argue
Thoughts on gun control?
Posts
Total:
98
“We don’t need no gun control, you know what we need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
― Chris Rock
-->
@drlebronski
Citizens shouldn't be allowed guns at all
-->
@Theweakeredge
Im not very educated on the topic but there would still be the problem of illegally obtaining guns.
-->
@drlebronski
Perhaps - however if you lower the total number of guns in an area - you can drastically reduce that number - especially if you could stop manufactuers importing to US soil. Of course, there is an issue of enforcement, however I do think that guns are dangerous enough to warrant high enforcement.
Police here just announced that they arrested 4 people- 3 men and one woman on suspicion of plotting a Las Vegas style shooting at the All-Star Game, just a few blocks from where I live. They were staying at a fancy new hotel a block from Coors Field but the hotel isn't really tall enough to see down into the stadium. There are a row of apts about 100 yds west of left field that would ideal for that kind of mayem.
Hard to tell how serious they were yet. They seem to be local meth dealers out of Longmont and had 16 rifles in the hotel room along with a lot of ammo and body armor and meth. One posted on Facebook that he planned to go out in a big way. 4 meth dealers doesn't really seem like the classic shooter profile but there are always the one offs.
I'm going to an event down there tomorrow so I hope tis all clear.
One of my least favorite parts about living in America....
-->
@oromagi
theres people who want to be allowed to bring semi auto assault guns to colleges.-- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-graduate-wears-gun-holster-with-ar-10-in-her-graduation-photos/
-->
@drlebronski
@oromagitheres people who want to be allowed to bring semi auto assault guns to colleges.-- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/college-graduate-wears-gun-holster-with-ar-10-in-her-graduation-photos/
Colorado is an open carry state but generally prohibited on school campuses and most of the bigger cities have restrictions. Our Supreme Court has twice ruled that campuses may not regulate licensed concealed gun usage although most campuses regulate the dorms and anything that can be called private. to an extent deliberately devised to make concealed carry a nuisance on campus. I guess I'm okay with that. I don't think of college students as particularly responsible citizens on the whole. Outside of the cities, people walking around with rifles is not unusual, nor is being served by a waitress with a gun on her hip.
-->
@drlebronski
Big business, so it ain't going to happen.
Notwithstanding that there is estimated to be over 400 million guns in circulation anyway. So already out of control.
As we saw at the end of the Trump debacle, insurrection is easily motivated....It will only take one Charismatic nutter to motivate the gullible and their guns.
And you certainly can't rely on Law Enforcement Officers to be impartial.
Reliance on the goodwill of the people, is a knife edge thing.
-->
@drlebronski
I have a collection, so I vote no on having them confiscated. I use them as investments and the government is not going to pay me what they're worth.
obviously gun control bad
-->
@Dr.Franklin
It's far too late anyway Doc.
-->
@zedvictor4
yeah sure
23 days later
-->
@Theweakeredge
@drlebronski
Gun control is terrible. Banning "assault weapons" and implementing background checks does not reduce the homicide rate and the BoP of banning anything rests on the authoritarian. Guns are no exception. If you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that banning any type of gun and implementing any gun control measure will reduce the homicide rate, then gun control should not exist. I have evidence that confirms that gun control does not reduce the homicide rate so it is nothing but pushing control policies that don't do any good and that only restrict(https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11yflOMimI67xOmbzx3E_f6x0MlweEgjkwUpmJ8Ww8Ug/edit).
I also realize that the pursuit of limited government can't end with guns. It also ought to be applied with immigration, abortion, vaccines, school choice, drugs, and more.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Noope, this is bullshit! :)
First of all, the entire spreadsheet is based on ALL homicide rate, which isn't related to gun related homicide - which has empirically fallen in states and areas with higher levels of gun control:
A 2013 study by a group of public health researchers examined the relationship between the overall strength of a state’s gun laws and rates of gun deaths in the state and found that states with stronger gun laws had lower rates of gun deaths than states with weaker gun laws. A 2011 study that analyzed state-level data drew similar conclusions: Firearm-related deaths were significantly lower in states that had enacted laws to ban assault weapons, require trigger locks, and mandate safe storage of guns. Two studies led by Daniel Webster at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health demonstrated the impact of state laws requiring a permit—and background check—before an individual can purchase a handgun. When Connecticut implemented this requirement, gun-related homicides in the state fell 40 percent; when Missouri eliminated this requirement, gun homicides increased 26 percent. And research conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit gun violence prevention advocacy group, found that states that require universal background checks for all handgun sales have significantly lower rates of intimate partner gun homicides of women, law enforcement officers killed by handguns, and gun-related suicides.
Furthermore, even if were to assume those were only homicide rates, we still shouldn't take it at your word. You see - you are expecting a linear decrease from the instance of implementing specific laws, but fail to account for any other variables. There are reasons why studies have such large methods and explanations of what is taken into account, because failing to will ascribe a correlation as an anti-causation, you are believing that the lack of decrease in crime demonstrates that the control does not work, and isn't taking into account the growing unease, the depression which in general increased crime rates, or Donald Trump's presidential campagin. My point is that merely showing these two points on a graph proves nothing, but you don't even have the RIGHT points! You just got tricked by some random crazy dude.
