don't matter.

But, sure, if we implemented UK or Germany style firearm restrictions and the total homicide rate in the US hadn't fallen to about what it is in the UK or Germany after the unaccounted for guns had been removed from the streets, I'd have no problem removing the restrictions.

I just very seriously doubt that taking such steps wouldn't dramatically reduce the total homicide rate.
 
2014-01-05 10:33:16 PM  
MUH EUROPE!
 
2014-01-05 10:33:57 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: I just very seriously doubt that taking such steps wouldn't dramatically reduce the total homicide rate.


No, no, we all know that every single murderer who would use a gun would just use a knife instead, and if you were to ban those, then they'd just use screwdrivers, and if you banned those, they'd use baseball bats, and if you banned those, they'd use scissors, and if you banned those, they'd use nail clippers, etc. etc. etc.
 
2014-01-05 10:36:05 PM  

Jim_Callahan: TuteTibiImperes: Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

The Boston University study was (1) non-causative and (2) state-by state.  If you look at ownership rates and crime by, say, county instead of state you get a much different picture.

The reason why this is has a lot to do with the prevalence of gun-related sports (e.g. hunting) in states that also have the bulk of the US's organized crime activity (Montana has many if not most of the Cartels' grow ops, for instance, and New Mexico/Arizona are basically mexican gang territories.)  It's relatively coincidental, which is why of about fifteen major studies on the subject the one you're linking is the  only one that's even claiming a positive correlation.

Basically it takes a huge amount of spin and cherry-picking to reach the conclusion you're quoting.

// Not reacting this way because I'm pro-gun, reacting this way because I'm a researcher and I'm not a fan of idiots that corrupt the process to try to score political points with misdirection.


There was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.
 
2014-01-05 10:40:43 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Jim_Callahan: TuteTibiImperes: Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

The Boston University study was (1) non-causative and (2) state-by state.  If you look at ownership rates and crime by, say, county instead of state you get a much different picture.

The reason why this is has a lot to do with the prevalence of gun-related sports (e.g. hunting) in states that also have the bulk of the US's organized crime activity (Montana has many if not most of the Cartels' grow ops, for instance, and New Mexico/Arizona are basically mexican gang territories.)  It's relatively coincidental, which is why of about fifteen major studies on the subject the one you're linking is the  only one that's even claiming a positive correlation.

Basically it takes a huge amount of spin and cherry-picking to reach the conclusion you're quoting.

// Not reacting this way because I'm pro-gun, reacting this way because I'm a researcher and I'm not a fan of idiots that corrupt the process to try to score political points with misdirection.

There was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.


How much crime does gun ownership prevent? How many defensive gun uses are there?
 
2014-01-05 10:42:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: here was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.


Next thing you are going to tell me is that strict vehicle restrictions would reduce vehicle deaths or that a ban on swimming pools will result in fewer swimming pool drownings.

I really can't imagine where they came up with such an revolutionary study.
 
2014-01-05 10:45:05 PM  

Doom MD: TuteTibiImperes: Jim_Callahan: TuteTibiImperes: Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

The Boston University study was (1) non-causative and (2) state-by state.  If you look at ownership rates and crime by, say, county instead of state you get a much different picture.

The reason why this is has a lot to do with the prevalence of gun-related sports (e.g. hunting) in states that also have the bulk of the US's organized crime activity (Montana has many if not most of the Cartels' grow ops, for instance, and New Mexico/Arizona are basically mexican gang territories.)  It's relatively coincidental, which is why of about fifteen major studies on the subject the one you're linking is the  only one that's even claiming a positive correlation.

Basically it takes a huge amount of spin and cherry-picking to reach the conclusion you're quoting.

// Not reacting this way because I'm pro-gun, reacting this way because I'm a researcher and I'm not a fan of idiots that corrupt the process to try to score political points with misdirection.

There was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.

How much crime does gun ownership prevent? How many defensive gun uses are there?


They took that into account and found that in most gun crime instances the optimal situation was restricting all ownership.  They did find that more open ownership could help reduce mass shootings if all owners were properly trained, but since mass shootings don't make up the majority of gun crime, and making sure everyone is well trained would be just as difficult as restricting all ownership, that doesn't seem like a good trade off.
 
