Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:49 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I said that faulty aircraft software doesn't benefit anyone.
Except the airlines and airplane manufactures who are out hundreds of millions of dollars.

Do you consider a hundred million dollars not being lost to be a benefit? If not, can I check your couch cushions?
  #202  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:51 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
They may not admit it, even to themselves, but that's still what not not wanting it means.

They call it recognizing and accepting the price society (IOW other people) must pay in order for them to keep their talismans. But isn't that what not not wanting that actually means?
A double negative isn't necessarily a positive. Someone can say "I don't want the border wall built" while not wanting illegal immigration.

Granted, the practical consequences may be the same. But claiming that someone wants X because they don't want Y is often inaccurate.
  #203  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:54 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,127
Would you at least admit that they hold possessing the means to kill in far greater regard than other people's right to life? Can we further agree that that is psychopathic?
  #204  
Old 08-06-2019, 10:56 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Not at all. In fact, basically your attitude is what you would need the general population to feel in order to get serious gun control or outright bans in place.
Surely, and thanks for the reply. I was sort of asking this of UltraVires, though, since he made a rather silly remark about how evidently you have to believe in magic to think that fewer guns means more safety...or something.
  #205  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:01 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I am no fan of gun ownership, but the notion (by the other poster above) that gun owners revel with joy in Sandy Hooks, El Pasos, Daytons and Pulses is ludicrous.
No, they don't enjoy these massacres, but they accept the massacres as the price to be paid for their right to own certain guns.

They also do not want to accept responsibility for the price being paid.

They know the price we (all) have to pay, they accept the price, they demand that we have a country where the price will be paid, but don't want to be held responsible for it.
  #206  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:03 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Surely, and thanks for the reply. I was sort of asking this of UltraVires, though, since he made a rather silly remark about how evidently you have to believe in magic to think that fewer guns means more safety...or something.
Fewer guns in the hands of those willing to use them criminally, most assuredly.

But fewer guns alone? Nah

The key to safety is in the restricting of whom should have them, as I stated earlier in this thread only to be told that it was impossible
  #207  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:05 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,776
The bottom line is that gun control legislation has to be sold to voters effectively. We can debate the measures themselves endlessly but what really matters is how they are marketed to America as being something that people should want. Politics is now 100% marketing. It's always been mostly marketing but now at this point it really is completely marketing. We have to be thinking like Don Draper here. The only way to get gun control measures enacted is for them to be sold effectively - both to the legislators and by the legislators.
  #208  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:07 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
The only way to get gun control measures enacted is for them to be sold effectively - both to the legislators and by the legislators.
So we gain McConnell's soul just by outbidding the NRA?

Hmm, maybe you got a point there.
  #209  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:16 AM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,776
It relates to your post in the election thread - gun control is inextricably linked to the issue of electoral politics at large.
  #210  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:17 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Do you also feel that that is an ugly smear, and one of the obstacles to a "serious gun control debate"?
It's certainly quite a few degrees down the gratuitously-offensive scale from suggesting that the many millions of your fellow citizens who count themselves among the supporters of the right of the people to keep and bear arms "simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with." As XT mentioned, you "should probably just retract that ridiculous assertion and move on."
  #211  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:28 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
It's certainly quite a few degrees down the gratuitously-offensive scale from suggesting that the many millions of your fellow citizens who count themselves among the supporters of the right of the people to keep and bear arms "simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with." As XT mentioned, you "should probably just retract that ridiculous assertion and move on."
If you don't want murder and terror, then what are you doing about it? Pwning the libs on a messageboard when they try to have a discussion isn't really helping. When you find delight and amusement in the frustration of someone trying to prevent death and violence is pretty gratuitously offensive too.

Actions speak louder than words, and given that it has been expressed in this very thread that a gun ban involves bloodshed, then implying that the only reason that we want to try to reduce deaths is to take away their guns is the same as claiming that we want to kill them.

There are some people here and there who advocate for a full ban, and those are used as an excuse to claim that we are lying about our intentions. There really are gun nuts out there that really do use their guns to kill and maim people, how generous should I be in determining the motives of those who demand we do nothing?
  #212  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:34 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Fewer guns in the hands of those willing to use them criminally, most assuredly.