-->
@Theweakeredge
First of all, the entire spreadsheet is based on ALL homicide rate, which isn't related to gun related homicide
73% of homicides in the US are gun homicides(https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081), so it's safe to say that the homicide rate not changing would cause the gun homicide rate to not change as well.
A 2013 study by a group of public health researchers examined the relationship between the overall strength of a state’s gun laws and rates of gun deaths in the state and found that states with stronger gun laws had lower rates of gun deaths than states with weaker gun laws.
There are lurking variables that explain this. States with stronger gun control tend to be less in poverty and tend to act more European and Canadian in nature(whereas the other states tend to be more redneck). States with stronger gun control laws tend to have a less rebellious population and since a tiny portion of self identified rebels commit homicide, this helps explain why states with less rebel culture (which also tend to be the states with the most amount of gun control) tend to have less homicide. States with more gun control tend to be less in poverty, and poor people are more likely to commit murder. It's not the gun control that reduced the homicide rate, but other lurking variables such as poverty (which is very common in the South where homicide is the most common), a desire to rebel that gets played out in the extreme with homicide, a redneck culture of rebellion rather than a Canadian culture of obedience, and other lurking variables.
you are expecting a linear decrease from the instance of implementing specific laws, but fail to account for any other variables.
If one state doesn't see their homicide rate decrease from gun control, then it's possible that there were lurking variables associated with that. When over a dozen states implemented some form of gun control and none of them see a decrease in homicide, then lurking variables probably won't factor into the result.
When Connecticut implemented this requirement, gun-related homicides in the state fell 40 percent; when Missouri eliminated this requirement, gun homicides increased 26 percent. And research conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit gun violence prevention advocacy group, found that states that require universal background checks for all handgun sales have significantly lower rates of intimate partner gun homicides of women, law enforcement officers killed by handguns, and gun-related suicides.
This is false and my sources to prove this are in my spreadsheet.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Also.... so what if it's 70%? First off that's one year - second off - the homicide rate has been fluctuating but overall declining:
In 2019, number of homicides for United States of America was 16,425. Though United States of America number of homicides fluctuated substantially in recent years, it tended to decrease through 2000 - 2019 period ending at 16,425 in 2019.
Still demonstrating your claim false.
Furthermore, those variables are exactly the type of thing YOU need to account for, you are claiming that to be the case without ANY EVIDENCE, furthermore, you realize that all of those factors were true BEFORE GUN CONTROL WAS INTRODUCED, right? The studies are demonstrating this effect taking those variables into account, unlike you. You are claiming that gun control does not reduce gun violence without actually taking into account anything that increases violence in the states that you're studying, and then claim that I'm not taking variables into account???? You are the one that needs to take all of those variables into account dude, not me.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm confused as to what your saying.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Between 1977 and 1999, “right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occurred, they took place in those tiny areas in the states where permitted concealed handguns were not allowed,” found Bill Landes of the University of Chicago and Lott.
-->
@Bones
Dude the "found" source doesn't work, and the other is a jpeg sourcing wiki - dude, I could literally not find any more unreliable sources.
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Theweakeredge
@Bones
@drlebronski
Satirizing reality: { Warning! }
000} Global ' Peackeeper{?} ' hydrogen bombs ---Pakistan an India alone, could end humanity on Earth from the amount of sunlight that would lost over several years ergo kiss most crops on Earth good bye---- >
1} > State ' peacekeeper ' ----- richer { gold rules } states allow for next in line size of ' peackeepers ' small scale nukes, and small scale thorium nukes for households globally ---
2} > > Local small ciities { >15,000 } ' peacekeepers ' ---richer { gold rules } allow for tanks, bazookas, rapid fire gatlin guns { see black hawk helicopter }----
3} > > Local neighborhood { < 1000 } ' peackeepers ' ----open carry as much firepower as a person can carry on their person or in their vehicle, small rockets, any caliber of rapid fire hand held rifle or pistols----
4} > > > Think of all the money saved with no crimminals alive to put in prisons, ergo no prisons, no police necessary cause all criminals and violence crazies are dead, money saved on no court systems cause all dispute settle with gun fire, and the lists of economic savings goes on and on.
5} > > > Any or all of these would also resolve 8 billion and rising overpopulation for systems in place of people on Earth, ergo ecological systems that sustain us would less strained
Obviously regulating firepower is only found in the immoral dummies guide to stupidity on Earth. You know who you are so you might as well consider your self to be safe nowhere on an Earth, that, is full of rational, logical common sense people super well armed and ready to use them arms to keep you in your place.
...............................space(> @ <) i (> @ <)space...............Universal { God } peacekeeper is ______?
7 days later
-->
@ebuc
....
...
...
what?
-->
@Theweakeredge
....
....
....
when?
