Page 3 of 35

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:37 pm
by Phatscotty
comic boy wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
chang50 wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


No and no. How is there an overabundance of guns and according to whom? Gun ownership is actually down over the last several decades. And gun insurance would do absolutely nothing to prevent killings.


There can't be many countries where there is about 1 gun per head of population,including children and the incarcerated,and large numbers of the population can see no problem with that.Must be working out just fine...


It is working out just fine. In 99% of the USA's counties, there are 0-1 homocides per year.

The problem is almost entirely in the cities, and the problem is caused by a plethora of different reasons, such as race, age, culture, income, education, peer pressure, children born out of wedlock, gangs, and laws. It is not because of all the guns people who do not live in the city own.


I have no idea if your figures are correct , perhaps you might supply some data , but if things are 'just fine' then why the continued debate ?


Cuz it's going through the Senate in the next 5 days?? Is this not a good time??

About the gun homocide rate by county, as if that's even challengable? Just think it out with me for a second. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicide deaths in the USA last year. Take out Chicago, DC, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Flint Michigan, Oakland Cali, St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock and Birmingham Alabama, Buffalo, Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, Newark, Indianapolis and a few other major cities out of the equation.......how many gun homocides are left to divvy up between the rest of the 3.7 million square miles/counties??? Not many

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:58 pm
by Phatscotty
Let me show another way. I'll just say up front before I even start that I have no idea what the result will be, but I am going on confidence in the numbers that it will match up.

Here is my state that borders your country.


Image

murders total (not just guns, all murders)

Image

Image

As you can see, a large majority of our counties have ZERO murders, most of the rest have 1 or 2 murders. North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, all have a LOT less murders than Minnesota. That's thousands of counties that have 0-1's (not even gun murders....total murders)


Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:45 am
by Juan_Bottom
BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


Most likely not, cuz

1. increasing the price on legal guns might not affect the price on illegal guns
2. if it does, it may not be enough of a price increase
3. this taxes unnecessarily punishes responsible citizens for participating in a relatively safe form of entertainment
4. those taxes will most likely not go to "additional security cuz too many guns in US."


No to insurance program. Imposing costs on a group which isn't responsible for the outcomes of other people's guns would not incentivize people to commit less crimes---especially if they obtained the gun illegally, thereby can avoid the insurance scheme.


1) 2) Doesn't do anything for the question at hand. Let's not turn this into another Libertarian case of "I don't want to pay money for my risky behavior that doesn't concern you." It's a simple cost analysis.

3) Define "responsible." In your scenario you would not have drivers purchase car insurance, unless perhaps they had already had an accident. Yet we all accept the cost of auto insurance (and see the benefits) as part of the cost of having the driving privilege. Why should it be different for gun owners?

4) The money should work just like auto insurance, to help the victims or their families.

No gun owner can be called responsible if they are arguing against gun owners insurance. All guns used in crime in America come from legal sources. Just like all cars used in crime come from legal sources. And most guns sold in America do not require background checks, either because they are sold privately or because they are sold at trade shows. And according to the FBI, only 2.2% of all fatal gun shootings are ruled justifiable homicide. It's just not a realistic scenario. But a gun in your home increases the risk that you will be shot to death by 72%, it's 22x more likely to be used in a suicide than for defense, it triples the risk of homicide, it increases the risk of suicide by a factor of 5, and abused woman are 6x more likely to be murdered just if there is a gun available in the home. That's not to mention that most children who are shot to death are shot by people they know.
Now people would argue that there are a lot of gun owners in this country who's guns are strictly for hunting, or who have never been involved in a crime. And that's a fine and just argument. But those gun owners should still pay for gun insurance, because most of these fatal shootings did involve a supposedly responsible gun owner just like them. It's just for the same reason that requiring all drivers to buy auto insurance is just.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:48 am
by Juan_Bottom
Phatscotty wrote:As you can see, a large majority of our counties have ZERO murders, most of the rest have 1 or 2 murders. North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Iowa, all have a LOT less murders than Minnesota. That's thousands of counties that have 0-1's (not even gun murders....total murders)

A large majority of those countys have like, 10 million square miles and 11 people.

Phatscotty wrote: Take out Chicago, DC, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Flint Michigan, Oakland Cali, St. Louis, Memphis, Little Rock and Birmingham Alabama, Buffalo, Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, Newark, Indianapolis and a few other major cities out of the equation.......how many gun homocides are left to divvy up between the rest of the 3.7 million square miles/counties??? Not many

That's like, half our population.
But I see what you're saying.
Guns should be outlawed in every US city, as defined by US census.

Image

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:51 am
by BigBallinStalin
Juan_Bottom wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
ooge wrote:anyone think that the taxes should go up for the sale of guns and ammunition to pay for all the security that is needed because of the overabundance of guns in the USA? Or a gun owners insurance against all the wrongful deaths that occur as a result of guns?