But fewer guns alone? Nah

The key to safety is in the restricting of whom should have them, as I stated earlier in this thread only to be told that it was impossible
It isn't impossible to restrict ownership to specific people, it's impossible to distinguish a lawful user from someone who is "willing" to use them criminally. It's impossible to determine that a lawful owner has turned into a person who is willing to use guns criminally and take their guns away from them. It's impossible to have hundreds of millions of guns legally owned and expect it to be difficult for criminals to get their hands on them.
  #213  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:39 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,127
It's easy to tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys - just look at the colors of their hats.

Or skin.
  #214  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:46 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
It's more real now than it has been in the past - when people say they don't want to ban guns, or they respect the 2nd amendment, that pretense is no longer viable because it's quite obvious that gun control advocates simply want bans, repeal of the 2nd, and every other thing they can get away with.
I'll tell you what we want: an end to the gratuitous slaughter.

If there's a way for everyone to keep their guns, but have them be magically nonfunctional when pointed at a person who is not a violent assailant, I'd be totally good with that.

But what I see from the pro-gun side is: a whole bunch of other people getting killed is an acceptable price to pay for our rights.

When I see pro-gun folks using their superior knowledge of the subject matter that they always flaunt in these debates, to try to find that sweet spot that reduces the carnage by a great deal at minimal reduction to their access to weapons of mass slaughter, I'll change my mind. But I've never seen such an attempt. It's always your rights trumping other people's lives.

I call that: evil.

And I suggest you guys get busy and come up with such a plan. You can do it knowledgeably now, or the time will come when we have the political power to do it, and we'll do it with a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. The first generation that's grown up with active-shooter drills in school has in fact grown up, and more are following them. You will find that having terrorized generations of children won't work in your favor.
  #215  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:48 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
The key point, however, is that the public attitude towards tobacco (and alcohol to a degree) shifted, and people voluntarily started to give it up, to restrict when and where it could be used, and even how...and the deaths came down. Something similar has to happen wrt guns if you ever want to seriously restrict them for whatever reason. The public has to willing be in a place where they don't care or actively don't want to own a gun. It's got to be a lot like the lead up to Prohibition in the US, where a large group of people are wanting to give up alcohol...enough to actually change the Constitution and either vacate or amend the Amendment. I think the gun deaths, especially the mass ones DO have an effect on the public, but not enough (well, not fast enough for most of you) to create the sorts of change that are being advocated. It's going to take a shift in public opinion on this by a majority saying we don't want or need guns and we don't need an Amendment protecting our right to guns to meet what the OP is asking for. IMHO of course. Obviously, YMMV.
I see this as two different things. People choosing to not own guns is a personal choice and I don't feel it will have any significant effect on the amount of gun crimes for the reason I mentioned above. People calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment is different; they're asking for a change that will apply to everyone. That, in my opinion, is what's needed to significantly reduce gun crimes. We need to be able to take guns away from the small minority of people who will use them to harm others - because those people will not willingly give up their guns.
  #216  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:49 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If you don't want murder and terror, then what are you doing about it? ...
Teaching my family that those things are wrong, carrying a weapon so that I'll have at least a chance to defend myself and them if I'm ever caught up in an attack, urging others to avoid ridiculous hyperbole like your post, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Pwning the libs on a messageboard when they try to have a discussion isn't really helping. ...
Who here do you think is "try[ing] to have a discussion"? You? It certainly doesn't come across that way when you say the other side "simply want murder, terrorism, and every other thing they can get away with."

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... how generous should I be in determining the motives of those who demand we do nothing?
You can be as 'ungenerous' as you like, you just won't be taken seriously while doing so. Your 'ungenerous' post came across as "ridiculous" & "ludicrous" in the eyes of others. I suppose you're free to make ridiculous posts or stomp your feet as well, but it doesn't come across as a sincere attempt to 'have a discussion' with the other side.
  #217  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:55 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So if Alabama puts a 1000% tax on abortions, you are going to be okay with that and think it is constitutional, right? Or would the Supreme Court just be pulling something out of its ass if it struck down that law?
1) I'm surprised Alabamians haven't thought of this already;

2) I'm not saying it's my preferred method of dealing with the situation, and I wouldn't propose a tax on ammo for the sake of taxing it. Rather, we could tax firearms and ammo the way we tax cigarettes and use it to fund health programs (in theory).

