Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gun Control

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
    What time period are we talking about?

    It's a sad period in American history but Native Americans weren't considered "real Americans" until they were granted citizenship by congresss in 1924.
    I was referring to the period starting with President Jackson in the mid-1800s that included the Indian Removal Act/Trail of Tears and the later campaigns of the Great Plains. I'm aware that they weren't considered "real Americans" till the 20th c. but I was more referring to the double standards against groups like the Native Americans, especially considering the American "Nativist" movement against German/Italian/Irish immigrants went on during roughly the same period.

    In truth this was way more a general critique of historical American hypocrisy moreso than a critique of gun control, so I'm going a bit off topic.
    "Draft beer, not people."

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
      In truth this was way more a general critique of historical American hypocrisy moreso than a critique of gun control, so I'm going a bit off topic.

      Gotcha. :thumbsup:

      Comment


      • Originally posted by antimony View Post
        As I have advocated many times before, I respect gun rights and voting right. Part of respecting and upholding rights is the notion that the right should be denied to those who do not deserve them. Felon, mental patients should not be allowed to own guns.
        That's already done. The question on your 4473 form specifically asks if the person has been adjudicated by the court to be a danger to others, a felon, or mentally unstable. This is a constitutional right. It cannot be denied without due process.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        non citizens should be allowed to vote.
        Whoa....whoa....whoa....Don't you mean non citizens should NOT be allowed to vote?

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        Citizens should not be allowed to vote more than once.
        I agree. But why don't we have a process to make sure these things don't happen? highsea detailed how one could register to vote in Washington state without ever having set foot in the state and never get caught. The same trick would work in most liberal states.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        However, instead of creating rules and regulations at the whim of local elected officials, voter registration and identification should be broad based, use transparent rules and make an effort to reach out to everyone eligible. As long as that is done, I am fine with the concept of voter registration. India has nailed this process, the US has not.
        Absolutely! Now substitute voting with guns.

        Originally posted by antimony View Post
        The measures that you are talking about are inefficient to the extreme. To see the flip side, background checks for guns should not be the painful process that it is today. We have apps and digital id cards for chrissake, why should the FFL have to CALL an FBI number and be put on hold? Why do we accept a non answer, which adds a delay of 5 days to the process, where it takes seconds to validate against a database?
        The measures are fucking ludicrous. And that's exactly the point of gun-grabbers. It is to make it so annoying to own a gun that most people wouldn't bother to exercise their constitutional right.

        Liberals are masters at this tactic. They know they can't get everything done at once. They will take away rights piecemeal. Add a fee here. Make you fill out a form there. Get a certificate. Complete your training. No automatic renewals. Must do the whole crap over every few years. That's how they get you.

        I just want to see this done to voting rights so only those serious and determined can affect the course of this country.
        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DOR View Post
          Yes, people kill people. But guns and laws make a huge difference in how many people get killed and the data clearly demonstrates the NRA and Republican narrative is myth-based fantasy, not fact-based reality.
          *
          By Brian E. Frydenborg Dec 5, 2015 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nra-g...ian-frydenborg

          Like any dangerous product — cars, airplanes, explosives — sensible regulation of guns clearly plays a positive role in reducing both misuse of this product and the number of deaths resulting from such misuse. The map itself was part of a scholarly study*by researchers from Boston Children's Hospital and published this March in JAMA Internal Medicine.

          [The map didn't reproduce. It shows high levels of gun deaths in mostly red states, lower levels in mostly blue states. Go the the URL above to see it. -- DOR]

          The map is not without exceptions and outliers, but the general trend is clear: States with more gun regulations had lower rates of gun deaths, and states with less gun laws had higher gun death rates, both in terms of suicide and homicide. That's certainly not the message we get from the National Rifle Association (NRA) or from gun-rights advocates.
          There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

          How about if we look at the numbers in counties/cities rather than states? I saw this map that was really cool, put out by an anti-gunner, showing "gun violence" in any city or zip code in the nation. Check all the biggest liberal cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, St. Louis., Philadelphia, or Boston, and compare them to more conservative cities and see how shootings pan out.

          Even more interesting, if only we can overlay the ethnic makeup of these regions to the number of shootings....

          By the way, liberals use the term "gun violence" to include shootings in self-defense, negligent discharge, police shooting, suicide, and murder, instead of "criminal acts" committed using guns.

          Can't have a negligent discharge without a gun. Can't shoot a crook in self-defense without a gun. One could still commit suicide without a gun, and yet that will not show up on "gun violence" statistics.
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • This is what I'm confused about. So what usage of firearms should we label as "gun violence," meaning a maladaptive abuse of force? And why is it often the case where instances of people wounded by gun violence are treated as significantly less severe than those resulting in deaths? Shouldn't even these occurrences of violence involving guns that don't necessarily result in deaths, but possibly mental and emotional trauma, be a thing of concern?

            We also have the question of firearms safety competence. Should a person's second amendment rights be weighted upon their incidences of negligent discharges and/or other recorded instances of putting the public safety at risk? Not at all saying that this is even a significant number of gun owners in this country, but I have seen enough stupid shit online and in real life to realize that there are some individuals who should have zero business having a firearm around other people.

