Do you have adblock enabled?
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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



443 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 443 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report