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It simply amazes me that so many people on this board would gladly give away a right protected by the Bill of Rights for some magical feeling of safety that somehow by banning guns these people will just stop doing this.
Nobody thinks they will stop doing this; but some of us believe that taking certain steps will reduce the likelihood of them happening, and give more people a chance to survive when someone snaps in public. Gun rights activists keep decrying an increasingly broad and diverse set of proposals; they keep covering their eyes and ears, and they're completely fucking oblivious to the fact that it's their refusal to budge an inch that is leading more and more voters - many of whom wouldn't have even fathomed supporting firearms restrictions 10-15 years ago - to reconsider their positions.

Gun owners' rights? Fuck, what about our rights to live in a peaceful and violence-free society?
  #218  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:55 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,127
It isn't the Second itself that's the problem so much as the now-persistent misinterpretations of it that were invented just a few decades ago by the gun lobby. But, given that there's no question that we need a standing military and professional police forces, formerly the roles of militias, we no longer have any need for the Second. It would be a great help at this point to repeal it, put an end to this "militias resist tyranny" nonsense (directly contradicted elsewhere in the Constitution, and actually meaning "killing cops"), and take away all of their other favorite excuses about falsely-claimed "rights" that cannot be found anywhere else, in any recognized system of morality.
  #219  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:56 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
... We need to be able to take guns away from the small minority of people who will use them to harm others - because those people will not willingly give up their guns.
If we were able to accurately identify that "small minority of people", and effectively prevent them from accessing firearms, do you think their desire to "harm others" would cease, or do you think they'd seek out other means to "harm others" such as arson, explosives, vehicular attacks, melee weapons, etc.?
  #220  
Old 08-06-2019, 11:58 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
Does it or does it not make sense to you that even if one state has effective gun control that reduces deaths, it makes sense to have the same laws in neighboring states. IOW, that there is nothing magical about state lines, that gun control that works in one place will work another. That all one has to do if he lives in the most "gun controlled" state in the US but lives next to the least, is go across state lines for guns, thus rendering the laws in the first state less effective?



I'd like to make all guns illegal that allow, among other things, one to kill or maim 30 or more people in 30 seconds, yes. Absolutely. And not because they look scary. Because, see bold portion.



That may be so, but this is a thread about guns. I don't think distractions and changing the subject is helpful. I simply ask because you are okay, then, with that 2% resulting in the number of deaths involved, correct?
Buying a gun across state lines is already illegal, and in fact they cant sell to you unless you have ID which shows you reside in that state. So how are more gun laws going to help?

Well, those guns are already illegal.

Are you Ok with baseball bats killing people? Lets outlaw them.
  #221  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:01 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I see this as two different things. People choosing to not own guns is a personal choice and I don't feel it will have any significant effect on the amount of gun crimes for the reason I mentioned above. People calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment is different; they're asking for a change that will apply to everyone. That, in my opinion, is what's needed to significantly reduce gun crimes. We need to be able to take guns away from the small minority of people who will use them to harm others - because those people will not willingly give up their guns.
Obviously, I disagree. Not with your assessment of personal choice, but in its overall effect. Sure, a few people making a personal choice to own a gun (or to stop smoking or not drink and drive) is not going to have a very great effect. But if you have the majority of people who decide, not by fiat but decide for themselves that they don't need or want a gun (or need or want to smoke, etc), then real change is possible...it's even probable at that point. It's actually happening in the real world wrt tobacco, at least in the US. And I think, to a degree, it's happening with guns as well. Fewer people CHOOSE to own a gun per household than in the past.

