| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| bclare wrote: | | In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes. |
According to the DoJ (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf), homicide rates are currently the lowest they've been since the 60's, lightening gun control hasn't shown a trend of increased violence in this respect. The data also shows that gun homicide rates trend with homicides as a whole. Based on everything I've seen on the subject, gun violence is more of a cultural problem (gang culture being a leading one I presume) than a problem with the general population.
Skimming through this huge document, I couldn't find it, but how many of the nearly 1 million violent crimes were performed with legally held guns? Reasonable gun control laws already in effect ban the sale of guns to felons. Any of these crimes that were done by people that were already felons represent a failure in the effectiveness of gun control laws in general. As has been pointed out Ad nauseam, making guns harder to legally purchase doesn't stop criminals from getting them. This is a fact with any controlled product. Drug bans have not stopped their use, and people have been violating some of them so long that they're finally being lightened (ie. Marijuana).
| youhas wrote: | | I will note, as respectfully as I can, that this is the second time in this thread where you've implied that anyone desiring tighter gun availability is a "fanatic". |
You are misunderstanding the text you quoted, due to the ambiguity of its wording. In the intended context of what you quoted, I acknowledged that there are two types of gun control proponents: Those that are sensible and will acknowledge facts that counter their opinion and those that refuse to do so (the latter are who I am referring to as fanatics). I believe that any sane and responsible person (ie. one that will obtain enough training and the means to safely store and use weapons) should be allowed to purchase a gun. Ultimately, the person using a weapon is responsible for the damage done, not the weapon. People using guns illegally need to be dealt with harshly instead of making guns harder to obtain and use legally. People should be allowed to kill in self defense if they are being lethally threatened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GregoryZero 
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 2338
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can't beat statistics!
| ready2rock wrote: | (by the way, one of my favorite philosoraptor memes: "If guns don’t kill people, people kill people – does that mean toasters don’t toast toast, toast toast toast?")
|
Except toasters toast bread.
(also it's called a macro not a meme)
_________________
Last edited by GregoryZero on Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blingdomepiece 
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 4358
Location: Ottawa ON Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | I believe that any sane and responsible person (ie. one that will obtain enough training and the means to safely store and use weapons) should be allowed to purchase a gun. |
In this case there doesn't seem to be any indication that the mother who purchased the Rambo-gun wasn't sane and responsible (if you think otherwise, I wonder what background check you think would have been sufficient to prevent this), and yet she was unable to keep the little psycho from using the Rambo-gun to kill her and a bunch of other people. Seems like exhibit A of why that argument doesn't work, for certain types of weapons.
_________________
Expert Pro Keys: 50/63 GS, most recent The Killing Moon
Expert Pro Drums: 53/83 GS, most recent Free Bird / Oh My God / Oye Mi Amor
Expert Pro Bass: 6/83 GS, most recent Everybody Wants to Rule the World
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bclare
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 6048
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MehPlusRawr wrote: | | I mentioned something about crimes of passion, as you call them, and you have a good point there: some murders legitimately would not have been committed without legal guns. This sucks, but... what can you do about it? Outlawing guns won't work. |
Explain to me why outlawing guns (or at least stronger gun control laws) won't work in helping prevent this type of crime. I think that's exactly the type of crime that gun control laws can prevent (or at least ameliorate; 1 dead in a school knife attack is better than 26 dead in a school shooting)
_________________
I'm back I suppose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blingdomepiece
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 4358
Location: Ottawa ON Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rather liked this
_________________
Expert Pro Keys: 50/63 GS, most recent The Killing Moon
Expert Pro Drums: 53/83 GS, most recent Free Bird / Oh My God / Oye Mi Amor
Expert Pro Bass: 6/83 GS, most recent Everybody Wants to Rule the World
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blingdomepiece wrote: | | In this case there doesn't seem to be any indication that the mother who purchased the Rambo-gun wasn't sane and responsible (if you think otherwise, I wonder what background check you think would have been sufficient to prevent this), and yet she was unable to keep the little psycho from using the Rambo-gun to kill her and a bunch of other people. Seems like exhibit A of why that argument doesn't work, for certain types of weapons. |
Come back to this after it's determined why she stored the gun in a way where her son was able to get it. The more destructive the gun, the more secure the owner should keep it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blingdomepiece
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 4358
Location: Ottawa ON Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | blingdomepiece wrote: | | In this case there doesn't seem to be any indication that the mother who purchased the Rambo-gun wasn't sane and responsible (if you think otherwise, I wonder what background check you think would have been sufficient to prevent this), and yet she was unable to keep the little psycho from using the Rambo-gun to kill her and a bunch of other people. Seems like exhibit A of why that argument doesn't work, for certain types of weapons. |
Come back to this after it's determined why she stored the gun in a way where her son was able to get it. The more destructive the gun, the more secure the owner should keep it. |
Reports coming out now are that she was a survivalist gun nut who used to take Psycho to the gun range to teach him how to shoot.
