What's new
By:

The results of loosening gun restrictions

Did it ever occur to anyone that once intelligence developed "survival of the fittest" devolved into who had the better weapons? Maybe this is Darwinianism in action, and we should simply issue guns to everyone and when the smoke clears whoever is left are the "naturally selected" ones who earned the right to procreate by having the most advanced abilities to use weapons, which weapons are merely a result of evolution to begin with.
 
I'm sick of all you gunophobes. I'm for gun ownership rights. No discrimination between gun owners. State restrictions are unconstitutional. 14th amendment--->Equal protection under the law. Those on psychotropic drugs or violent criminal history have just as much right to protect themselves from each other as the rest of us have from them.
 
One Brow said:
While the Supreme Court recently ruled otherwise, I remain of the opinion that the first clause of the Second Amendment was intended to describe the scope of that right, as opposed to being background static.



What's a few extra bodies along the way, right?



Odd, I regularly hear this, although perhaps phrased differently. "Watch out for other drivers". "People here don't know how to drive on snow". "Drive defensively". These are all fear-based messages. The difference is that wearing a seat belt does not make it more likely to be in a car accident; owning a gun does make fatal accidents more common.



If they are so prevalent, you should be able to find studies where you go into the same neighborhood, look at the crime statistics comparing gun owners in that neighborhood with non-gun owners, do this over a wide number of neighborhoods, and show a trend that the gun owners are safer. Organizations like the CDC would be well-suited for this task. Wouldn't it be nice to have actual science to back up either side of this discussion? However, they are not allowed to, because organizations like the NRA have pushed for, and gotten passed, laws that prevent the CDC from collecting these types of statistics.They seem to feel it's in their favor to not have these studies done. Why do you think that is?

I read some descriptions of the book you mentioned, and it seems to be a how-to-carry, as opposed to being an argument for carrying. If I ever actually carry a gun, I'll look into it.
Click to expand...

1. Im not sure Im completely understanding your comment regarding the few extra bodies. If you can point me in the direction of studies showing some sort of correlation between gun violence and pot smoking and I'll be more than happy to take a look at them. Unless, of course, I'm missing what you're saying.

2. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree in regards to our perception of what emotions certain phrases are rooted in. Again, just in case I didn't make my point before, I don't wear a seat belt or a cycling helmet because I expect to get into an accident. As a gun owner, I hope I am never put in the situation of having to take someone else's life. I hope I never have to make that split second decision of the worst possible kind. Do you believe owning a car makes it more likely that you would get into a car accident?

3. I do not support the NRA. They do not speak for me as a gun owner. They are fear mongers and prey on emotion rather than reality. The ironic part is that they along with the anti-gun liberals paint a landscape of violence and that crime is getting worse and worse...both to add foundations to their respective outlooks. The reality is that it is safer now than it has been in decades. One only needs to look to the FBI's statistical abstracts to confirm this. And this is happened while gun ownership has gone up...well, the highest it's been since the early 90's.

Take Los Angeles for instance. Violent crime is down for the 11th straight year and, per capita, as low as it's been since the 1950's and 60's. All this is happening while 200 guns a day are being applied for and sold in LA.

https://www.scpr.org/news/2014/01/13/41574/lapd-crime-in-los-angeles-down-for-the-11th-straig/
https://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130213/los-angeles-residents-buying-200-guns-a-day

So, again, while specific studies are not out there, there are reports that can be referenced and that one can draw conclusions from.

As far as defensive gun use goes, again, there are examples happening every day:

Just this week:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpv9tJwjmAk

https://www.winknews.com/Lights-Sir...stop-attack-on-pregnant-daughter#.Uwg2v_RdV8k
https://www.stategazette.com/story/2052865.html
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local...avana-Supermarket-Miami-Police-246263051.html
https://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/02/19/man-shot-breaking-into-business-in-beltsville/

All over this country, there are scenarios of defensive gun use happening. Every day. Every year. Many times, these scenarios are not reported because no crime has been committed. The gun itself was deterrent enough.
 
VINYLONE said:
1. ... If you can point me in the direction of studies showing some sort of correlation between gun violence and pot smoking ...

2. ... Again, just in case I didn't make my point before, I don't wear a seat belt or a cycling helmet because I expect to get into an accident. ...

3. ... The reality is that it is safer now than it has been in decades. One only needs to look to the FBI's statistical abstracts to confirm this. ...
Click to expand...

1. I'm not sure if there are studies about pot, specifically. Are you saying that pot convictions should be treated differently from alcohol or cocaine convictions?

2. Fear can be mild, subtle, and measured. Protecting yourself against risk is a reaction to fear.

3. I agree it is safer than it has been in decades. Most crime are committed by young adults (you can track the rise and fall across decades), and our population is aging. That's not a response to whether homes with guns are safer overall.