You can call for the repeal of the 2nd all you like (it would be a refreshing change from people trying to backdoor it by fiat), but until and unless a majority of Americans basically don't want or feel they need a gun and don't feel they need or want a protected right to keep or own one you just aren't going to get real change. You'll have a vocal minority pushing for bans or serious control by hook or by crook or by any means, slimy or otherwise to get it done while the majority basically don't want that change and will resist, generally through their vote, to prevent it. You couldn't have had the restrictions on tobacco we have today in the 50's or even the 60's or 70's because people would have resisted it and opposed it. Yet today, it's changed substantially. The same goes for gun control, IMHO...the general public isn't ready, yet, for meaningful and substantial gun controls that would actually do anything other than look like we are doing something for the faithful and piss off the folks looking at them and going 'WTF??' as they either make no sense or are clearly slippery slopes. The public has to WANT those changes, and basically not want or feel they need guns. Until and unless those conditions are generally the attitude of the majority of citizens it's just not going to happen...or if it does, the resistance and push back will be large, and it will probably end up having a backlash that pushes back gun control for decades.

Sort of like the candy from a baby episode on the mythbusters. Try and take the candy from the baby and the baby fights you and throws a tantrum. Leave the baby alone, and sooner or later the baby loses interest in the candy and tosses it away. It's a simplistic analogy, and not very relevant, but I think it shows the underlying concept...if people don't want something, they won't fight for it. If they do and you try and take it, they will.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #222  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:03 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I know this has been floated a few times but I don't know what to do with this thought other than to point and laugh at it.
It's a ridiculous notion.
It's a notion that's supported by historical evidence. See the Mulford Act, and see the Cruikshank decision (and Code Noire).

I guarantee you: arm people of color, give them concealed weapon and open carry privileges, and you'll see gun control. Nothing scares white men like seeing black and brown men having the ability to turn the barrel of the gun around.

Wait for it, wait for it...cue remarks about how black and brown people should spend less time killing each other.
  #223  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:05 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... Gun rights activists keep decrying an increasingly broad and diverse set of proposals; they keep covering their eyes and ears, and they're completely fucking oblivious to the fact that it's their refusal to budge an inch that is leading more and more voters - many of whom wouldn't have even fathomed supporting firearms restrictions 10-15 years ago - to reconsider their positions. ...
You and I must be looking at different polls, because I mostly see the anti-RKBA side getting it's ass kicked in the public opinion polls. In 1996, 57% of those polled by Gallup were "for" "a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles" and 42% were "against". Last year, public opinion had essentially reversed itself with 40% "for" and 57% "against".
  #224  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:08 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 26,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Guns are NOT the disease you seem to think they are. Hell, they aren't even a symptom.
Research has shown that those statements are not accurate.
  #225  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:09 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Buying a gun across state lines is already illegal, and in fact they cant sell to you unless you have ID which shows you reside in that state. So how are more gun laws going to help?
Other gun laws, nationwide gun laws, would be effectively enforceable where local gun laws are not.

Quote:
Well, those guns are already illegal.
No they're not. Any semi automatic rifle with a large magazine can fire over 30 shots in 30 seconds.
  #226  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:09 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
It's a notion that's supported by historical evidence. See the Mulford Act, and see the Cruikshank decision (and Code Noire).

I guarantee you: arm people of color, give them concealed weapon and open carry privileges, and you'll see gun control. Nothing scares white men like seeing black and brown men having the ability to turn the barrel of the gun around.

Wait for it, wait for it...cue remarks about how black and brown people should spend less time killing each other.
I'm all for more non-prohibited-person black and brown people owning guns, mostly because I think it'll effectively tamp down on the dems' constant mewling for more gun control.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-06-2019 at 12:11 PM.
  #227  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:11 PM
drachillix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 192.168.0.1
Posts: 9,988
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.
i'm having trouble locating the case using my phone but there is a case that creating unreasonable encumbrances to a right effectively violates it. It also tends to impact marginalized populations harder.
__________________
Rumor has it, I fix computers. Sometimes it even works after I fix it...
  #228  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:17 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I guarantee you: arm people of color, give them concealed weapon and open carry privileges, and you'll see gun control. Nothing scares white men like seeing black and brown men having the ability to turn the barrel of the gun around.
they already have those rights, and I don't see white conservatives pushing for gun control.
  #229  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
BTW, can we agree that local gun control is simply worthless nonsense? ...
Yes. And so is nationwide. I mean, then the excuse will be "well the guns are coming from over the borders".

Gun control simply doesnt work- it can't work to reduce mass killings. It could, maybe reduce violent crime a bit.