_________________
Expert Pro Keys: 50/63 GS, most recent The Killing Moon
Expert Pro Drums: 53/83 GS, most recent Free Bird / Oh My God / Oye Mi Amor
Expert Pro Bass: 6/83 GS, most recent Everybody Wants to Rule the World
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MehPlusRawr
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
Posts: 1389
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bclare wrote: | | MehPlusRawr wrote: | | I mentioned something about crimes of passion, as you call them, and you have a good point there: some murders legitimately would not have been committed without legal guns. This sucks, but... what can you do about it? Outlawing guns won't work. |
Explain to me why outlawing guns (or at least stronger gun control laws) won't work in helping prevent this type of crime. I think that's exactly the type of crime that gun control laws can prevent (or at least ameliorate; 1 dead in a school knife attack is better than 26 dead in a school shooting) |
Outlawing guns would work, except you can't really do it.
"HEY REDNECKS GIMME ALL YOUR SHOTGUNS THE PRES-I-DENT SEZ SO" isn't gonna fly. The cost of setting and enforcing rigid anti-gun policies in a country that already had hundreds of millions of guns is absurd and ineffective.
Striking at this problem in a different fashion (fixing America's mental health system would be a good start) seems to me at least to be a more reasonable solution.
_________________
i forget what goes here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blingdomepiece wrote: | | Reports coming out now are that she was a survivalist gun nut who used to take Psycho to the gun range to teach him how to shoot. |
If she provided her mentally unsound son access to the gun, then by all means she is at least partially responsible. A rifle or handgun is reasonable for hunting and self protection, I agree with those that question the need for assault weapons for normal civilians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bclare
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 6048
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| raynebc wrote: | | blingdomepiece wrote: | | In this case there doesn't seem to be any indication that the mother who purchased the Rambo-gun wasn't sane and responsible (if you think otherwise, I wonder what background check you think would have been sufficient to prevent this), and yet she was unable to keep the little psycho from using the Rambo-gun to kill her and a bunch of other people. Seems like exhibit A of why that argument doesn't work, for certain types of weapons. |
Come back to this after it's determined why she stored the gun in a way where her son was able to get it. The more destructive the gun, the more secure the owner should keep it. |
If everyone kept their guns stored super securely, then you can't also suggest that gun owners will have their guns in any random public area to prevent crazy people from shooting up the place. I don't honestly think that "on your hip while you're walking through the mall" is a secure place for a gun.
Also, relevant info (current as of July 2012)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map
_________________
I'm back I suppose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raynebc
Joined: 16 Jun 2008
Posts: 992
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bclare wrote: | | If everyone kept their guns stored super securely, then you can't also suggest that gun owners will have their guns in any random public area to prevent crazy people from shooting up the place. I don't honestly think that "on your hip while you're walking through the mall" is a secure place for a gun. |
I was referring to secure storage at home. Carrying the gun (ie. handgun, carrying an assault weapon around in public is a bad idea) with the safety enabled, and the gun concealed, is what I'd consider safe enough for carrying it in public place (provided the carrier has any needed permit, gun safety training, isn't in a location where even concealed guns are banned, etc).