2014-01-05 10:48:06 PM  

The Name: redmid17: That's actually not what I promised. I never even gave a ballpark estimate. I believe I just said drastically and I never said I wouldn't do anything. I said I wouldn't do what you were planning. I also said I'd be in favor of mandatory sentences for committing a felony with a firearm. If you wanted to close the private sales angle, I'd be fine with how IL does it.

1) Show FOID to seller.
2) Seller calls IL state police to run check and make sure FOID is valid
3) Have to keep bill of transaction for ten years (name, make/model of gun, serial, et al).

I'd also be on board with teaching firearms safety and possibly usage in public schools. There'd need to be a lot of stuff sussed out on that one. Guns in school would require repealing several laws and would be very much against public sentiment.

Well, if your position on my proposal is that it's too ambitious to be worth considering, then I feel yours is too modest to get us to European-level gun crime rates.  I'd still take your proposal in a heartbeat, though.

redmid17: unconstitutional

You know that my proposal included amending the constitution, right?  I thought that's what we were arguing about.

redmid17: Even if we switched to mandatory licensing and no right to own a gun, you still have to deal with the 300 million plus guns existing in the country, most without any record of ownership or possession past the initial sale.

As someone else said above, don't point to the problem that your culture (gun culture) helped to create as a reason that we shouldn't try to solve the problem.


Yes I'm aware your proposal would amend the constitution. Like I said, it's not feasible or realistic. I'm suggesting helpful, and frankly overdue, alternatives because your approach would likely not happen in my lifetime. Also I'm 27 and only been able to legally own guns for 9 years. I'm not an NRA member. Claiming my contribution to this culture is anything substantive is disingenuous at best. Most of this gun culture movement happened before I was born and almost all of it happened before I turned 18.
 
2014-01-05 10:49:11 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Doom MD: He doesn't like the elderly, females, or the poor being able to defend themselves.

Access to guns - The only time conservatives actually give a sh*t about the elderly, females, or the poor. Like spotting a unicorn in the wild. Shhhh...shhh. Just watch kids.


Debates about guns - The only time "liberals" ditch reality's liberal bias for uneducated, draconian legislative measures based in fear, smothered in smarm, under the pretense of hopefully, maybe doing something, anything. Hurr hurr. Just watch tards.
 
2014-01-05 10:49:49 PM  

HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: here was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that strict vehicle restrictions would reduce vehicle deaths or that a ban on swimming pools will result in fewer swimming pool drownings.

I really can't imagine where they came up with such an revolutionary study.


Lay down a nationwide efficient mass transit system that gets everyone where they need to go without needing to own a car and I'll happily turn in my keys.  Until then people need cars, but civilians don't need guns.

Sure, there are legitimate uses for firearms, and I'm not against limited ownership for target shooting or hunting provided it's transported safely from home to the ultimate destination.  What there's no justifiable need for are people owning ten guns, AR-15s with bump-fire stocks, guns with 15 round clips, or really, handguns at all for most people.

You can hunt and sport shoot with a double barreled shotgun or single shot bolt-action rifle.
 
2014-01-05 10:51:45 PM  

violentsalvation: Debates about guns - The only time "liberals" ditch reality's liberal bias for uneducated, draconian legislative measures based in fear, smothered in smarm, under the pretense of hopefully, maybe doing something, anything. Hurr hurr. Just watch tards.


Struck a nerve. Good one.
 
2014-01-05 10:52:33 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: here was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that strict vehicle restrictions would reduce vehicle deaths or that a ban on swimming pools will result in fewer swimming pool drownings.

I really can't imagine where they came up with such an revolutionary study.

Lay down a nationwide efficient mass transit system that gets everyone where they need to go without needing to own a car and I'll happily turn in my keys.  Until then people need cars, but civilians don't need guns.

Sure, there are legitimate uses for firearms, and I'm not against limited ownership for target shooting or hunting provided it's transported safely from home to the ultimate destination.  What there's no justifiable need for are people owning ten guns, AR-15s with bump-fire stocks, guns with 15 round clips, or really, handguns at all for most people.

You can hunt and sport shoot with a double barreled shotgun or single shot bolt-action rifle.


There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.
 
2014-01-05 10:55:23 PM  

redmid17: There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.


Perhaps we should let the states decide, so people get a more direct say in it.
 
2014-01-05 10:56:20 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: but civilians don't need guns.


Just so you know, an enumerated right is not predicated on 'need'.  You don't need to have free speech or due process, either.  Also, the second amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting - just so you know.
 