Mass killings here in the USA aren't caused by guns- we have had lots of guns since 1776. They are caused by the media glorifying the killers. Noted sociologists have done many studies (which I have linked to previously) that show it's the media that is pushing the recent increase in mass shootings.
  #230  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
You're not entitled to afford a gun; you're just entitled to possess one if you can afford it, no different from any other piece of property.....
You're not entitled to afford a book; you're just entitled to possess one if you can afford it, no different from any other piece of property.
  #231  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:22 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You're not entitled to afford a book; you're just entitled to possess one if you can afford it, no different from any other piece of property.
Same with voting. We could tax people to vote if encumbering a constitutional right with high fees is now acceptable.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 08-06-2019 at 12:22 PM.
  #232  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:23 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonAsh View Post
Is this really the argument you want to try and defend? Equating guns with books?

....

a) A gun buyback program would mean anyone wanting to sell a gun could do so legally, removing the need to sell to someone else.

b) Register every gun. ....

You need to get fingerprinted to work in some finance jobs, FFS.
It's equating one constitutional right with another.

Sure, and they have them every so often in most cities. They bring in a bunch of old crap, and some guns where the owner inherited them and didnt know how to get rid of them, etc. Nothing wrong with a voluntary buy back. Go for it.

How are you gonna register 300 Million guns?

Yes, and so?
  #233  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:24 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
If you don't want murder and terror, then what are you doing about it? Pwning the libs on a messageboard when they try to have a discussion isn't really helping. When you find delight and amusement in the frustration of someone trying to prevent death and violence is pretty gratuitously offensive too.

Actions speak louder than words, and given that it has been expressed in this very thread that a gun ban involves bloodshed, then implying that the only reason that we want to try to reduce deaths is to take away their guns is the same as claiming that we want to kill them.

There are some people here and there who advocate for a full ban, and those are used as an excuse to claim that we are lying about our intentions. There really are gun nuts out there that really do use their guns to kill and maim people, how generous should I be in determining the motives of those who demand we do nothing?
Do nothing? No, penalize criminals, murderers, robbers; all assailants who use firearms in the commission of their crimes.

Depriving everyone of their rights because someone else might commit a crime is against what this country should stand for.
  #234  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:25 PM
drachillix is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 192.168.0.1
Posts: 9,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I guarantee you: arm people of color, give them concealed weapon and open carry privileges, and you'll see gun control. Nothing scares white men like seeing black and brown men having the ability to turn the barrel of the gun around.
Pretty much any major city can serve as a cite. PoC are not lacking firearms. they just mostly use them on each other.
__________________
Rumor has it, I fix computers. Sometimes it even works after I fix it...
  #235  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:27 PM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,137
I don't know but, apparently, whole sale slaughter of innocent men women and children isn't enough.
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #236  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:28 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 5,882
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
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.

The problem with these stats is that they ignore extraneous factors.

1) As others have pointed out it is difficult for a single state or city's gun laws to be effective when there are lax gun laws in neighboring states and no way to prevent guns crossing state lines. This is why any gun control legislation needs to be enacted nation wide.

2) There are differences in overall crime rates between states that have nothing to do with gun laws. In particular population density is correlated with crime. So straight up comparison the gun crime rate of a rural state with a that of an urban state without taking that into account will be fundamentally flawed. This flaw is exacerbated by...

3) Having a high rate of gun homicide is leads to the enacting of gun laws, not the other way around. I see all the time statistics that say "Chicago has the strongest gun laws but also the highest gun death rate, That proves they just need more good guys with guns Hur Hur". But saying this makes a much sense as saying Chemotherapy is counter productive in fighting Cancer because a much larger proportion of people undergoing Chemotherapy die of cancer than so die among the general population who don't take chemotherapy.
  #237  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:28 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Historically, gun control becomes more popular when more people of color possess guns. Maybe that's what it will take: people of color so scared of, so fed up with, taking shit from white male racists that they make it clear they are not to be fucked with anymore. That will scare the shit out of whites, and even moderates will probably want some form of gun control then.
This is totally false, and a meme that was spread to equate guns with racism, as if blacks , asians and hispanics dont own guns. Which is pretty racist.