Most likely not, cuz

1. increasing the price on legal guns might not affect the price on illegal guns
2. if it does, it may not be enough of a price increase
3. this taxes unnecessarily punishes responsible citizens for participating in a relatively safe form of entertainment
4. those taxes will most likely not go to "additional security cuz too many guns in US."


No to insurance program. Imposing costs on a group which isn't responsible for the outcomes of other people's guns would not incentivize people to commit less crimes---especially if they obtained the gun illegally, thereby can avoid the insurance scheme.


1) 2) Doesn't do anything for the question at hand. Let's not turn this into another Libertarian case of "I don't want to pay money for my risky behavior that doesn't concern you." It's a simple cost analysis.


Well, JB, it's not a libertarian argument. It's about how people would react to price changes. It's not wise to ignore that.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:17 am
by Juan_Bottom
Maybe if the question is "why wont American's accept it?"
Because the answer is wholly different than if the question is "what's logical/responsible?"

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:14 am
by thegreekdog
comic boy wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
ooge wrote:
Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Analogous thinking can be misleading.


So can blindly following and Ideology =D> =D> =D>


Do people have the right to protect themselves? The right to life?



Life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. your life my life are more important then your liberty my liberty...that is why the founders put it in that order. I cant take credit for this idea a father of a slain child from Newtown said it.


If only it was a crime to shoot people...


Serious question , in cases of accidental firearm deaths do people in the USA ever get prosecuted for manslaughter or something similar. Also are there laws protecting the families of gun owners , I know children have been killed whilst playing with firearms , are the parents ever prosecuted for neglect.


Short answer - yes to the first question; I don't know to the second question (but would assume yes). Further on the second question, if a child is accidentally killed due to firearm security neglect, the parent has received an exceedingly harsh punishment already.

As to the issue at hand, and as I've indicated in prior threads...

(1) Gun control, as it is currently being proposed, is constitutional (under the TGD intepretation of the Constitution - the Second Amendment protects groups, not individuals). Even if not under the TGD interpretation, it is still constitutional, much like the bans on bazookas and machine guns.

(2) The most serious bill in Congress right now would do virtually nothing to protect against gun violence in the United States (it doesn't ban hand guns, by far the most used weapon for homicides), would not stop mass shootings (as indicated in the previous Assault Weapons Ban, the weapons can be modified to shoot the exact same way... they just look less scary), and ultimately does not solve the inherent problem with gun violence - the people doing the shooting (just like drunk driving, for example).

(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:30 am
by BigBallinStalin
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.


It's most likely a waste of time and energy on net, but it's very beneficial for particular politicians seeking to maximize votes. Why not take advantage of the uninformed by harping about gun control/de-control?

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:33 am
by thegreekdog
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.


It's most likely a waste of time and energy on net, but it's very beneficial for particular politicians seeking to maximize votes. Why not take advantage of the uninformed by harping about gun control/de-control?


Hmm... fair point. It appears that the politicians, pundits, and lobbyists on both sides are making out well.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:36 am
by BigBallinStalin

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:41 am
by Dukasaur
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

Gun advocates see it as the thin edge of the wedge. I'm not sure they're wrong about that. In the 1970s when the first No Smoking areas appeared in hospitals, even smokers considered them perfectly reasonable restrictions. Yet it only took about 10 or 15 years after that for smoking bans in most public buildings, and only about 30 years to get to where we are now, with smoking almost completely banned in all indoor spaces except private homes, and even in many outdoor spaces.

Whether gun control advocates also see it as the thin edge of the wedge is more difficult to discern, but I suspect many of them (the more strategic-thinking ones, anyway) do.

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:49 am
by BigBallinStalin
Dukasaur wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

Gun advocates see it as the thin edge of the wedge. I'm not sure they're wrong about that. In the 1970s when the first No Smoking areas appeared in hospitals, even smokers considered them perfectly reasonable restrictions. Yet it only took about 10 or 15 years after that for smoking bans in most public buildings, and only about 30 years to get to where we are now, with smoking almost completely banned in all indoor spaces except private homes, and even in many outdoor spaces.

Whether gun control advocates also see it as the thin edge of the wedge is more difficult to discern, but I suspect many of them (the more strategic-thinking ones, anyway) do.


I wonder if all those bans and all that money spent on signs really even mattered--after it was convincingly demonstrated that smoking cigarettes can greatly increase one's chances of getting cancer.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 11:59 am
by The Voice
Mind control is far more damaging to our autonomy than gun control; yet, nobody seems to give two shits about it. You really think your guns will stop tyranny when your minds have been turned to mush?