2014-01-05 10:56:21 PM  

super_grass: DC murder rate has been in freefall for the past two decades or so and is reaching the lowest level in around a hundred years.

[www.slate.com image 659x410]

We're all gonna make it brah.


I'd hate to see a graph for Prince George's County, Maryland.  I'd suspect it's roughly inverse to the DC graph.

Rich folks move out of the city and into the 'burbs.  DC's crime rate goes up, PG's goes down.

Rich folks move into the city and out of the 'burbs.  DC's crime rate goes down, PG's goes up.
 
2014-01-05 10:57:20 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: violentsalvation: Debates about guns - The only time "liberals" ditch reality's liberal bias for uneducated, draconian legislative measures based in fear, smothered in smarm, under the pretense of hopefully, maybe doing something, anything. Hurr hurr. Just watch tards.

Struck a nerve. Good one.


More of your non-position position you have and have not taken.
 
2014-01-05 10:57:38 PM  

The Name: redmid17: There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.

Perhaps we should let the states decide, so people get a more direct say in it.


States can pretty much do that if they want. No right to own a car in the constitution. California already has ridiculous emissions standards (for good reason). They can tighten them even more so that only  cylinder engines would pass.
 
2014-01-05 10:57:47 PM  

redmid17: TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: here was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that strict vehicle restrictions would reduce vehicle deaths or that a ban on swimming pools will result in fewer swimming pool drownings.

I really can't imagine where they came up with such an revolutionary study.

Lay down a nationwide efficient mass transit system that gets everyone where they need to go without needing to own a car and I'll happily turn in my keys.  Until then people need cars, but civilians don't need guns.

Sure, there are legitimate uses for firearms, and I'm not against limited ownership for target shooting or hunting provided it's transported safely from home to the ultimate destination.  What there's no justifiable need for are people owning ten guns, AR-15s with bump-fire stocks, guns with 15 round clips, or really, handguns at all for most people.

You can hunt and sport shoot with a double barreled shotgun or single shot bolt-action rifle.

There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.


Cars aren't dangerous when used as intended, guns are.
 
2014-01-05 10:58:01 PM  

The Name: Perhaps we should let the states decide, so people get a more direct say in it.


So long as they don't arbitrarily abridge an enumerated right, sure.  Go for it.
 
2014-01-05 10:58:37 PM  

HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: but civilians don't need guns.

Just so you know, an enumerated right is not predicated on 'need'.  You don't need to have free speech or due process, either.  Also, the second amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting - just so you know.


Which is why the second amendment should be repealed.  Gun ownership should not be an enumerated right.  Guns should be subject to regulation, bans, etc. at the state and municipal level just like any other object.
 
2014-01-05 10:59:49 PM  

HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: but civilians don't need guns.

Just so you know, an enumerated right is not predicated on 'need'.  You don't need to have free speech or due process, either.  Also, the second amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting - just so you know.


No one is killing each other with their speech, due process is there to protect everyone, and you're right, the 2nd amendment is about a militia - so if you want to stay true to the spirit of it, if you want a gun, join the National Guard.
 
2014-01-05 11:00:13 PM  

violentsalvation: More of your non-position position you have and have not taken.


No comment.
 
2014-01-05 11:00:27 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.

Perhaps we should let the states decide, so people get a more direct say in it.

States can pretty much do that if they want. No right to own a car in the constitution. California already has ridiculous emissions standards (for good reason). They can tighten them even more so that only  cylinder engines would pass.


You missed the point.
 
2014-01-05 11:00:52 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: redmid17: TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: here was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that strict vehicle restrictions would reduce vehicle deaths or that a ban on swimming pools will result in fewer swimming pool drownings.

I really can't imagine where they came up with such an revolutionary study.

Lay down a nationwide efficient mass transit system that gets everyone where they need to go without needing to own a car and I'll happily turn in my keys.  Until then people need cars, but civilians don't need guns.

Sure, there are legitimate uses for firearms, and I'm not against limited ownership for target shooting or hunting provided it's transported safely from home to the ultimate destination.  What there's no justifiable need for are people owning ten guns, AR-15s with bump-fire stocks, guns with 15 round clips, or really, handguns at all for most people.

You can hunt and sport shoot with a double barreled shotgun or single shot bolt-action rifle.

There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.

Cars aren't dangerous when used as intended, guns are.


Well no cars are always dangerous. Even after licensing and safety standards, 30K plus die in car accidents every year. Nothing that weighs 4000 lbs and can travel 100+ MPH is *not* dangerous.
 