Yes, in CA, during the Reagan era, the Black Panthers discovered CA had a obscure and not used open carry provision. They open carried their guns. This caused CA to ban open carry. But it didnt have to be the Black Panthers, it could have been the KKK- it was just that the legislature didnt realize CA had a sort of open carry, since it hadnt been a issue until then. Nothing to do with racism, everything to do with a scary group finding a loophole and the legislature closing it.
  #238  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:28 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 2,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by drachillix View Post
Pretty much any major city can serve as a cite. PoC are not lacking firearms. they just mostly use them on each other.


Asahi literally said in that very post:

Quote:
Wait for it, wait for it...cue remarks about how black and brown people should spend less time killing each other.
It's a red herring anyway. PoC have the legal right to buy guns, to carry guns, open or concealed, legally, and they're already doing it now and have been for years, and I don't see conservatives being sufficiently intimidated by it to advocate gun control.
  #239  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:29 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Do nothing? No, penalize criminals, murderers, robbers; all assailants who use firearms in the commission of their crimes.

Depriving everyone of their rights because someone else might commit a crime is against what this country should stand for.
Standing there shrugging our shoulders while our fellow citizens are slaughtered senselessly again and again and again is not what this country should stand for either.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #240  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:29 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
Do nothing? No, penalize criminals, murderers, robbers; all assailants who use firearms in the commission of their crimes.
Do you have any suggestions that involve prevention?
  #241  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:30 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How are you gonna register 300 Million guns?
Same way we register that many cars. And examine and license their owners, too.

You got any constructive ideas? You even recognize mass murder as a problem?
  #242  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
..

We propose mental health solutions, we propose programs to alleviate poverty, and those are fought against by the same people who fight to keep guns in the hands of crazy people....
No one wants guns in the hands of crazy people.
  #243  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:31 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 61,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No one wants guns in the hands of crazy people.
And to prevent this, what do you propose?
  #244  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:31 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lamoral View Post
...PoC have the legal right to buy guns, to carry guns, open or concealed, legally, and they're already doing it now and have been for years, and I don't see conservatives being sufficiently intimidated by it to advocate gun control.
Absolutely.
  #245  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:31 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
I think it's wrong. Gun advocates don't want murder and terrorism. I think it's more accurate to say they feel that murder and terrorism directed at other people is a price they're willing to accept in order to own guns themselves.

There's murder and terrorism everywhere, including nations with very strict gun control.

Gun control doesnt stop those things, or even slow them down.
  #246  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:34 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No one wants guns in the hands of crazy people.
Except Trump.. and his enablers in congress.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ld-cut-program
Quote:
But the budget blueprint also slashes spending for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration by $665 million. Additionally, Bloomberg reported the National Institute of Mental Health would see a 30 percent reduction in funding — a half a billion dollar decrease — in 2019.

And as NPR's Scott Horsely noted, nearly a year ago the president signed a bill making it easier for people with mental illness to buy guns.

Trump Repeals Rule Designed To Block Gun Sales To Certain Mentally Ill People

The new measure rolled back an Obama-era rule that would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of some beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System. NPR's Susan Davis reported, about 75,000 people found mentally incapable of managing their financial affairs would have been affected.
  #247  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:35 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Do you have any suggestions that involve prevention?
Yes. Constitutional carry.

When a shooter has to consider the realistic chance that there will be someone to oppose them, they will rethink their plans- and if they armor up, they are much more likely to be spotted and stopped first.
  #248  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:36 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Actually to prevent Mass Shootings, we need to repeal the 1st Ad.

Not a very happy idea is it?

Or perhaps we could get the media to voluntarily agree not to disclose the names of the shooters, like they agree not to disclose the names of rape victims.
Ah yes! There is no way to prevent mass shootings other than repealing the first amendment. How do you like that libruls? Try to take away the amendment we care about, and we’ll just take away that amendment that you and your fake news media seem to care ao much about!

And, why does the librul media care more about protecting lying rape “victims” than it does about the real victims here: gun owners?
  #249  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:37 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Except Trump.. and his enablers in congress.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ld-cut-program
Now you have to define crazy. What criteria will you use to deprive someone of their rights?
  #250  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:37 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Gun control simply doesnt work- it can't work to reduce mass killings. It could, maybe reduce violent crime a bit.
This here is for you

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=879994
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 06:59 AM.

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