439 replies to this topic

[and then]

questionmark, on 27 December 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

I would not say that, the inconsequential neglect of arms is what causes it.  If the gun owner were to held liable for all damages his gun causes unless he shows that he did what he could to protect it from the wrong hands I wager that half of the gun violence would dissipate.

It is not the right to bear arms that is the problem here but that people need to grow up and realize that with the right comes an obligation.

I agree (again) that responsibility should be taken.  I was always taught that I owned that bullet and it's consequences no matter where it went or what I "intended".  No excuses.  But to make such rules ironclad in today's society would require someone to "manage" the information.  Millions of guns are sold between individuals weekly in the US.  Who keeps the data from those sales?  That's quite a data base.  The IRS would want a peek, I'm sure.  The DEA as well as FBI couldn't be faulted for wanting access - you know - just to keep us safe.  And ultimately the only answer the gun control types have for our concerns of confiscation is:  the government wouldn't do THAT.  Really?  And if they decided to...then what?

[AsteroidX]

Want to have some fun and watch that border get broken into pieces....

[questionmark]

and then, on 27 December 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

I agree (again) that responsibility should be taken.  I was always taught that I owned that bullet and it's consequences no matter where it went or what I "intended".  No excuses.  But to make such rules ironclad in today's society would require someone to "manage" the information.  Millions of guns are sold between individuals weekly in the US.  Who keeps the data from those sales?  That's quite a data base.  The IRS would want a peek, I'm sure.  The DEA as well as FBI couldn't be faulted for wanting access - you know - just to keep us safe.  And ultimately the only answer the gun control types have for our concerns of confiscation is:  the government wouldn't do THAT.  Really?  And if they decided to...then what?

Somebody has to manage the information, and in lack of somebody better it should be a federal agency. If it  exists or a new one with a very small scope is matter of debate. In any case, all law enforcement has to be able to access that data or it would just create another toothless paper tiger, as so many in the past.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

Somebody has to manage the information, and in lack of somebody better it should be a federal agency. If it  exists or a new one with a very small scope is matter of debate. In any case, all law enforcement has to be able to access that data or it would just create another toothless paper tiger, as so many in the past.

You think the Fed is best able to deal with this. What have they done in the past. There track record exactly aint sparkling.

[Hawkin]

Good Point

Attached Files

•  burger.jpg   112K   18 downloads

Edited by Mag357, 31 December 2012 - 08:45 PM.

[Yamato]

Maizer, on 26 December 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

The problem is simple. Mental disease and easy access to deadly weapons cause massacres. While both are hard to control, the removing guns is much much easier considering ANYONE is a bad day away from a shooting spree. The question is is it too late to remove guns. I figure we give it a try before arming kids.

ANYONE except the police?   Except the military?   Now the issue is about age and "arming kids".   Are we dizzy yet?   How about parental responsibility not coming from Washington DC too?  

The problem is not simple.  Would you disarm Syrian rebels too because they're a day away from shooting someone?   Don't put everyone behind a gun into the same mal-painted box.  You'd have our women disarmed in the streets and at the mercy of every rapist alive, armed or not.   Pathetic!

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Yamato, on 01 January 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

You'd have our women disarmed in the streets and at the mercy of every rapist alive, armed or not.   Pathetic!

Because Australia and the UK are a paradise for rapists....

[Yamato]

Wearer of Hats, on 01 January 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

Because Australia and the UK are a paradise for rapists....

No, because the United States isn't a paradise for murder.

I'm all for breaking out the statistics on this stuff.  If you want to compare violent crimes across the board, including burglary, then put it up.  All these suggestions are made around here about countries without putting out the data.  I've shown that the US isn't anywhere close to the top of the list in murders and will probably need to repeat doing that several times before we're all on the same page.

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

[Kafkaesque]

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

I'd say that quote is pretty clear.

[Likely Guy]

I didn't say it first, SpiritWriter did. But I'll reiterate it, "I have a solution for all the world but nobody wants to listen to me."

[Br Cornelius]

Yamato, on 01 January 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

No, because the United States isn't a paradise for murder.

I'm all for breaking out the statistics on this stuff.  If you want to compare violent crimes across the board, including burglary, then put it up.  All these suggestions are made around here about countries without putting out the data.  I've shown that the US isn't anywhere close to the top of the list in murders and will probably need to repeat doing that several times before we're all on the same page.

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

Of comparibly sophisticated countries American is definately top of the list.
You have not made your point in meaningful ways other than comparing America to the likes of Russia and Jamaica. Campared to the UK, America has 4x the homicide rate.

And America is marginally higher in terms of rape than the UK, which disproves the point that gun ownership is a discouragement to rape.

Robbery is fractionally higher in the UK than it is in America.

http://www.civitas.o...oecdjan2012.pdf


You have failed to make your point that guns make you safer and prevent crime.




Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 January 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[Rafterman]

But the point is that all of this talk about "assault weapons" is meaningless given how few are killed by them on an annual basis.  Even the government's own numbers showed that the 1994 AWB had zero impact on the rate of violent crime.  Which makes perfect sense given how few long guns in general are used in the commission of a crime on an annual basis (more folks are beaten to death annually for example) Violent crime has been on the decrease in the US for decades at the same time that private gun ownership has skyrocketed.  So if guns were the causal factor so many claim, it truly would be the Wild West one very street corner in the US.  Even mass shootings like we saw in CT happen quite infrequently in the United States.  Here are a couple of interesting comparisons:

"Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.

Which is to say that mass shootings are incredibly rare and don’t kill a lot of people when they do happen.

It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn’t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what’s important, almost anything would be more pressing.) The problem is not hard to understand though, and rests in a psychological concept known as the “logical fallacy of misleading vividness”.

The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent – positively or negatively – that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that they’re about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport.

This is what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch.

However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction."

This is cut from a fantastic blog entry by a self-proclaimed Leftist gun enthusiast.  It's long, but I highly recommend it for anyone interested in a less emotionally driven discussion of gun control and the "assault weapons" ban.

http://kontradiction...l-ill-tell-you/

[aztek]

why do ppl keep bringing irrelevant UK, and Australia into this??
we are talking about  USA. or at least should be.

Edited by aztek, 03 January 2013 - 07:12 PM.

[aztek]

there was about 85000rapes in usa (only reported ones).
about 16000 in uk, and and about 18000 in australia, in 2010 alone.

i personally don't care about uk and aust. but if we could drop numbers in USA by arming females, even by few it is worth it. hey it could be anyones wife\daughter\sister...
and if Australians and Brits like their women be raped at present rate, it is their businesses.

[Br Cornelius]

aztek, on 03 January 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

there was about 85000rapes in usa (only reported ones).
about 16000 in uk, and and about 18000 in australia, in 2010 alone.

i personally don't care about uk and aust. but if we could drop numbers in USA by arming females, even by few it is worth it. hey it could be anyones wife\daughter\sister...
and if Australians and Brits like their women be raped at present rate, it is their businesses.

Statistically on a per capita basis Americans having guns has had no effect on the Rape rate - that is the point of comparing with a comparable gunless country like the UK. You may not care - but it is highly relevant to a discussion of do do guns make Americans safer - NO THEY DO NOT according to the evidence, they make you more likely to die from a gunshot wound.

Deny the evidence as much as you like, it seems to be the Republican way.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 03 January 2013 - 07:23 PM.