2014-01-05 11:02:16 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.

Perhaps we should let the states decide, so people get a more direct say in it.

States can pretty much do that if they want. No right to own a car in the constitution. California already has ridiculous emissions standards (for good reason). They can tighten them even more so that only  cylinder engines would pass.

You missed the point.


No I got the point. I just ignored it. His premise was flawed from the get-go. States can already do what was being proposed.
 
2014-01-05 11:02:27 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Cars aren't dangerous when used as intended, guns are.


When used as intended, guns need to be dangerous.

to paraphrase Mr Franklin, 'Those that would sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve neither'.
 
2014-01-05 11:02:53 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Doom MD: TuteTibiImperes: Jim_Callahan: TuteTibiImperes: Plus, there have been scientific studies that show areas with higher firearm ownership have higher rates of gun violence.

The Boston University study was (1) non-causative and (2) state-by state.  If you look at ownership rates and crime by, say, county instead of state you get a much different picture.

The reason why this is has a lot to do with the prevalence of gun-related sports (e.g. hunting) in states that also have the bulk of the US's organized crime activity (Montana has many if not most of the Cartels' grow ops, for instance, and New Mexico/Arizona are basically mexican gang territories.)  It's relatively coincidental, which is why of about fifteen major studies on the subject the one you're linking is the  only one that's even claiming a positive correlation.

Basically it takes a huge amount of spin and cherry-picking to reach the conclusion you're quoting.

// Not reacting this way because I'm pro-gun, reacting this way because I'm a researcher and I'm not a fan of idiots that corrupt the process to try to score political points with misdirection.

There was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.

How much crime does gun ownership prevent? How many defensive gun uses are there?

They took that into account and found that in most gun crime instances the optimal situation was restricting all ownership.  They did find that more open ownership could help reduce mass shootings if all owners were properly trained, but since mass shootings don't make up the majority of gun crime, and making sure everyone is well trained would be just as difficult as restricting all ownership, that doesn't seem like a good trade off.


You didnt read the primary paper did you? They weren't looking at the crime deterring effect of gun ownership. Nor is the paper close to definitive even by the author's admission.
 
2014-01-05 11:03:26 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: but civilians don't need guns.

Just so you know, an enumerated right is not predicated on 'need'.  You don't need to have free speech or due process, either.  Also, the second amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting - just so you know.

No one is killing each other with their speech, due process is there to protect everyone, and you're right, the 2nd amendment is about a militia - so if you want to stay true to the spirit of it, if you want a gun, join the National Guard.


But what if I'm already part of the militia as per the Militia act of 1903?
 
2014-01-05 11:03:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: SCUBA_Archer: TuteTibiImperes:

1. Require all guns be registered to a central federal database, updated automatically any time a gun is sold to someone else, with the owner required to report any stolen firearms immediately

What purpose would this registry serve?

To determine if someone with a firearm has a legal right to have that firearm, and to be able to track firearms used in crimes back to their source more effectively.

AngryDragon:

2.  That already happens.  Felony murder?  And all I hear all the time is stories about how the poor criminal shouldn't be sent to jail for life because he didn't pull the trigger, someone else did.  So which is it?

For felony murder?  Sure, it happens sometimes.  I propose making it for all crimes involving a gun, whether it's shot or not.  You rob a liquor store with a gun?  You go away for life instead of getting a short stay in county or probation like happens often enough now.  You pull a gun on someone in an altercation?  You go away for life, no slaps on the wrist.


So you are ok with murdering someone with an axe just as long as they don't use a gun.
Murder is murder regardless of the tool. Robbery is Robbery, Assault is Assault, Rape is Rape.
Your "proposal" is childish wishing for "Mommy" to chase the monster out from under your bed.
 
2014-01-05 11:03:44 PM  

redmid17: 30K plus die in car accidents every year.


A lot less than used to, thanks to safety standards and regulations.
 
2014-01-05 11:03:45 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: but civilians don't need guns.

Just so you know, an enumerated right is not predicated on 'need'.  You don't need to have free speech or due process, either.  Also, the second amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting - just so you know.

No one is killing each other with their speech, due process is there to protect everyone, and you're right, the 2nd amendment is about a militia - so if you want to stay true to the spirit of it, if you want a gun, join the National Guard.


Gonna need to repeal or amend the Militia Act of 1903 while you're at it.
 
