Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:55 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Is anyone still using the "good man with a gun" argument? Because that seems pretty much done for after Dayton this weekend, where the authorities shot the guy down about 30 seconds after he opened fire, and he still managed to kill 9 people and injure a bunch more.

Which leads me to this: it doesn't matter who (gender, race, ideology) and it doesn't matter why. What matters (it seems to me, and in my humble opinion) is that people, any non-military people, have access to guns which have (or can be made to have) firing abilities that have no earthly use except to kill a lot of people very fast. I don't know or care what names these guns go by. It ought to be possible to define them well enough so that they could be effectively* banned.

*effectively, in this context, means not that the government would go around searching homes to find and remove all of these types of guns. It means that no such gun could be legally sold to anyone anywhere in this country (outside the military), and that possession of such a gun should be a felony.

I know this only addresses mass shootings, and there are too many other types of guns, but I really have no idea what can be done about those. Ruken's assertion about the actual likelihood of being shot in a mass shooting vs. being shot by someone with a cheap pistol is true but beside the point. The way terrorism works is to take big actions that make people afraid irrationally. This tactic can be very effective, as shown by the reactions since the weekend. Once this gun issue is resolved, there is still the opportunity to address the more difficult gun possession issues.
Your proposal would have deprived the authorities of the semi-automatic weapons they used to stop the antifa asshole in Dayton. Is that your intent?
  #102  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:58 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
He got the fucking gun in Nevada. It was only a failure because the feds wont do anything. Anything that makes it tougher for fucko's to get them is a win. Are you ok with fucko's getting things that can do this sort of thing?
I don't know what a "fucko" is, but I generally find it acceptable and desirable that non-prohibited-persons be permitted to purchase semi-automatic firearms and accessories. Does that answer your question?
  #103  
Old 08-05-2019, 07:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
... So when someone is afraid of the government taking their guns, maybe it would be for the better if we did. I know it's not realistic, but historically it seems to have worked pretty good considering Japan has virtually no gun crime.
That looks like an affirmative answer to my question. In that case, my only request is: please let's make this a major campaign issue in 2020. Have the dem candidate run on it and let's turn it into a big national debate about "serious gun control". I'll join you in a letter-writing campaign to whoever wins the nomination, urging them to push this issue hard.
  #104  
Old 08-05-2019, 07:02 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
You're using one example as your evidence of guns not working?


California has one of the lowest gun death rates in America, they also have some of the strongest gun control. Meanwhile somewhere like Alabama, has some of the highest gun death rates in America, they also have some of the weakest gun control.
California falls exactly in the middle of state by state homicide rates.

New Hampshire, however, has the very lowest homicide rate and rates a F (which means lax gun laws) from Giffords:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

North Dakota has the 2nd lowest rate and also gets a F. Maine has the 3rd lowest rate- and gets a F. Idaho has the 4th lowest - and gets a ? What? Bueller? Bueller? Yes, a F. I could go on, but your cherrypicking was pretty bogus.

But yes, CA likely has the strongest gun control laws- which didnt stop the Gilroy incident.
  #105  
Old 08-05-2019, 07:08 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Do we really have to do this again? No, they didn't ban ALL guns. Yes they did heavily restrict SOME guns to the point of making them unavailable to the common person. From your link:


Category D
All self-loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self-loading shotguns that have a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, semi-automatic rimfire rifles over 10 rounds, are restricted to government agencies, occupational shooters and primary producers
So, my point stands. They didn't ban guns at all. Yes, they did restrict the sale of some types of guns, 'making them unavailable to the common person'.

Why would 'a common person' need a Category D gun?
  #106  
Old 08-05-2019, 07:29 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
So, my point stands. They didn't ban guns at all. Yes, they did restrict the sale of some types of guns, 'making them unavailable to the common person'.

Why would 'a common person' need a Category D gun?
In the US they are used for hunting (pump action shotguns) sporting competitions (center-fire with detachable mags) etc. Plenty hunt with the AR-10. Just because you can't find a use for them doesn't mean there isn't one.

When the common person is no longer able to purchase or own something based upon government regs, it is effectively banned.

