Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal
You can be mad the second amendment exists, but it does. You can be mad about how it has been interpreted over the last ~100 years, but that has also happened. Now, what you propose is to infringe upon my rights with no empirical bases as to why society would be better with out them. Correlation is not causation. You say "I will remove your guns and therefore we will all be safer". I say "No, it won't". Neither of us can prove the point. But you have no problem infringing on this right because it does not affect YOU! You say "hell, lets try my idea because I don't have any guns therefore it really has no possible negative impact on me". I propose that is a ****** reason. I propose that is exactly the reason people oppose gay marriage (I assume that you, like me, support this right).
Or a better example. I live in a city and do not drive a car. I see that people are killed in hit and runs and even normal car accidents all the time. Hell, I see a pedestrian get creamed crossing the road one day. I decide that if there were no cars all those deaths wouldn't have happened. I then attempt to take away your right to a car because I say "hey, all these car accidents wouldn't have happened so these people are alive. I fear crossing the road in case a reckless driver crushes me!" disregarding all context (and positive attributes) a car has. But I don't care if we outlaw cars because I don't use a car. It has no impact on me. I could be wrong but I dont care! All I know is maybe and there is no negative for me. That is not how it works.
I know that is a pretty extreme example and there are much better arguments for guns but I wanted to throw out a perspective I rarely see discussed as everyone gets lost in gun stats. By the way, here is a nice article you may want to read:
Here is my favorite quote (it is about the EU by the way, sorry canada got screwed in this quote): The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609 . That comes after a table with the violent crime rate of 10 EU countries (all at a higher rate then the US).
Maybe there are more factors then gun ownership? Correlation is not causation folks, crime is not a cut and dry issue. Please do not remove my ability (and right) to defend myself because you "think" it might make you safer
You can be mad the second amendment exists, but it does. You can be mad about how it has been interpreted over the last ~100 years, but that has also happened. Now, what you propose is to infringe upon my rights with no empirical bases as to why society would be better with out them. Correlation is not causation. You say "I will remove your guns and therefore we will all be safer". I say "No, it won't". Neither of us can prove the point. But you have no problem infringing on this right because it does not affect YOU! You say "hell, lets try my idea because I don't have any guns therefore it really has no possible negative impact on me". I propose that is a ****** reason. I propose that is exactly the reason people oppose gay marriage (I assume that you, like me, support this right).
Or a better example. I live in a city and do not drive a car. I see that people are killed in hit and runs and even normal car accidents all the time. Hell, I see a pedestrian get creamed crossing the road one day. I decide that if there were no cars all those deaths wouldn't have happened. I then attempt to take away your right to a car because I say "hey, all these car accidents wouldn't have happened so these people are alive. I fear crossing the road in case a reckless driver crushes me!" disregarding all context (and positive attributes) a car has. But I don't care if we outlaw cars because I don't use a car. It has no impact on me. I could be wrong but I dont care! All I know is maybe and there is no negative for me. That is not how it works.
I know that is a pretty extreme example and there are much better arguments for guns but I wanted to throw out a perspective I rarely see discussed as everyone gets lost in gun stats. By the way, here is a nice article you may want to read:
Here is my favorite quote (it is about the EU by the way, sorry canada got screwed in this quote): The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609 . That comes after a table with the violent crime rate of 10 EU countries (all at a higher rate then the US).
Maybe there are more factors then gun ownership? Correlation is not causation folks, crime is not a cut and dry issue. Please do not remove my ability (and right) to defend myself because you "think" it might make you safer
An increase in the prevalence of legitimate gun owners does not reduce the crime rate, as your theory of self-defense suggests. However, an increase in the prevalence of illegal firearms ownership does increase the crime rate.
You want to know the big secret about gun statistics and crime rates? The government does not have a good measure of gun ownership, so researchers cobble together information from various sources which are not necessarily representative of the prevalence of firearms in this country.
An increase in legitimate gun ownership simply provides more opportunities for the illegal acquisition of firearms, which in turn contributes to violent crime.
An increase in the prevalence of legitimate gun owners does not reduce the crime rate, as your theory of self-defense suggests. However, an increase in the prevalence of illegal firearms ownership does increase the crime rate.
You want to know the big secret about gun statistics and crime rates? The government does not have a good measure of gun ownership, so researchers cobble together information from various sources which are not necessarily representative of the prevalence of firearms in this country.
An increase in legitimate gun ownership simply provides more opportunities for the illegal acquisition of firearms, which in turn contributes to violent crime.