2014-01-05 11:03:47 PM  

redmid17: The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.

Perhaps we should let the states decide, so people get a more direct say in it.

States can pretty much do that if they want. No right to own a car in the constitution. California already has ridiculous emissions standards (for good reason). They can tighten them even more so that only  cylinder engines would pass.

You missed the point.

No I got the point. I just ignored it. His premise was flawed from the get-go. States can already do what was being proposed.


No, I don't think you got it.
 
2014-01-05 11:04:44 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: redmid17: 30K plus die in car accidents every year.

A lot less than used to, thanks to safety standards and regulations.


Very true. I was just trying to illustrate that cars are dangerous, even when used properly.
 
2014-01-05 11:04:56 PM  

The Name: Which is why the second amendment should be repealed.


Good luck with that.  The totalitarians love folks like you.  Luckily, you are in the vast minority on this.
 
2014-01-05 11:05:00 PM  

redmid17: TuteTibiImperes: redmid17: TuteTibiImperes: HeadLever: TuteTibiImperes: here was another study by UC Irvine that found gun restrictions would reduce the number of the most common gun crimes.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that strict vehicle restrictions would reduce vehicle deaths or that a ban on swimming pools will result in fewer swimming pool drownings.

I really can't imagine where they came up with such an revolutionary study.

Lay down a nationwide efficient mass transit system that gets everyone where they need to go without needing to own a car and I'll happily turn in my keys.  Until then people need cars, but civilians don't need guns.

Sure, there are legitimate uses for firearms, and I'm not against limited ownership for target shooting or hunting provided it's transported safely from home to the ultimate destination.  What there's no justifiable need for are people owning ten guns, AR-15s with bump-fire stocks, guns with 15 round clips, or really, handguns at all for most people.

You can hunt and sport shoot with a double barreled shotgun or single shot bolt-action rifle.

There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.

Cars aren't dangerous when used as intended, guns are.

Well no cars are always dangerous. Even after licensing and safety standards, 30K plus die in car accidents every year. Nothing that weighs 4000 lbs and can travel 100+ MPH is *not* dangerous.


Fair enough.  Let me put it another way - the intended purpose of a car is to move people and stuff from point a to point b, the intended purpose of guns is to send bits of metal at extremely high speeds into other things.  One of those has purpose that is inherently more dangerous than the other.
 
2014-01-05 11:05:56 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: The Name: redmid17: There's no need for a car that goes more than 70 mph. No more cars with more than 2 cylinders. Also you can only own one car. No one needs to own more than one car.

Perhaps we should let the states decide, so people get a more direct say in it.

States can pretty much do that if they want. No right to own a car in the constitution. California already has ridiculous emissions standards (for good reason). They can tighten them even more so that only  cylinder engines would pass.

You missed the point.

No I got the point. I just ignored it. His premise was flawed from the get-go. States can already do what was being proposed.

No, I don't think you got it.


No I got it. You want the 2nd amendment changed so that states can enact bans, licensing schemes, and stricter laws per their preference. Your extension of that metaphors to cars was flawed though, since states can already do that.
 
2014-01-05 11:06:11 PM  

Doom MD: Nor is the paper close to definitive even by the author's admission.


Ok, Mr. HumanEvents.  Or is it Professor HumanEvents?
 
2014-01-05 11:09:03 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: No one is killing each other with their speech, due process is there to protect everyone, and you're right, the 2nd amendment is about a militia - so if you want to stay true to the spirit of it, if you want a gun, join the National Guard.


The SCotUS has ruled that you point here is bunk.  The operative clause of the 2nd Amendment does not limit or bind in any way the Operate Clause.  In small words, militias have nothing to do with the right to bear arms.
 
2014-01-05 11:09:15 PM  
The Name:

How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it

Does it make you mad?
 
2014-01-05 11:10:22 PM  

HeadLever: The totalitarians love folks like you.


Yeah, "the totalitarians."  Good thing we've got patriots like you to protect us from those paranoid, mindless totalitarians.

redmid17: No I got it. You want the 2nd amendment changed so that states can enact bans, licensing schemes, and stricter laws per their preference. Your extension of that metaphors to cars was flawed though, since states can already do that.


It's not a metaphor, it's a broad policy proposal.
 
2014-01-05 11:11:43 PM  

redmid17: Gonna need to repeal or amend the Militia Act of 1903 while you're at it.