Last edited by JXJohns; 08-05-2019 at 07:30 PM.
  #107  
Old 08-05-2019, 07:45 PM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post

When the common person is no longer able to purchase or own something based upon government regs, it is effectively banned.
No, it's called GUN CONTROL.
  #108  
Old 08-05-2019, 07:46 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by kambuckta View Post
No, it's called GUN CONTROL.
Well I guess you told me...
  #109  
Old 08-05-2019, 08:23 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
We have not had "zero gun control" or anything even approximating that for many decades now.
"Gun control" that allows Connor Betts, Patrick Crusius, and Santino Legan to have guns is zero gun control.
  #110  
Old 08-05-2019, 08:38 PM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,339
What will it take for there to be a serious gun control debate? Not much. "Serious" debates on the subject occur all the time.

The real question is this: what can be done to prevent these things from happening in the future?

And the answer is: nothing. At least here in the U.S.

Any and all attempts to try to do "something" will result in one of the following:

1. It will be a feel-good measure that's completely ineffective.

2. It will be unconstitutional and infringe on our natural rights. This will result in a much more bloodshed vs. the occasional mass shooting.

There really is no good solution to the problem. It's something we have to live with. At least here in the U.S.
  #111  
Old 08-05-2019, 08:49 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
#VegasStrong

#StrongElPaso

#DaytonStrong

#HoustonStrong

#GilroyStrong

#ParklandStrong

etc.

etc.

I don't want to be this strong anymore. What good is it doing?
Yeah, more whistling in the dark cloaked by fake American bravado. Reminds me of the days and weeks following 9/11. "We ain't scared a no 'terrsts', ain't gonna let them change who we are."

Oh yeah?
  #112  
Old 08-05-2019, 08:51 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your proposal would have deprived the authorities of the semi-automatic weapons they used to stop the antifa asshole in Dayton. Is that your intent?
No I think the idea is that authorities can have them and fake cops like George Zimmerman or bitter white male virgins like this stooge in Dayton, can't.
  #113  
Old 08-05-2019, 08:52 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
California falls exactly in the middle of state by state homicide rates.

New Hampshire, however, has the very lowest homicide rate and rates a F (which means lax gun laws) from Giffords:

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

North Dakota has the 2nd lowest rate and also gets a F. Maine has the 3rd lowest rate- and gets a F. Idaho has the 4th lowest - and gets a ? What? Bueller? Bueller? Yes, a F. I could go on, but your cherrypicking was pretty bogus.

But yes, CA likely has the strongest gun control laws- which didnt stop the Gilroy incident.
They also have strong laws against murder. Should we legalize murder because the law didn't prevent it?
  #114  
Old 08-05-2019, 08:54 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 18,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
What will it take for there to be a serious gun control debate? Not much. "Serious" debates on the subject occur all the time.

The real question is this: what can be done to prevent these things from happening in the future?

And the answer is: nothing. At least here in the U.S.

Any and all attempts to try to do "something" will result in one of the following:

1. It will be a feel-good measure that's completely ineffective.

2. It will be unconstitutional and infringe on our natural rights. This will result in a much more bloodshed vs. the occasional mass shooting.

There really is no good solution to the problem. It's something we have to live with. At least here in the U.S.
I'm inclined to agree. Americans are morally and intellectually inferior in many respects to most (all?) of the first world western democratic societies/nations.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #115  
Old 08-05-2019, 08:57 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'm inclined to agree. Americans are morally and intellectually inferior in many respects to most (all?) of the first world western democratic societies/nations.
In particular, I find that much of WASP America is stuck in the 18th Century, morally and intellectually.
  #116  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:23 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
What will it take for there to be a serious gun control debate? Not much. "Serious" debates on the subject occur all the time.

The real question is this: what can be done to prevent these things from happening in the future?

And the answer is: nothing. At least here in the U.S.

Any and all attempts to try to do "something" will result in one of the following:

1. It will be a feel-good measure that's completely ineffective.

2. It will be unconstitutional and infringe on our natural rights. This will result in a much more bloodshed vs. the occasional mass shooting.

There really is no good solution to the problem. It's something we have to live with. At least here in the U.S.
Funny, it kinda feels like you want the ineffectual feel-good measure of having guns and threatening bloodshed over the ineffectual feel-good measure that is trying to prevent bloodshed.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #117  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:25 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
They also have strong laws against murder. Should we legalize murder because the law didn't prevent it?
what are you talking about? Your reply makes no sense in context.
  #118  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:26 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Your proposal would have deprived the authorities of the semi-automatic weapons they used to stop the antifa asshole in Dayton. Is that your intent?
What incident was that?
  #119  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
...