People shouldnt have guns unless they are a necessary tool for their livelihood. Farmers or people that live in the wilderness.
I dont really want to step on the hunter's toes, even though I dont hunt myself. But there are just too many incidents where someone goes soft in the head and kills innocent people with a gun. Rifle, handgun, shotgun, dont really matter.
I dont get why people would carry a gun on them in an urban area. That's wack imo. If you fear for your safety that badly, then ****ing move someplace where you feel safe.
Or a better example. I live in a city and do not drive a car. I see that people are killed in hit and runs and even normal car accidents all the time. Hell, I see a pedestrian get creamed crossing the road one day. I decide that if there were no cars all those deaths wouldn't have happened. I then attempt to take away your right to a car because I say "hey, all these car accidents wouldn't have happened so these people are alive. I fear crossing the road in case a reckless driver crushes me!" disregarding all context (and positive attributes) a car has. But I don't care if we outlaw cars because I don't use a car. It has no impact on me. I could be wrong but I dont care! All I know is maybe and there is no negative for me. That is not how it works.
Terrible analogy. The purpose of cars is transportation. The purpose of guns is to kill and maim.
People shouldnt have guns unless they are a necessary tool for their livelihood. Farmers or people that live in the wilderness.
I dont really want to step on the hunter's toes, even though I dont hunt myself. But there are just too many incidents where someone goes soft in the head and kills innocent people with a gun. Rifle, handgun, shotgun, dont really matter.
I dont get why people would carry a gun on them in an urban area. That's wack imo. If you fear for your safety that badly, then ****ing move someplace where you feel safe.
I understand what you're saying. I totally get it.
However, you'd be crazy to not consider having a gun available in your home where I grew up. Our car was broken into multiple times, neighbors have been robbed, family has been robbed. It's real, and it happens. If someone picks my house, they've made a mistake...and it's one less bad guy on the streets.
People shouldnt have guns unless they are a necessary tool for their livelihood.
Maybe in Europe.
Luckily, our great Constitution allows for the possession of guns.
__________________
"Of course giving Sather cap space is like giving teenagers whiskey and car keys." - SBOB "Watching Sather build a team is like watching a blind man with no fingers trying to put together an elaborate puzzle." - Shadowtron
Sestito still on the make a wish tour. - rholt168
Relevant part, page 3:
Recent studies of
adult and juvenile offenders show that
many have either stolen a firearm or
kept, sold, or traded a stolen firearm:
According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.
Studies of adult and juvenile offenders
that the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services conducted
in 1992 and 1993 found that 15% of
the adult offenders and 19% of the juvenile
offenders had stolen guns; 16%
of the adults and 24% of the juveniles
had kept a stolen gun; and 20% of the
adults and 30% of the juveniles had
sold or traded a stolen gun.
From a sample of juvenile inmates
in four States, Sheley and Wright
found that more than 50% had stolen
a gun at least once in their lives and
24% had stolen their most recently obtained
handgun. They concluded that
theft and burglary were the original, not
always the proximate, source of many
guns acquired by the juveniles.
A recent journal article by Stolzenburg and D'Alessio (2000), using NIBRS (the National Incident Based Reporting System - think UCR but more in depth, and not currently used by all states) found that legitimate gun ownership had no effect on crime rates. The argument that legal gun owners use their guns for self defense would, theoretically, reduce the crime rate was not supported. Alternatively, the authors do find positive, significant effects of stolen gun prevalence on violent crime rates, firearm crime rates, and juvenile firearm crime rates. They could only use data from South Carolina, though.
That article is Gun Availability and Violent Crime: New Evidence from the National Incident-Based Reporting System. Lisa Stolzenberg and Stewart J. D'Alessio. Social Forces, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 1461-1482
I can probably find more, since this is a topic I am currently working on.
Knock yourself out. Buy the gun. There are issues when it comes to banning handguns that people don't realize. Sure it makes sense for the criminals, but what about the guys who go around to shooting ranges on a regular basis? That's a handgun there.
Not to mention Canada is a nation of hunters as well. There are parts of this country where everyone and their mother owns a shotgun and no one thinks any differently. Small town Alberta, etc.
Guns are a polarizing topic. I don't own one, or plan to, but I understand the need for one. Somehow Charlton Heston was labelled as a cold hearted scoundrel just because he was at the top of the NRA. That's not right and Michael Moore practically inviting himself into the guy's house for a blindsided interview was classless as well and in my opinion Heston taking the high road in that interview made him look like the classier of the two.