And negate the Heller decision.
 
2014-01-05 11:11:58 PM  

The Name: HeadLever: The totalitarians love folks like you.

Yeah, "the totalitarians."  Good thing we've got patriots like you to protect us from those paranoid, mindless totalitarians.

redmid17: No I got it. You want the 2nd amendment changed so that states can enact bans, licensing schemes, and stricter laws per their preference. Your extension of that metaphors to cars was flawed though, since states can already do that.

It's not a metaphor, it's a broad policy proposal.


You were using cars to represent guns. If that's not a metaphor, I will hand send back the AP credit I got for my English classes and tell my alma mater, high school and middle school that I need to retake English classes.
 
2014-01-05 11:14:06 PM  

The Name: Good thing we've got patriots like you to protect us from those paranoid, mindless totalitarians.


So reducing the rights that we have in this country is not a totalitarian action?  The ghost of a thousand dictators laughs at your feeble point.
 
2014-01-05 11:15:21 PM  

Frank N Stein: The Name:

How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it

Does it make you mad?


Meh.  I'm sure someday I'll become inured to the fact that the country of my birth is a third-world cultural backwater.  "Afghanistan with iPads" I like to call it.  The repeal of Second Amendment isn't the only thing I'll never see in my lifetime: universal health care, universal pre-K, strong labor unions and a mandatory living wage are all things the US will never have.

And, for what it's worth, I do plan to send most of my applications overseas when I'm on the job market in a few years.
 
2014-01-05 11:15:52 PM  
Wait so no takers on the Hughes amendment repeal and ccw reciprocity? I thought you guys wanted compromise and a discussion for common sense solutions.
 
2014-01-05 11:17:00 PM  

redmid17: The Name: HeadLever: The totalitarians love folks like you.

Yeah, "the totalitarians."  Good thing we've got patriots like you to protect us from those paranoid, mindless totalitarians.

redmid17: No I got it. You want the 2nd amendment changed so that states can enact bans, licensing schemes, and stricter laws per their preference. Your extension of that metaphors to cars was flawed though, since states can already do that.

It's not a metaphor, it's a broad policy proposal.

You were using cars to represent guns. If that's not a metaphor, I will hand send back the AP credit I got for my English classes and tell my alma mater, high school and middle school that I need to retake English classes.


I'd hate to see what you got on the GRE.
 
2014-01-05 11:17:31 PM  

The Name: Frank N Stein: The Name:

How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it

Does it make you mad?

Meh.  I'm sure someday I'll become inured to the fact that the country of my birth is a third-world cultural backwater.  "Afghanistan with iPads" I like to call it.  The repeal of Second Amendment isn't the only thing I'll never see in my lifetime: universal health care, universal pre-K, strong labor unions and a mandatory living wage are all things the US will never have.

And, for what it's worth, I do plan to send most of my applications overseas when I'm on the job market in a few years.


Universal healthcare will happen within the decade. It should have happened 4 years ago. ACA is an idiotic boondoggle for the insurance companies that will be around long enough to get them rich(er) before they lose a lot of revenue when the US goes to single payer. I am looking forward to that day.
 
2014-01-05 11:21:34 PM  

Frank N Stein: How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it
Does it make you mad?


Meh, How do you feel that the person you vote for will never be president for the rest of your life?
 
2014-01-05 11:22:05 PM  

The Name: Frank N Stein: The Name:

How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it

Does it make you mad?

Meh.  I'm sure someday I'll become inured to the fact that the country of my birth is a third-world cultural backwater.  "Afghanistan with iPads" I like to call it.  The repeal of Second Amendment isn't the only thing I'll never see in my lifetime: universal health care, universal pre-K, strong labor unions and a mandatory living wage are all things the US will never have.

And, for what it's worth, I do plan to send most of my applications overseas when I'm on the job market in a few years.


I'm assuming you're a college student then?
 
2014-01-05 11:22:55 PM  

The Name: redmid17: The Name: HeadLever: The totalitarians love folks like you.

Yeah, "the totalitarians."  Good thing we've got patriots like you to protect us from those paranoid, mindless totalitarians.

redmid17: No I got it. You want the 2nd amendment changed so that states can enact bans, licensing schemes, and stricter laws per their preference. Your extension of that metaphors to cars was flawed though, since states can already do that.

It's not a metaphor, it's a broad policy proposal.