Which leads me to this: it doesn't matter who (gender, race, ideology) and it doesn't matter why. What matters (it seems to me, and in my humble opinion) is that people, any non-military people, have access to guns which have (or can be made to have) firing abilities that have no earthly use except to kill a lot of people very fast. I don't know or care what names these guns go by. It ought to be possible to define them well enough so that they could be effectively* banned....
You wish is my command! Such weapons have been effectively illegal since 1934, The National Firearms Act which outlawed machineguns, howitzers, and other such weapons that have "firing abilities that have no earthly use except to kill a lot of people very fast".

Of course it didn't outlaw such things as the AR15, which has quite a few earthly uses and is of a class of weapons which is so rarely used in violent crime it's barely a footnote, like 2%, iirc.
  #120  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:45 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You wish is my command! Such weapons have been effectively illegal since 1934, The National Firearms Act which outlawed machineguns, howitzers, and other such weapons that have "firing abilities that have no earthly use except to kill a lot of people very fast".

Of course it didn't outlaw such things as the AR15, which has quite a few earthly uses and is of a class of weapons which is so rarely used in violent crime it's barely a footnote, like 2%, iirc.
How many violent crimes have used machine guns or howitzers?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #121  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:51 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfaulkner View Post
How many violent crimes have used machine guns or howitzers?
Full automatic weapons triggered the National Firearm Act of 1934.
Quote:

Consider the situation: Gun crimes are on the rise, and the guns that criminals use are military-style weapons, capable of firing rounds with unprecedented speed and ferocity. Cities—where more people live than ever before—are becoming unsafe. The United States leads other industrialized countries in gun-related deaths. And scores of citizens, including the liberal president, are calling for action.

But this isn’t 2016. It’s 1934—a year in which the United States faced unprecedented challenges from a new kind of gun and a new kind of criminal, and the country responded with new laws.

The weapon in question was the tommy gun. Named for its inventor, John T. Thompson, the tommy gun is the kind of short machine gun you see in old-timey mob movies, usually with a cylindrical drum of bullets hanging from the barrel. And the tommy gun really was the weapon of choice for mobsters and bandits, who were a major part of the American consciousness during Prohibition and the Depression.

“By the late 1920s, through popular culture, through news reports, through movies, you have this rising crime rate where criminals are using weapons like the tommy gun, like the sawed-off shotgun,” says Robert Spitzer, a professor of political science at SUNY Cortland and the author of several books on the history of gun control.

“A cry arose in the country to regulate these weapons,” he says.

And that cry sounds a lot like the arguments we hear today.

Last edited by running coach; 08-05-2019 at 09:52 PM.
  #122  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:04 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
what are you talking about? Your reply makes no sense in context.
If a law prevents some of what it is intended to prevent, but not all of that thing, should the law not exist at all?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-05-2019 at 10:04 PM. Reason: clarity
  #123  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:06 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Full automatic weapons triggered the National Firearm Act of 1934.
I meant since then...

Edit: was that an effective solution or feel-good nonsense?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.

Last edited by snfaulkner; 08-05-2019 at 10:09 PM.
  #124  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:10 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,574
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
what are you talking about? Your reply makes no sense in context.
I didn't think context was required.
  #125  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:11 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
If a law prevents some of what it is intended to prevent, but not all of that thing, should the law not exist at all?
Well, Ok, we have laws against murder. They dont prevent all murders.

We have laws against using guns illegally. They dont prevent all illegal gun usage.

We have gun control laws- but they dont do anything at all.
  #126  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:17 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
What incident was that?
There was a big shooting spree in Dayton yesterday. Been in the news a bunch. You may have heard something about it.
  #127  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:19 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
We have gun control laws- but they dont do anything at all.
Maybe you missed this from Barack Obama, that asahi was referencing:

Quote:
California has one of the lowest gun death rates in America, they also have some of the strongest gun control. Meanwhile somewhere like Alabama, has some of the highest gun death rates in America, they also have some of the weakest gun control.
Any comment?

Also, you:

Quote:
Of course it didn't outlaw such things as the AR15, which has quite a few earthly uses and is of a class of weapons which is so rarely used in violent crime it's barely a footnote, like 2%, iirc.
What earthly uses? I'm seriously curious about these. I don't know what you are referring to. As for the 2%, do you care about the fact the people died? I'm sure you do. So what is your point?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-05-2019 at 10:21 PM.
  #128  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:27 PM
Rayks Marcial is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 90
"Some of the strongest gun control."

So I suppose the state with the strongest gun control would have more shooting deaths.
  #129  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:34 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayks Marcial View Post
"Some of the strongest gun control."