Re: Gun Control

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:07 pm
by thegreekdog
Dukasaur wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:(3) I'm extremely annoyed at both the gun control advocates and the gun advocates. There is no bill in Congress that would affect anyone (gun ownership or future gun victim) in any substantial way and this debate (in Congress and in the public) is a complete waste of time and energy.

Gun advocates see it as the thin edge of the wedge. I'm not sure they're wrong about that. In the 1970s when the first No Smoking areas appeared in hospitals, even smokers considered them perfectly reasonable restrictions. Yet it only took about 10 or 15 years after that for smoking bans in most public buildings, and only about 30 years to get to where we are now, with smoking almost completely banned in all indoor spaces except private homes, and even in many outdoor spaces.

Whether gun control advocates also see it as the thin edge of the wedge is more difficult to discern, but I suspect many of them (the more strategic-thinking ones, anyway) do.


I guess I would point to the 1947 ban on machine guns which led to the 1990s Assault Weapons Ban which led to the no ban at all which led to where we're currently situated. My point here is that this must be an extremely slow burn.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:45 pm
by BigBallinStalin
The Voice wrote:Mind control is far more damaging to our autonomy than gun control; yet, nobody seems to give two shits about it. You really think your guns will stop tyranny when your minds have been turned to mush?


Instead of "mind control," don't you mean "mind mushing"?

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:53 pm
by The Voice
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The Voice wrote:Mind control is far more damaging to our autonomy than gun control; yet, nobody seems to give two shits about it. You really think your guns will stop tyranny when your minds have been turned to mush?


Instead of "mind control," don't you mean "mind mushing"?


That's a good point. Though the distinction is worth pointing out, I see both as real possibilities for our future.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 8:54 pm
by BigBallinStalin
The Voice wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
The Voice wrote:Mind control is far more damaging to our autonomy than gun control; yet, nobody seems to give two shits about it. You really think your guns will stop tyranny when your minds have been turned to mush?


Instead of "mind control," don't you mean "mind mushing"?


That's a good point. Though the distinction is worth pointing out, I see both as real possibilities for our future.


So sayeth The Voice. Let his mind mushing will be done!

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:51 am
by Nobunaga
How is "assault weapon" defined?

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:35 am
by thegreekdog
From wiki, here are the proposals (I've limited them to actual gun control proposals):

Congress
- Require background checks for all gun sales, including those by private individuals - I'm indifferent
- Pass a new, stronger ban on assault weapons - I'm indifferent (see below)
- Limit magazines to 10 rounds - I'm indifferent
- Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets - I'm in favor

President
- Improve the data used for the background check system for gun sales - I'm indifferent
- Direct the Centers for Diseas Control and Prevention to research gun violence - I'm opposed
- Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime - I don't know what this means

Also from wiki -

"In discussions about gun laws and gun policies in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain cosmetic, ergonomic, or construction features similar to those of military firearms." - emphasis is mine.

Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the tigger is pulled.

"The term 'assault weapon' is sometimes conflated with the term 'assault rifle' which refers only to military rifles capable of selective fire, including fully automatic fire and/or burst fire. In the United States, fully automatic firearms are heavily restricted and regulated be federal laws, state, and local laws." - emphasis is mine.

In sum, gun control proponents are fighting stridently for a law that would ban semi-automatic weapons that look like automatic weapons and gun advocates are fighting stridently against a law that would allow them to keep semi-automatic weapons as long as they don't look like automatic weapons.

And all that in the context of handguns being the most frequent weapon used in homicides by a wide margin and rifles/shotguns being among the lowest frequent weapon used in homicides (less than knives).

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:03 pm
by BigBallinStalin
thegreekdog wrote:- Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets - I'm in favor



Fascist!

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 5:54 pm
by rdsrds2120
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:- Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets - I'm in favor



Fascist!


It's too late, BBS. He's been swallowed in. Whole.

BMO

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:24 am
by thegreekdog
rdsrds2120 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:- Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets - I'm in favor



Fascist!


It's too late, BBS. He's been swallowed in. Whole.

BMO


I wonder what the argument is in favor of armor-piercing bullets.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:38 am
by BigBallinStalin
thegreekdog wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:- Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets - I'm in favor



Fascist!


It's too late, BBS. He's been swallowed in. Whole.

BMO


I wonder what the argument is in favor of armor-piercing bullets.


Freedom.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:41 am
by thegreekdog
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:- Ban the possession of armor-piercing bullets - I'm in favor



Fascist!


It's too late, BBS. He's been swallowed in. Whole.

BMO


I wonder what the argument is in favor of armor-piercing bullets.


Freedom.


I loled.

Re: Gun Control (Eric Holder admits brainwashing/confiscatio

PostPosted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:43 am
by BigBallinStalin
A good way to start the morning.