You were using cars to represent guns. If that's not a metaphor, I will hand send back the AP credit I got for my English classes and tell my alma mater, high school and middle school that I need to retake English classes.

I'd hate to see what you got on the GRE.


Never took it. They waived the requirement when I applied to and was accepted into grad school because I went to the school for undergrad. I didn't attend as the cost would have been fairly prohibitive for not much more money coming out. English was probably my strongest subject in school. Your usage of cars in place of guns in your metaphor was no different than Steinbeck's use of the struggling turtle to represent the Okies in Grapes of Wrath or the Moby Dick for God. (amongst other things).
 
2014-01-05 11:23:41 PM  

Frank N Stein: The Name: Frank N Stein: The Name:

How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it

Does it make you mad?

Meh.  I'm sure someday I'll become inured to the fact that the country of my birth is a third-world cultural backwater.  "Afghanistan with iPads" I like to call it.  The repeal of Second Amendment isn't the only thing I'll never see in my lifetime: universal health care, universal pre-K, strong labor unions and a mandatory living wage are all things the US will never have.

And, for what it's worth, I do plan to send most of my applications overseas when I'm on the job market in a few years.

I'm assuming you're a college student then?


Ph.D. student
 
2014-01-05 11:26:11 PM  

The Name: I'm sure someday I'll become inured to the fact that the country of my birth is a third-world cultural backwater.  "Afghanistan with iPads" I like to call it.


Actually, you and right-hating Afghanistan would seem to be a perfect match for each other.
 
2014-01-05 11:28:35 PM  

The Name: Frank N Stein: The Name: Frank N Stein: The Name:

How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it

Does it make you mad?

Meh.  I'm sure someday I'll become inured to the fact that the country of my birth is a third-world cultural backwater.  "Afghanistan with iPads" I like to call it.  The repeal of Second Amendment isn't the only thing I'll never see in my lifetime: universal health care, universal pre-K, strong labor unions and a mandatory living wage are all things the US will never have.

And, for what it's worth, I do plan to send most of my applications overseas when I'm on the job market in a few years.

I'm assuming you're a college student then?

Ph.D. student


Good luck in your field. Where are you looking at moving? Not trying to trap you with any questions, mind you.
 
2014-01-05 11:28:40 PM  

HeadLever: The Name: I'm sure someday I'll become inured to the fact that the country of my birth is a third-world cultural backwater.  "Afghanistan with iPads" I like to call it.

Actually, you and right-hating Afghanistan would seem to be a perfect match for each other.


So, left-loving Afghanistan?
 
2014-01-05 11:30:05 PM  

Frank N Stein: Good luck in your field. Where are you looking at moving? Not trying to trap you with any questions, mind you.


Thanks.  I'm only in my second year (average time to get a degree in my field is 8 years), so I'm not even thinking about moving yet.  I just know that I'll probably want to go overseas.
 
2014-01-06 12:11:22 AM  

The Name: So, left-loving Afghanistan?


You can be left and still subscribe to the totalitarianism bent.  See the CCCP or Venezuela.
 
2014-01-06 12:12:10 AM  

The Name: Frank N Stein: The Name:

How does it make you feel that the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed in your lifetime, and the only thing you can do is a) biatch about it on Fark and b) sit back and take it

Does it make you mad?

Meh.  I'm sure someday I'll become inured to the fact that the country of my birth is a third-world cultural backwater.  "Afghanistan with iPads" I like to call it.  The repeal of Second Amendment isn't the only thing I'll never see in my lifetime: universal health care, universal pre-K, strong labor unions and a mandatory living wage are all things the US will never have.

And, for what it's worth, I do plan to send most of my applications overseas when I'm on the job market in a few years.


Ah to be young and naive. I was like you once, then I grew up and joined the real world.  Once you move out of Berkeley, your worldview will change.

And if you think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, well don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.
 
2014-01-06 01:10:26 AM  

hubiestubert: Yup, because, correlation equals causation. Fine homework there, Lou...


And we all know that once a felon crosses from Maryland into Washington DC, the laws cause his gun to magically dissolve in his pocket.
 
m00
2014-01-06 01:16:06 AM  

lilplatinum: I wasn't aware New York was an island...


It's called "Manhattan"
 
2014-01-06 02:36:08 AM  

Frank N Stein: Dimensio: redmid17: Even if we switched to mandatory licensing and no right to own a gun, you still have to deal with the 300 million plus guns existing in the country, most without