            Another factor to consider here is the evidence that presence of firearms in the home makes it more likely for those at risk for suicide to follow through and succeed in their attempts. How do we reconcile mental health intervention measures with second amendment rights here?

            And gunnut I hope you didn't meant to include murder in that list because I'm pretty certain that would be considered the centerpiece of "criminal acts."
            Last edited by Red Team; 10 Dec 15,, 22:56.
            "Draft beer, not people."

            Comment


            • Yes,it's easier to commit suicide and there are more suicides with guns available.Here's the thing.A loony's problem is his,his family's and the medical system.
              A suicidal individual and the innocent victim of a murder are both equally dead.Yet the moral value isn't similar.
              Those who know don't speak
              He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                This is what I'm confused about. So what usage of firearms should we label as "gun violence," meaning a maladaptive abuse of force? And why is it often the case where instances of people wounded by gun violence are treated as significantly less severe than those resulting in deaths? Shouldn't even these occurrences of violence involving guns that don't necessarily result in deaths, but possibly mental and emotional trauma, be a thing of concern?
                We can also look at the benefits of a firearm. How often are firearm used to deter a crime from even happening so that no gun-shot statistics occur? Very often the mere brandishing of a firearm could deter a would-be crime from happening. What happens then? Does the would-be victim report to the police that he was about to be assaulted and then showed his gun to stop the assault? The police would probably arrest him for "brandishing."

                This is a pro-choice source:
                http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...rime-deterrent

                NYT, obviously anti-gun:
                http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...-gun-use/?_r=0

                You can see how the anti-gunners frame the issue. They stress "defensive use of gun" as in shots being fired. People don't work that way. Criminals aren't dumb. They don't want to die as much as the next guy. A guy with a knife or crowbar intending on robbing a home, but the home owner shows a gun, the robber flees. This scenario does not qualify as a "defensive use of gun" in anti-gunner's language, but does qualify in pro-choice point of view.

                Put yourself in the shoes of a crazy lunatic intending to do maximum damage. Would you go to a place where people might be able to defend themselves? Or would you pick easy targets? I can tell you my target of choice: gun-free zones with lots of kids and few able bodied men. There will be few weapons and few people who would be able to physically restrain me.

                We've heard "work place violence" and that's a call to ban guns. Ever wondered why there aren't any "work place violence" incidences in police stations? I'm sure cops are under just as much stress, if not more, than other professions. There are dirty and bad cops, we know that. There are violent sociopaths who are cops. Most of them are probably type-A personality. Why don't we see more "work place violence" in police stations?

                Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                We also have the question of firearms safety competence. Should a person's second amendment rights be weighted upon their incidences of negligent discharges and/or other recorded instances of putting the public safety at risk? Not at all saying that this is even a significant number of gun owners in this country, but I have seen enough stupid shit online and in real life to realize that there are some individuals who should have zero business having a firearm around other people.
                Sort of like a literacy test for voters, I agree.

                Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                Another factor to consider here is the evidence that presence of firearms in the home makes it more likely for those at risk for suicide to follow through and succeed in their attempts. How do we reconcile mental health intervention measures with second amendment rights here?
                That I do not have an answer to. The easy way is to have a court determine an individual to be "mentally incompetent" to be a gun owner. But then that would just deter people from seeking help. Imagine that you are a gun collector. You think you are depressed. You seek counseling. The counselor reports you to the state, as required by law. You are served a court date to determine whether you will lose your lifetime collection of guns. Do you think anyone would risk that? Hell no!

                Originally posted by Red Team View Post
                And gunnut I hope you didn't meant to include murder in that list because I'm pretty certain that would be considered the centerpiece of "criminal acts."
                I don't make up those numbers. Liberals define "gun violence" as anything to do with shooting in which person/people are killed or injured, regardless of the intent.
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                  Yes,it's easier to commit suicide and there are more suicides with guns available.
                  That statement is untrue, many nations with much more restrictive gun laws and magnitudes fewer guns in civilian possession have higher suicide rates. Hanging, asphyxiation, jumping off a building, immolation... There are multiple ways to die and make sure you do not survive the attempt. Suicide by gun might be the most common type of self destruction in the US, but the US is only middle of the pack when it comes to suicide overall.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                    That statement is untrue, many nations with much more restrictive gun laws and magnitudes fewer guns in civilian possession have higher suicide rates. Hanging, asphyxiation, jumping off a building, immolation... There are multiple ways to die and make sure you do not survive the attempt. Suicide by gun might be the most common type of self destruction in the US, but the US is only middle of the pack when it comes to suicide overall.
                    There are many factors that affect the suicide rate and yes countries can have higher suicide rates than the United States inspite of stricter gun laws.