| Quote: | | Also, relevant info (current as of July 2012) |
According to that, Mexico's gun homicide per capita rate is about 4 times as high as USA's, despite our having so many more guns. The percenatage of all homicides that are done with guns are also within about 5% between the two countries. This does seem to also reflect gun crime being a cultural issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
youhas
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3015
Location: Santa Clara, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will attempt to spare everyone weird snippy quoting and just synthesize everything below:
On the one hand, I do wish that we had broadly greater access to mental health care in the United States, as that would probably at least help ameliorate matters, weeding out the supremely wackadoo folks from gun ownership. On the other hand, I can't envision a test or set of tests that would truly screen out all problematic individuals. There are just so many folks out there where they are outwardly "normal" but one rogue event - losing one's job, seeing one's lover shacking up with another, etc. - can put them in A Bad Place, where emotional impulses rule the day and rational thoughts regarding firearm consequences go out the window. (It's also not difficult to see how extraordinarily robust "background screenings" could loosely parallel "voting requirements" from the Jim Crow era, where some entity gets to pick-and-choose which individuals are "worthy" of firearms.)
Some part of me wonders what would happen if government entities actively pursued more cases where leaving your gun available to third parties counted as "aiding and abetting" if something malevolent went down. You own a really sweet gun, but you just leave it, loaded, in the closet; your dopey cousin Roy picks up the gun and holds up a liquor store because he is a goddamned moron; when Roy is fingered for the crime, you also get arrested for being an accesory to the crime for not being responsible for your firearm and stowing it in a more secure location. I'm sure there are ancillary problems I'm simply overlooking, but that would be an interesting compromise between "we need more restrictive gun legislation!" and "as a gun-owner, I have rights!" standpoints. It'd be one way to codify "gun owners should employ care regarding who has access to their guns" if nothing else.
raynebc: While I'm sure our opinions are divergent on a comically wide number of topics, I'm glad that "random civilians might not need assault weapons" is a potential source of common ground. I mean, I know enough individuals where hunting ducks / deer / whatever is simply a lifestyle choice I do not share, but gunning down animals with automatic weapons feels like a total lack of sportsmanship. 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HellAshes 
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Posts: 8320
Location: Livingston, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ShadoWolf wrote: | | directshot999 wrote: | | Killers attack schools and theaters because they KNOW they will not face armed opposition. |
Simple solution: Give all the kids guns |
Here ya go.
http://t.co/KDSF8r1J
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShadoWolf
Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 2034
Location: Slough, England
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HellAshes wrote: | | ShadoWolf wrote: | | directshot999 wrote: | | Killers attack schools and theaters because they KNOW they will not face armed opposition. |
Simple solution: Give all the kids guns |
Here ya go.
http://t.co/KDSF8r1J |
_________________
  | PiemanLK wrote: | | Look, someone actually had to point out that singing "solo" meant singing alone. This is why we allow people to work registers at McDonald's that can't make change and it makes me want to run my face under a belt sander. For the love of tits, how can you be on the internet in 2012 and not think "maybe I can Google this word I should have learned in first grade before making a thread about it". |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nubnut
Joined: 07 Jun 2008
Posts: 2078
Location: Denver, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| HellAshes wrote: | | ShadoWolf wrote: | | directshot999 wrote: | | Killers attack schools and theaters because they KNOW they will not face armed opposition. |
Simple solution: Give all the kids guns |
Here ya go.
http://t.co/KDSF8r1J |
Holy shit, I didn't imagine anyone would take that sentiment seriously... What on earth were those parents thinking?
Also: http://dailyoftheday.com/sandy-hook-school-shooting-prompts-massive-surge-in-gun-sales/
Gun sales are apparently now skyrocketing past anything ever seen before, whilst many former pro-2nd amendment politicians are now switching sides. Any thoughts on the matter Scorehero?
_________________
 1st place on 8 GH:WoR songs on Expert+ drums! (well, at least for a couple days).
XBL Gamertag: Gavesit
Add me if you wanna play RB 3, GH:WoR, GTA IV, Halo Reach, Left 4 Dead etc. etc.
"THERE IS A DREAM I AM LIVING
THERE IS A LIFE I AM DREAMING OF" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