Guns have their purpose. But they are for adults - mature adults. Responsible adults.
Relevant part, page 3:
Recent studies of
adult and juvenile offenders show that
many have either stolen a firearm or
kept, sold, or traded a stolen firearm:
According to the 1991 Survey of
State Prison Inmates, among those
inmates who possessed a handgun,
9% had acquired it through theft, and
28% had acquired it through an illegal
market such as a drug dealer or fence.
Of all inmates, 10% had stolen at least
one gun, and 11% had sold or traded
stolen guns.
Studies of adult and juvenile offenders
that the Virginia Department of
Criminal Justice Services conducted
in 1992 and 1993 found that 15% of
the adult offenders and 19% of the juvenile
offenders had stolen guns; 16%
of the adults and 24% of the juveniles
had kept a stolen gun; and 20% of the
adults and 30% of the juveniles had
sold or traded a stolen gun.
From a sample of juvenile inmates
in four States, Sheley and Wright
found that more than 50% had stolen
a gun at least once in their lives and
24% had stolen their most recently obtained
handgun. They concluded that
theft and burglary were the original, not
always the proximate, source of many
guns acquired by the juveniles.
A recent journal article by Stolzenburg and D'Alessio (2000), using NIBRS (the National Incident Based Reporting System - think UCR but more in depth, and not currently used by all states) found that legitimate gun ownership had no effect on crime rates. The argument that legal gun owners use their guns for self defense would, theoretically, reduce the crime rate was not supported. Alternatively, the authors do find positive, significant effects of stolen gun prevalence on violent crime rates, firearm crime rates, and juvenile firearm crime rates. They could only use data from South Carolina, though.
That article is Gun Availability and Violent Crime: New Evidence from the National Incident-Based Reporting System. Lisa Stolzenberg and Stewart J. D'Alessio. Social Forces, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Jun., 2000), pp. 1461-1482
I can probably find more, since this is a topic I am currently working on.
Ah lefty, you didnt kill the fun.
The people who steal guns are called criminals.
If you outlaw guns, criminals will still have guns since they do not fear the punishment of having an "illegal" gun as they engage in criminal activity.
Your simple mind and thought process would have us believe that once guns are banned completely that they would simply no longer exist and we would enter a state of complete Nirvana.
But your simple mind shows that you are not thinking. Here is a thought for you (if you disengage your simple mind for a second and think critically).
Cocaine is illegal in the US. However, it is smuggled into this country on a daily basis and it is easily obtained if you want it.
If guns were made illegal in the US, they would be easily smuggled into this country on a daily basis and would be easily obtained by anyone not afraid of engaging in criminal activity.
So while law abiding citizens would be without guns for self-defense, the "criminals" who "illegally" possess guns would be able to commit all sorts of crimes against an unarmed populace.
Grasping that concept yet? If you are a liberal, I doubt that you have that capacity.
Do me a favor since you are so anti-gun. Put a sign on your front door that says this.............."I do not own a gun. There are no guns in this apartment/house."
Knock yourself out. Buy the gun. There are issues when it comes to banning handguns that people don't realize. Sure it makes sense for the criminals, but what about the guys who go around to shooting ranges on a regular basis? That's a handgun there.
Not to mention Canada is a nation of hunters as well. There are parts of this country where everyone and their mother owns a shotgun and no one thinks any differently. Small town Alberta, etc.
Guns are a polarizing topic. I don't own one, or plan to, but I understand the need for one. Somehow Charlton Heston was labelled as a cold hearted scoundrel just because he was at the top of the NRA. That's not right and Michael Moore practically inviting himself into the guy's house for a blindsided interview was classless as well and in my opinion Heston taking the high road in that interview made him look like the classier of the two.
Guns have their purpose. But they are for adults - mature adults. Responsible adults.
Knock yourself out. Buy the gun. There are issues when it comes to banning handguns that people don't realize. Sure it makes sense for the criminals, but what about the guys who go around to shooting ranges on a regular basis? That's a handgun there.
Easy solution to that: have the guns stored and locked away at the shooting range. Pick up your gun when you get there, lock it away when you leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Somehow Charlton Heston was labelled as a cold hearted scoundrel just because he was at the top of the NRA. That's not right....
Screw the NRA. If you take on the function as its President, you've taken on the role as a cold-hearted scoundrel. That's part of his legacy now.
EDIT: Heston's wiki page is interesting. The guy went completely off the deep end, veered hard right and then claimed "I didn't change. The Democratic party changed." Bullsh....t. If anything the Democratic Party didn't veer as hard to the right as he did.
