Moderator: Community Team
mizery24 wrote:Forget guns! What about background checks for pressure cookers?
rdsrds2120 wrote:mizery24 wrote:Forget guns! What about background checks for pressure cookers?
Haha, my first thought was hunting deer with a pressure cooker.
BMO
greenoaks wrote:did anyone see part 1 of the Gun Debate interview by John Oliver on The Daily Show?
background checks and a ban on assault weapons has been attempted by a nation and has been successful.
Australia has had ZERO massacres since, murders involving a gun halved, teenage suicides slashed.
if you think you shouldn't have background checks because criminals will bypass them, why do you have any laws at all?
thegreekdog wrote:greenoaks wrote:did anyone see part 1 of the Gun Debate interview by John Oliver on The Daily Show?
background checks and a ban on assault weapons has been attempted by a nation and has been successful.
Australia has had ZERO massacres since, murders involving a gun halved, teenage suicides slashed.
if you think you shouldn't have background checks because criminals will bypass them, why do you have any laws at all?
Well, we do have laws, including background checks. The Sandy Hook massacre was committed by a man who would not have passed a background check and would not have been able to purchase a gun. Instead, he stole the guns from his mother (and killed her). In other words, he illegally obtained the guns. As indicated above, 50% to 80% of gun murders that occur in Philadelphia are committed with guns that were obtained illegally.
An assault weapons ban, like the US had in the 1990s and early 2000s, would ban (for the 10th fucking time) semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons. In other words, you can buy the same weapon as long as it doesn't look like an automatic weapon.
In sum... the laws that we currently have are as effective as they can be and the laws being proposed will not add any effectiveness.
In further sum, Chicago and DC have among the highest murder rates in the United States... and they have the strictest gun control laws.
In final sum, I don't know what to tell you dude. What works in Australia apparently doesn't work in the United States.
Lootifer wrote:To clarify here; Australia banned semi automatic weapons correct? (Not assault weapons as suggested by US govt).
Lootifer wrote:To clarify here; Australia banned semi automatic weapons correct? (Not assault weapons as suggested by US govt).
Additionally as harsh as this will sound; massacres are kind of a moot point here. They are caused by mental illness and dont really have a lot to do with gun laws. What we should be looking at is the ratio between murder rate and violent crime, and then considering violent crime in general.
Disciplined 8th-grader Jared Marcum returned to class on Monday after being suspended from school and arrested for refusing to change his NRA t-shirt at the request of one of his teachers. The shirt apparently pictured a firearm and the words “protect your rights.”
However, he apparently hasn’t learned his lesson — assuming that there was even any lesson to be learned. Fresh off his suspension, Marcum showed up to school on Monday wearing the exact same NRA shirt that sparked what many have labeled “t-shirt control.”
There were also other people wearing matching shirts in support of Marcum, WOWK-TV reports.
“There’s a lot of people wearing this same exact shirt, showing great, great support and I really appreciate it,” the student said Monday before going to school.
greenoaks wrote:did anyone see part 1 of the Gun Debate interview by John Oliver on The Daily Show?
background checks and a ban on assault weapons has been attempted by a nation and has been successful.
Australia has had ZERO massacres since, murders involving a gun halved, teenage suicides slashed.
if you think you shouldn't have background checks because criminals will bypass them, why do you have any laws at all?
Lootifer wrote:Additionally as harsh as this will sound; massacres are kind of a moot point here. They are caused by mental illness and dont really have a lot to do with gun laws. What we should be looking at is the ratio between murder rate and violent crime, and then considering violent crime in general.
greenoaks wrote:thegreekdog wrote:greenoaks wrote:did anyone see part 1 of the Gun Debate interview by John Oliver on The Daily Show?
background checks and a ban on assault weapons has been attempted by a nation and has been successful.
Australia has had ZERO massacres since, murders involving a gun halved, teenage suicides slashed.
if you think you shouldn't have background checks because criminals will bypass them, why do you have any laws at all?
Well, we do have laws, including background checks. The Sandy Hook massacre was committed by a man who would not have passed a background check and would not have been able to purchase a gun. Instead, he stole the guns from his mother (and killed her). In other words, he illegally obtained the guns. As indicated above, 50% to 80% of gun murders that occur in Philadelphia are committed with guns that were obtained illegally.
An assault weapons ban, like the US had in the 1990s and early 2000s, would ban (for the 10th fucking time) semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons. In other words, you can buy the same weapon as long as it doesn't look like an automatic weapon.
In sum... the laws that we currently have are as effective as they can be and the laws being proposed will not add any effectiveness.
In further sum, Chicago and DC have among the highest murder rates in the United States... and they have the strictest gun control laws.