So I suppose the state with the strongest gun control would have more shooting deaths.
I'm not sure why that would be the case. Anyway, the point others were trying to make, I think, and I have elsewhere, is that gun controls that are effective in reducing gun deaths can be rendered less effective when neighboring states have weak laws. If indeed California's laws are reducing deaths, why not implement them country-wide? That is, if one is interested in reducing those deaths in the first place.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-05-2019 at 10:35 PM.
  #130  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:39 PM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
> Americans are morally and intellectually inferior in many respects to most (all?) of the first world western democratic societies/nations


That's probably the answer. Americans are morally and intellectually inferior to the rest of the developed world, which explains why they want a gun deaths epidemic but don't want universal healthcare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
That is, if one is interested in reducing those deaths in the first place.
Sadly, those opposing gun control aren't interested in reducing those deaths. They'd rather have guns.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...

Last edited by DragonAsh; 08-05-2019 at 10:41 PM.
  #131  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:49 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Why do more mass shootings happen in the US, per capita, than most other countries? I don't know, but here's a theory. There are a number of reasons why someone might do this. Racial animosity, sociopathy, and others. Maybe it's because due the large number of people in the country, and the many varied situations we live in, we simply have more opportunities, if that's the right word, for people to fill each category. For instance, in Japan, there are far few ethnic groups, and 99.4% of the country is Japanese. Thus being motivated by racial hatred is not very likely. This is not a perfect example, because of course Japan has dramatically fewer guns than America. But I hope you get the idea. This idea could be extended to other reasons. Does anyone know of a study addressing this idea? Short of banning most guns, is this something we will just have to learn to live with in America?

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-05-2019 at 10:50 PM.
  #132  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:54 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
Sadly, those opposing gun control aren't interested in reducing those deaths. They'd rather have guns.
Some perhaps, but I'm not ready to generalize. For instance, first a definition of gun control must be determined. If gun control means background checks only, as an example, then I am not especially for it for reducing gun deaths, because I don't think it will have much effect, not because I am not interested in reducing gun deaths. I assure you that I am. That does not mean I'm against the idea altogether. If you have to register a gun, it can be traced back to you if you commit a crime, for instance. This is good. Didn't prevent a death, but maybe will help find the killer.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 08-05-2019 at 10:56 PM.
  #133  
Old 08-05-2019, 10:56 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo View Post
...and if lobbying groups for the gun manufacturers were no longer allowed to bribe elected officials of both parties with campaign contributions.
I include pro-gun lobbyists, the NRA, etc. in the category of "opponents of gun control".
  #134  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:05 PM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
Studies show that it's not ethnic diversity that counts - it's ethnic dominance. Think about, for example, Africa or South America. Singapore is quite diverse ethnically but has a very low crime rate. Canada is diverse - more diverse than the US, according to some studies - but has a lower crime rate than its southern neighbor.

Countries with tougher gun laws have fewer gun deaths. This isn't a difficult concept.
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...
  #135  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:33 PM
DragonAsh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,481
Vehicle registrations, insurance requirements, licensing, database of ownership that can be used to solve crimes - nobody opposes these measures for cars.

Why would anyone oppose them for guns?

Start a gun buyback program. Won't take all the guns off the street right away, but over time it will.

Introduce an annual gun registration fee for each gun you own. Hefty fines if you don't pay, and guns may be repossessed if you don't pay the fees. Even heftier fines - sufficient to put the store out of business - for gun shops / trade shows selling guns without proper registration. Gun owners requires to buy gun owner insurance to own a gun. Big federal and state sales tax on any gun sale - let's start at 40% of the retail price. Must disclose having a gun in the house for home insurance purposes. Offer insurance discounts for home owners selling their guns and installing a home security system that - last time I checked - had never accidentally killed anyone. Mandatory reeducation courses every 3-5 years.

The US has not banned cigarettes, yet the percentage of smokers in the US has been steadily falling, from almost 50% in the 1950s, to the 30s in the late 1980s, and now in the mid-teens and still dropping.
It's harder to smoke. It's more expensive to smoke. Want to smoke? Great, you're still going to help foot the bill society has to pay.