I accept that there are plenty of anecdotes of people defending themselves with guns. There are plenty of anecdotes of accidental shootings, wrongful shootings, etc., as well. Do answer the question of which has greater effect, you would need to do a systemic study, one of the type the CDC is prevented from doing by law.
 
One Brow said:
1. I'm not sure if there are studies about pot, specifically. Are you saying that pot convictions should be treated differently from alcohol or cocaine convictions?

2. Fear can be mild, subtle, and measured. Protecting yourself against risk is a reaction to fear.

3. I agree it is safer than it has been in decades. Most crime are committed by young adults (you can track the rise and fall across decades), and our population is aging. That's not a response to whether homes with guns are safer overall.

I accept that there are plenty of anecdotes of people defending themselves with guns. There are plenty of anecdotes of accidental shootings, wrongful shootings, etc., as well. Do answer the question of which has greater effect, you would need to do a systemic study, one of the type the CDC is prevented from doing by law.
Click to expand...

1. Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't get the point you're trying to make regarding marijuana use or drug use and gun use. I know earlier you said you'd want to deny people their consitutional right to a firearm if they were convicted of a drug charge? Right? Or did I not understand you?

2. I still disagree. I cycle a lot. I know that part of cycling is falling down. I mean, I know at some point I am going to fall...again. I have before. I'm not scared or fearful of falling because I know it's an inevitbaility. I just want my noggin protected. In regards to keeping armed, I know the chances of ever having to fire in self defense are pretty low but I want to be prepared. This conscious decision is not based in fear. Is there a chance that maybe your own outlook on life and the risks within it color your viewpoint?

3. That's definitely an argument to look at. That said, do you think our population aging is enough of a factor to effect the falling violent crime percentages?
 
VINYLONE said:
1. Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't get the point you're trying to make regarding marijuana use or drug use and gun use. I know earlier you said you'd want to deny people their consitutional right to a firearm if they were convicted of a drug charge? Right? Or did I not understand you?

2. I still disagree. I cycle a lot. I know that part of cycling is falling down. I mean, I know at some point I am going to fall...again. I have before. I'm not scared or fearful of falling because I know it's an inevitbaility. I just want my noggin protected. In regards to keeping armed, I know the chances of ever having to fire in self defense are pretty low but I want to be prepared. This conscious decision is not based in fear. Is there a chance that maybe your own outlook on life and the risks within it color your viewpoint?

3. That's definitely an argument to look at. That said, do you think our population aging is enough of a factor to effect the falling violent crime percentages?
Click to expand...

1. I was referring to the position of the study author, who says that, according the data, gun deaths would go down if we made that restriction.

2. Of course my own outlook colors my viewpoint. That said, do you agree that not all fear is overwhelming and/or visceral? Can fear be mild, and when mild, controlled by rational preparations?

3. It's a gradual effect that we've seen happening for a couple of decades. You can also see the rise in crime as the first baby-boom generation becomes teenagers.
 
I watched my cousin shoot off the end of his foot with his dad's .357 when we were deer hunting. He had it in a holster and tried to quick draw, pulled the trigger and shot off his foot. Well he lost 3 toes total I think.
 
Gun control has about the same measure of success as drug prohibition has. Which is none. The law of supply and demand cannot be beat when the supply is readily available.
 
Nate505 said:
Gun control has about the same measure of success as drug prohibition has. Which is none. The law of supply and demand cannot be beat when the supply is readily available.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between control and prohibition. All states currently have alcohol controls (ages, vendors, etc.). There is not a huge boot-legging network, so it seems to be working, perhaps not perfectly.
 
https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...un-revolt/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

CT passed a gun law, upheld in court, that requires assault weapons owners to register with the state. This law has been dramatically ignored (intentionally) by the populace. Estimates are that only up to 15% of people affected by this law have complied. Now the police department is in a conundrum about wether they should confiscate and charge the unregistered offenders with a class D felony as required by the law. That could lead up to 5 years in prison. Estimates are that up to 300,000 adults could be charged with this felony.

So what now? Do the police arrest these people and risk confrontation to uphold the law (police cheif says they will)? If so will people physically revolt and deny the orders of a police officer? Will there be gun fights?

Or

Do the cops refuse to comply with enforcement of this law? If the populace and police refuse to abide by this law what does that say for the power, or lack there of, for the CT (or any other states) legislature?
 
Most likely, they will choose among the poorest offenders, who don't have the resources to fight back, and start making arrests there. Probably part of hoped-for response will be that, as slightly-better-off offenders see these arrests are happening, they may decide to register after all.
 
One Brow said:
Most likely, they will choose among the poorest offenders, who don't have the resources to fight back, and start making arrests there. Probably part of hoped-for response will be that, as slightly-better-off offenders see these arrests are happening, they may decide to register after all.
Click to expand...