In final sum, I don't know what to tell you dude. What works in Australia apparently doesn't work in the United States.
you haven't tried what worked in Australia.
our leader called the leader of the National Party (farmers & country folk) to his office and gave him a deadline. tell him what a farmer requires and convince him why that gun is required. everything else was banned and a buy-back program introduced. we didn't just introduce a ban on assualt weapons, we removed a large number of hand guns too.
Lootifer wrote:To clarify here; Australia banned semi automatic weapons correct? (Not assault weapons as suggested by US govt).
Additionally as harsh as this will sound; massacres are kind of a moot point here. They are caused by mental illness and dont really have a lot to do with gun laws. What we should be looking at is the ratio between murder rate and violent crime, and then considering violent crime in general.
US Gun Control Advocates wrote:Oh my GOD! WE NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW! We need to ban assault weapons because they cause people to do assaults on mostly children! If we ban them, we'll be safe! Please also vote for me in the next election so I can keep your family safe from assault weapon wielding psychos. Also background checks need to work better! What? Murders in Chicago? No, we don't care about that right now. We'll get to that later.
NRA Hand Wringers wrote:Oh my GOD! They are trying to take away all our guns! And by all our guns, I mean just the ones that kind of look like military-grade weapons which we could still technically use, just not as military grade weapons. Also, background checks?!?!? What the f*ck? We've had those for years and years and years, but still... they infringe upon our right to form militias... I mean individually own weapons as guaranteed by the Third Amend... wait, what's that Gary... oh right... as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Phatscotty wrote:The truth will set you free
Phatscotty wrote:I'm sure by now many of you have heard about the 8th grader arrested for wearing an NRA shirt to school (yeah right... )
Disciplined 8th-grader Jared Marcum returned to class on Monday after being suspended from school and arrested for refusing to change his NRA t-shirt at the request of one of his teachers. The shirt apparently pictured a firearm and the words “protect your rights.”
BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The truth will set you free
That's an interesting graph. Not sure how true it is (no scale for "gun violence"), but there may be a relationship between voting and gun violence. Not sure if presidential votes matter as much as voting Democratic or Republic. (Of course, what's fraudulent great about statistics is that you can keep digging until you find your desired correlation).
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty wrote:I'm sure by now many of you have heard about the 8th grader arrested for wearing an NRA shirt to school (yeah right... )
I actually hadn't heard about this.Disciplined 8th-grader Jared Marcum returned to class on Monday after being suspended from school and arrested for refusing to change his NRA t-shirt at the request of one of his teachers. The shirt apparently pictured a firearm and the words “protect your rights.”
That's kinda dumb. How do they justify it? Just that it's "offensive"? I mean, I know our school has rules against someone wearing clothing that has swear words on it or that seems to promote killing (I don't know the exact words), but I don't see how a shirt by that description would be considered even offensive.
rdsrds2120 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The truth will set you free
That's an interesting graph. Not sure how true it is (no scale for "gun violence"), but there may be a relationship between voting and gun violence. Not sure if presidential votes matter as much as voting Democratic or Republic. (Of course, what's fraudulent great about statistics is that you can keep digging until you find your desired correlation).
Yes, such as places that are demographically dense/populous tend to vote left-leaning, and that cities with higher population always tend to have a higher number of crime incidents overall, not only gun violence. Are the two related? Perhaps, but there's no way to know with only a graph as informative as what we have here
BMO
rdsrds2120 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Phatscotty wrote:The truth will set you free
That's an interesting graph. Not sure how true it is (no scale for "gun violence"), but there may be a relationship between voting and gun violence. Not sure if presidential votes matter as much as voting Democratic or Republic. (Of course, what's fraudulent great about statistics is that you can keep digging until you find your desired correlation).
Yes, such as places that are demographically dense/populous tend to vote left-leaning, and that cities with higher population always tend to have a higher number of crime incidents overall, not only gun violence. Are the two related? Perhaps, but there's no way to know with only a graph as informative as what we have here
BMO
Lootifer wrote:But its not binary PS; its not:
- More [or less] guns = less crime/murder
- Less [or more] guns = more crime/murder
Its:
- More guns sometimes means more crime/murder
- More guns sometimes means less crime/murder
- Less guns sometimes means more crime/murder
- Less guns sometimes means less crime/murder
Phatscotty wrote:There are a few things that can be seen here. Another one, is all the blue areas where the gun crime is high, is where all the strictest "gun control" is.
rdsrds2120 wrote:Phatscotty wrote:There are a few things that can be seen here. Another one, is all the blue areas where the gun crime is high, is where all the strictest "gun control" is.
If that's true, it could be that since the nature of the demographic tends to have more frequent crimes, that the gun control was in response. No matter which way you twist it, there is simply no way to conclusively derive anything about the effects of gun control/violence from that graph.
BMO
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users