The US won't solve the gun problem in my lifetime - but maybe in my kid's lifetimes....
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think hiring a pro to do the job is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur...
  #136  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:45 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
There was a big shooting spree in Dayton yesterday. Been in the news a bunch. You may have heard something about it.
Yes, but until I search I hadnt heard about Antifa.
  #137  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:50 PM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Why do more mass shootings happen in the US, per capita, than most other countries? I don't know, but here's a theory. There are a number of reasons why someone might do this. Racial animosity, sociopathy, and others. Maybe it's because due the large number of people in the country, and the many varied situations we live in, we simply have more opportunities, if that's the right word, for people to fill each category. For instance, in Japan, there are far few ethnic groups, and 99.4% of the country is Japanese. Thus being motivated by racial hatred is not very likely. This is not a perfect example, because of course Japan has dramatically fewer guns than America. But I hope you get the idea. This idea could be extended to other reasons. Does anyone know of a study addressing this idea? Short of banning most guns, is this something we will just have to learn to live with in America?
You have no idea. Their are major racial groups in Japan. If you introduced common gun ownership to Japan you would create a war zone the likes of which you have never seen.
  #138  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:50 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Maybe you missed this from Barack Obama, that asahi was referencing:



Any comment?

Also, you:



What earthly uses? I'm seriously curious about these. I don't know what you are referring to. As for the 2%, do you care about the fact the people died? I'm sure you do. So what is your point?

Indeed, that was my reply. BA's post gave stats out of context which gave a incorrect conclusion. Actually, overall, the states with the lowest homicides rates also have very little gun control. CA actually has a homicide rate exactly in the middle, not low at all.

AR15s are very good for varmint hunting, like coyotes. They are also fun target rifles for tin can shooting and the like. Many like them for home defense.

So, you'd want to make a bunch of guns illegal , which could not possibly make a significant reduction in violent crime? Just because they look scary?

2%? Well, that many people die from baseball bats, backyard pools, and bathtub accidents. Should we ban baseball, pools and bathtubs? Tens of thousands more than that die from alcohol or smoking.
  #139  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:52 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
......


Sadly, those opposing gun control aren't interested in reducing those deaths. They'd rather have guns.
Except that banning those guns wont reduce deaths.
  #140  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:56 PM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
... Sadly, those opposing gun control aren't interested in reducing those deaths. They'd rather have guns.
I, for one, would be interested in hearing about proposed solutions that did not involve variations on the theme "let's take away everyone's guns".
  #141  
Old 08-05-2019, 11:59 PM
Rayks Marcial is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 90
^
Work on removing the anger. Disarm a loony of his automatic weapons and he'll come back with a car bomb.
  #142  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:04 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Why do more mass shootings happen in the US, per capita, than most other countries? ...
I'm not so sure that they do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXGgI2E5JUw
  #143  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:07 AM
HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, but until I search I hadnt heard about Antifa.
Huh. Well, just so we're all on the same page:

  #144  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:09 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayks Marcial View Post
^
Work on removing the anger. Disarm a loony of his automatic weapons and he'll come back with a car bomb.
That's all HD and his ilk hear is "let's take away everyone's guns"
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #145  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:16 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,393
Make bullets expensive and illegal to make at home. It's not unconstitutional because you still have your guns and access to (really expensive) bullets.
  #146  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:22 AM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Make bullets expensive and illegal to make at home. It's not unconstitutional because you still have your guns and access to (really expensive) bullets.
What other constitutional right is taxed like this? That's gonna be the argument.
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.

Last edited by snfaulkner; 08-06-2019 at 12:23 AM.
  #147  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:24 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,854
And tax the bejeezus out of guns so society can cover the costs. Like, a pistol should cost $500,000 or so.
  #148  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:28 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Make bullets expensive and illegal to make at home. It's not unconstitutional because you still have your guns and access to (really expensive) bullets.
Make books expensive and illegal to make at home. It's not unconstitutional because you still have your books.
  #149  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:28 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 3,956
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
Studies show that it's not ethnic diversity that counts - it's ethnic dominance. Think about, for example, Africa or South America. Singapore is quite diverse ethnically but has a very low crime rate. Canada is diverse - more diverse than the US, according to some studies - but has a lower crime rate than its southern neighbor.
Okay, and I'm not saying you are wrong. Ethnicity was just an example off the top of my head.

Quote:
Countries with tougher gun laws have fewer gun deaths. This isn't a difficult concept.
I agree. No need to get snippy.
  #150  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:29 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
And tax the bejeezus out of guns so society can cover the costs. Like, a pistol should cost $500,000 or so.

And tax the bejeezus out of blogs, newspapers,youtubes, podcasts etc so society can cover the costs. Like, a blog or youtube should cost $500,000 or so to put out.

Last edited by DrDeth; 08-06-2019 at 12:31 AM.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017