So your stance (what you want to happen or what you think will happen?) is that they should target the poorest gun offenders first? What about the risk that the gun owning neighbors support those individuals? Suddenly have dozens of police standoffs with armed civilians.

By targeting according to financial status would that open the police up to charges of discrimination somehow? Sincere question as I do not know.
 
Stoked said:
So your stance (what you want to happen or what you think will happen?) is that they should target the poorest gun offenders first? What about the risk that the gun owning neighbors support those individuals? Suddenly have dozens of police standoffs with armed civilians.

By targeting according to financial status would that open the police up to charges of discrimination somehow? Sincere question as I do not know.
Click to expand...

That's what I think will happen, and how such laws are usually enforced (primarily on the backs of the poor and minorities). The police are rarely charged with discrimination today, even though drug laws are primarily enforced against the poor and minorities.

Since the charges wouldn't be announced until after the arrest, I think the chance of interference by neighbors is no greater than usual.
 
One Brow said:
1. I was referring to the position of the study author, who says that, according the data, gun deaths would go down if we made that restriction.

2. Of course my own outlook colors my viewpoint. That said, do you agree that not all fear is overwhelming and/or visceral? Can fear be mild, and when mild, controlled by rational preparations?

3. It's a gradual effect that we've seen happening for a couple of decades. You can also see the rise in crime as the first baby-boom generation becomes teenagers.
Click to expand...

1. Could you please link me to this data you're referring to...

2. Can fear be mild? Sure. Can mild fear be controlled by rational preparations? Again, sure. But you would agree that not all rational preparations are based in fear, right?

3. Just read this...pretty interesting stuff: https://www.orthocuban.com/2011/09/baby-boomers-and-the-crime-rate/
 
VINYLONE said:
1. Could you please link me to this data you're referring to...

2. Can fear be mild? Sure. Can mild fear be controlled by rational preparations? Again, sure. But you would agree that not all rational preparations are based in fear, right?

3. Just read this...pretty interesting stuff: https://www.orthocuban.com/2011/09/baby-boomers-and-the-crime-rate/
Click to expand...

1. I apologize for my lack of clarity. I meant that the author had summarized the data this way, not that I had seen the data. Certainly, the author may have his own agenda. In any case, I don't remember exactly which paper, but it was on this site:

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent...s-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/


2. If I am preparing to write pseudo-code for a long stored procedure, I would grant that I probably am not in fear of that procedure. What emotion would you attach to the desire to not suffer traumatic brain injury?


3. The first 3 1/2 paragraphs seem accurate, the rest seems to me to be a wild leap beyond the facts into emotional sludge.
 
Many would have us believe that gun control is a predictor of murder rates in America but it is not. Race, age, sex, income and culture are the factors upon which one can predict murder rates. These factors are what cause our murder rates to be higher than those in most of Europe.

I am not going to cover age, sex, or income inequality because I don't really think I need to. I am also not going to make a statistical argument showing that gun control does not decrease violent crime(though I may later). This is just to show that if we want to do anything to decrease the number of homicides in this country we are going to have to take an honest look in the mirror and ask ourselves if this is the type of society we want to live in.

Race is by far the most telling factor one can look at. I am not saying that black people are inherently violent. Black people tend to get the short end of the stick more often than not and are imho the most disenfranchised members of our society.

According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics.

While making up only 12.6% of the Us population are 52.5% of the homicide offenders.

The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost
8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)
Click to expand...

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf


Culture is a very subjective thing to try and measure. So I have compiled a short list of states with similar population to try and illustrate it. I wanted to get a state in New England but they all fall further outside these population numbers so I included CT an ME as an above and a below.

Murder numbers are according to the Wall Street Journal and are between 2000 and 2010. Population and % Black is according to wikipedia.
[table="width: 475, align: right"]
[tr]
[td]State[/td]
[td]Population[/td]
[td]%Black[/td]
[td]Murders[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Connecticut[/td]
[td]3,574,097[/td]
[td]10.34[/td]
[td]1,216[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Mississippi[/td]
[td]2,967,297[/td]
[td]37.30[/td]
[td]1,959[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Arkansas[/td]
[td]2,915,918[/td]
[td]15.76[/td]
[td]1,833[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Kansas[/td]
[td]2,853,118[/td]
[td]6.15[/td]
[td]1,053[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Utah[/td]
[td]2,763,885[/td]
[td]1.27[/td]
[td]635[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Nevada[/td]
[td]2,700,551[/td]
[td]8.10[/td]
[td]2,128[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Maine[/td]
[td]1,328,302[/td]
[td]1.03[/td]
[td]247[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
 
Last edited:
LogGrad98 said:
I watched my cousin shoot off the end of his foot with his dad's .357 when we were deer hunting. He had it in a holster and tried to quick draw, pulled the trigger and shot off his foot. Well he lost 3 toes total I think.
Click to expand...


natural selection.
when people do stupid **** there need to be consequences
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top