If you outlaw guns, criminals will still have guns since they do not fear the punishment of having an "illegal" gun as they engage in criminal activity.
Your simple mind and thought process would have us believe that once guns are banned completely that they would simply no longer exist and we would enter a state of complete Nirvana.
But your simple mind shows that you are not thinking. Here is a thought for you (if you disengage your simple mind for a second and think critically).
Cocaine is illegal in the US. However, it is smuggled into this country on a daily basis and it is easily obtained if you want it.
If guns were made illegal in the US, they would be easily smuggled into this country on a daily basis and would be easily obtained by anyone not afraid of engaging in criminal activity.
So while law abiding citizens would be without guns for self-defense, the "criminals" who "illegally" possess guns would be able to commit all sorts of crimes against an unarmed populace.
Grasping that concept yet? If you are a liberal, I doubt that you have that capacity.
Do me a favor since you are so anti-gun. Put a sign on your front door that says this.............."I do not own a gun. There are no guns in this apartment/house."
Thanks.
This simple-simon NRA talking point always hits a wall when you take into consideration that "criminals" have a much harder time stealing guns in countries where guns are hard to come by legally in the first place.
I guess you covered every-played out gun-nut cliché known to man in your post. Right down to the butt-hurt disdain for liberals.
Screw the NRA. If you take on the function as its President, you've taken on the role as a cold-hearted scoundrel. That's part of his legacy now.
Wait, what? So because you support arming law-abiding citizens and stand against the emotional rhetoric suggesting that law-abiding citizens should not be trusted with a firearm you're a cold-hearted scoundrel?
This simple-simon NRA talking point always hits a wall when you take into consideration that "criminals" have a much harder time stealing guns in countries where guns are hard to come by legally in the first place.
Maybe in 100 years when all the guns that you're going to have to grandfather into the new gun control legislation stop working.
Another NRA talking point which has the misfortune of being true: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Wait, what? So because you support arming law-abiding citizens and stand against the emotional rhetoric suggesting that law-abiding citizens should not be trusted with a firearm you're a cold-hearted scoundrel?
I want to see you defend that.
Once again, screw the NRA, and screw their "law-abiding citizens" crap. This is the organization that has our politicians so cowed they don't even dare to pass restrictions on assault weapons (and what do assault weapons have to do with law-abiding citizens?).
Did someone force Charlton Heston to become the president of that organization? No? Then he was a cold-hearted scoundrel. And that's how I and many others will remember him. That was his choice. There's my defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Maybe in 100 years when all the guns that you're going to have to grandfather into the new gun control legislation stop working.
The original post by mypunkrock was: "An increase in legitimate gun ownership simply provides more opportunities for the illegal acquisition of firearms, which in turn contributes to violent crime."
America is flooded with legitimately-owned guns thanks to the Second Amendment. Nobody said anything about new gun control legislation. Please try to follow along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Another NRA talking point which has the misfortune of being true: When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Oh yeah, you'd know all about that, living in terrifying Washington County, Maine.
Once again, screw the NRA, and screw their "law-abiding citizens" crap.
?????
The NRA has never clamored for a single criminal to be armed, you realize at least that, right?
Also there is no such thing as the kind of "assault weapon" that people are calling to be banned. The military issue stuff is already outlawed, and "semiautomatic assault rifle" is a misnomer of the highest order. Generally what falls into this "assault weapons" ban are kinds of rifles that function no differently than other semiautomatic rifles, except that they look scarier. Is that really a rational basis for legislation?
The NRA has never clamored for a single criminal to be armed, you realize at least that, right?
It doesn't matter... the fact that they oppose just about any kind of gun control means that criminals will inherently end up armed. You realize that, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji
Also there is no such thing as the kind of "assault weapon" that people are calling to be banned. The military issue stuff is already outlawed, and "semiautomatic assault rifle" is a misnomer of the highest order. Generally what falls into this "assault weapons" ban are kinds of rifles that function no differently than other semiautomatic rifles, except that they look scarier. Is that really a rational basis for legislation?
Why do regular citizens need semi-automatic rifles? Can you name a single good reason?
Why do people need oversized clips like the kind that enabled Jared Loughner to shoot 20 people within a short period of time?
Without the NRA, regular "law-abiding citizens" wouldn't be able to get either.
Screw the NRA and its totally irresponsible policies that have been responsible for tens of thousands of lives lost over the decades.