                    However, easy access to a gun does allow a relatively straight forward way to kill oneself without much more thought or intensive preparation. Individuals more motivated to commit suicide will doubtless find other ways, but some, and perhaps a significant percentage might not go through with the act in the time or effort that it took with another, more elaborate method.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      That statement is untrue, many nations with much more restrictive gun laws and magnitudes fewer guns in civilian possession have higher suicide rates. Hanging, asphyxiation, jumping off a building, immolation... There are multiple ways to die and make sure you do not survive the attempt. Suicide by gun might be the most common type of self destruction in the US, but the US is only middle of the pack when it comes to suicide overall.
                      Z,

                      Yes, it is true that there are countries with higher suicide rates (Japan!) that have very strict gun laws. But the dataset I was referring to measured the degree to which the presence of firearms affected the suicide rate of the US, not necessarily that less strict gun laws led to higher absolute instances of suicide between countries.The conclusion to be made here is that the at risk individual in the US is more likely to attempt and successfully suicide with a gun than one who does not.

                      Note that I'm not trying to say that no one should have a gun because it might make them want to kill themself. I was instead trying to contemplate balancing second amendment rights with issues of medical concern such as the treatment plans of suicidal individuals.
                      "Draft beer, not people."

                      Comment


                      • “The problem with Donald Trump’s plan to stop all Muslims from entering America, at least ‘until we can figure what is going on,’ is that it doesn’t go far enough. To make the country truly safe, he should insist that – as so many non-Muslims go berserk with guns in schools and shopping malls – no non-Muslims can be allowed into the country, until we can figure out what is going on.

                        Mark Steel, op-ed 'Voices,' The Independent, Dec 11, 2015, p. 39.
                        http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6768491.html
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          “The problem with Donald Trump’s plan to stop all Muslims from entering America, at least ‘until we can figure what is going on,’ is that it doesn’t go far enough. To make the country truly safe, he should insist that – as so many non-Muslims go berserk with guns in schools and shopping malls – no non-Muslims can be allowed into the country, until we can figure out what is going on.

                          Mark Steel, op-ed 'Voices,' The Independent, Dec 11, 2015, p. 39.
                          http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6768491.html
                          The logic of Trump supporters do irk me quite a bit. Sure, responsible, law abiding gun owners shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few crazies. That, I can get on board with.

                          But heaven forbid applying the same standards to responsible, law abiding Muslims...
                          "Draft beer, not people."

                          Comment


                          • Since Donald Trump is actually a New York City Democrat, Trump's position on guns roughly mirrors Hillary Clinton's: assault weapons ban, longer cool-down period.
                            Originally posted by Donald Trump
                            It’s often argued that the American murder rate is high because guns are more available here than in other countries. Democrats want to confiscate all guns, which is a dumb idea because only the law-abiding citizens would turn in their guns and the bad guys would be the only ones left armed. The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse even limited restrictions.
                            Of course, DOR's editorial goes into great detail about why some people would support Trump:
                            Governors in 31 states have supported a ban on all refugees from Syria. Because if someone’s squashed their family onto a pedalo and paddled to Cyprus to get away from Isis, that’s a sure sign they support Isis.
                            If you support any restrictions on immigration at all, YOU IS RACCISSSSS. Not even racissssssss, but you are basically Hitler. We are a minute away from putting all the Muslims into camps. Mark Zuckerberg said so on Facebook, it must be true, #feelthebern

                            Trump may be a Democrat, but he's divorced himself pretty firmly from the Progressive and PC crowd. And I've NEVER had anything against Democrats specifically, just against the Progressives and the PC, so I'll absolutely vote for Trump against any of the Democratic candidates.

                            And, again, I am a Bobo in Paradise, I see these #feelthebern people, "if you support immigration restrictions you are a racist" is close to the median position, just like "we should ban all the guns."

                            Feel The Bern, baby. I am ready for Hope and Change, and if you're not, you're a racist, and you shouldn't be allowed to violate my Safe Space, which is the whole nation.

                            Yep, I'll take Trump over any of the potential Democratic Nominees. The only Republican I absolutely will not vote for is Carson.
                            Last edited by GVChamp; 11 Dec 15,, 22:40.
                            "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                            Comment


                            • I have always assumed that Trump is a Democrat based on what politicians he panders to and that he really had to be part of that political machine to get rich in New York, but isn't he running as a Republican now?

                              (I might have mentioned that I don't watch television. I s'pose now it really shows!)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GVChamp View Post

                                And, again, I am a Bobo in Paradise, I see these #feelthebern people, "if you support immigration restrictions you are a racist" is close to the median position, just like "we should ban all the guns."

                                .
                                There are many good reasons to have restrictions on immigration; infact it isn't unreasonable to be totally against any immigration whatsoever. But excluding a entire set of people based solely on their religion, while not racist per se (as Islam isn't a race) is almost as deplorable. Infact it isn't unreasonable to assume that some people who support Trump on this ban think of Islam as a religion of mostly brown people and can be closet racists.

                                Again I dont think most Republicans or even many Trump supporters are racist; many are naturally afraid and angry after years of attacks by Islamic extremists. But one does expect more from a mainstream politician running for the most powerful office than play to people's emotions like this.

                                Infact, Trump seems a bit too extreme even for Marie Le Pen

                                http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...ump-muslim-ban

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X