-->
@ebuc
Think of all the money saved with no crimminals alive to put in prisons, ergo no prisons, no police necessary cause all criminals and violence crazies are dead, money saved on no court systems cause all dispute settle with gun fire, and the lists of economic savings goes on and on.
Are you an anarchist? no judgment im a (somewhat) anarchist myself. though you could just be a communist.
I would legalize almost all firearms and let anyone over the age of 21 buy almost any of them.
The problem we have in society is not that guns are available, but that they are insufficiently carried. In a world where everyone owned a gun and carried it with them, there would be almost no violent crime.
Example:
1. Rapists and raping. Would a rapist rape if the intended victim could shoot back? Maybe, but I'd bet less often.
2. Robbers robbing. Would a robber rob if the intended victim could shoot back? Some might, but few would seriously think it a good idea.
3. Criminals committing crimes of any kind. Would any criminal commit any violent crime against any victim, where the criminal knew there was a non-trivial possibility they'd lose their life in the attempt? I think not.
That's the problem. Not too many guns, too few.
But Coal, come on. What about all the children who would die from gun accidents?
All the more reason for parents to teach their kids how to use guns, to respect them and not to play with them. Ever.
Wouldn't you just be increasing the likelihood of gun-involved violent crime? After all, we all know the first thing criminals care about when they're selecting the tools of their criminality are laws against those tools.
Hogwash. Criminals, because they are criminals, do not follow gun laws. Disarming law abiding citizens leaves them prey for those who would do them harm.
[All the other stupid arguments against guns, magazines of high capacity, arguments against automatic weapons, and everything else that's already been said by ten thousand people over, ten thousand times over.]
Oh, and get off my lawn.
-->
@drlebronski
Well, I'm not a racist, bigoted Qanon { trumpeteer } conspiracy nutter trying to overthrow USA government and claim ..The Big Lie.... 10 times before going to bed each night.
Those nutters most recent date for the the return of Trumpet to USA presidency, in USA, was today, the 13th { friday }. Why fridday the 13th?
Because these so called people, appear to be related to the reptile lizard people, who, also have some serious mental issues/ I think the 74 million trumpeteers need to have a brain scan done on them and compare that to normal people, so we discover exactly where their wires got crossed or shorting out from accessing rational, logical common sense.
Hope the explains who and what I am. :--)
-->
@drlebronski
Considering the reason why the second amendment was drafted, I am not in favor of gun control.
Gun control:
(1) Hinders people's ability to defend themselves; creates fear of being unable to defend themselves
(2) Weakens a nation's ability to rise up against a tyrannical government
(3) Impairs a nation's ability to fight invading forces
(4) Resulted in no reduction of crime in Australia, when a total gun ban was implemented. Hence, (total) gun control was shown to be ineffective here
Banning guns in Australia (1996, data until 2008) resulted in no obvious reductions in crime Imgur: The magic of the Internet:
a) No perceivable difference in armed robbery. Armed/unarmed robbery trended together
b) Decreased the amount of firearms used to commit homicide, but knife/sharp instrument homicide rate rose during the same time
c) Assaults continuing to rise at roughly 5% a year
d) A marginal increase in robbery (which flattened out in 2001), and no significant change to sexual assault, kidnapping or homicide
(5) Internationally, gun control did not positively correlate with reduced crimes. Hence, gun control was shown to be ineffective here
An international analysis of a wide variety countries found that gun control did not positively correlate with a reduction in crime: (relevant tables and conclusion Imgur: The magic of the Internet) (full study: Microsoft Word - Kates-Mauser_banning_firearms.doc (ssrn.com) ).
(6) Most police officers don't agree that more gun control is necessary (albeit during 2013)
Various survey questions given to roughly 15,000 American police officers in 2013 showed that most believed further gun control wouldn't be desirable: Imgur: The magic of the Internet .
(7) (Potentially) Most guns are used legally, rarely and rarely for crime
According to this infographic (although I cannot find the original FBI and Cato data) 99.9% of all guns in America are not used in violent crimes - Bing images :
- 99.9% of all guns in America are not used in violent crimes
- 99.8% of all guns are not used in crime at all
- Guns are used 4 times as often in self defense as in crime and 98% of the time, it is not even fired
- Only 1% of the time when a gun is being used in defense, does the criminal take the gun from the defender
- After guns were banned in the UK, the armed robbery rate spiked over 40% and 44%. Now, in Britain half of the robberies happen when people are home (50% vs America's 30%)
- Only 4% of guns used in crimes were obtained legally
(8) Comparing Californian and New Hampshire gun laws and gun homicide rates has gun control contributing to a negative outcome
A side-by-side analysis of California and New Hampshire's gun laws shows that "gun homicides" negatively correlate with reductions in gun control (at least in this instance): Imgur: The magic of the Internet .
Therefore, I believe gun control is overall a negative policy
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary" -- Karl Marx
-->
@Mesmer
Karl Marx...Under no pretext etc.
But it never works like that Karly Baby.
Karl Marx: Points out of ten.
1. Facial hair....10.
2. Bullshit........10.