Conquer Club

Gun Control

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Gun Control

Postby rdsrds2120 on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:30 pm

thegreekdog wrote:This one. Wow... there sure were a lot of "Phatscotty is a troll" and "Woodruff is stalking me" posts.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure PS can find a chart showing a correlation between gun crimes and voting patterns that is better than this.

Here's what I've found. I can do better if you really want.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi ... orld/4412/

New Orelans - 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people
Detroit - 35.9 (Democratic mayors from about 1962 to 2013)
Newark - 25.4
Miami - 23.7
Washington, D.C. 19
Atlanta - 17.2 (Democratic mayors from 1885 (yes 1885) to 2013
Cleveland - 17.4 (Democratic mayors from 1989 to 2013)
Buffalo - 16.5 (Democratic mayors from 1966 to 2013)
Houston - 12.9 (Democratic mayors from 1921 to 2013)
Chicago - 11.6 (Democratic mayors from 1931 to 2013)
Phoenix - 10.6
Los Angeles - 9.2 (Democratic mayors from 2001 to 2013)
Boston - 6.2 (Democractic mayors from 1910 to 2013)


I tend to think there is a causation link, but there is at least a correlation between high rates of gun violence and Democratic constituents, voters, and politicians. At least that's my take.


Which do you suggest would cause the other?

BMO
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Apr 24, 2013 9:45 pm

rdsrds2120 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:This one. Wow... there sure were a lot of "Phatscotty is a troll" and "Woodruff is stalking me" posts.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure PS can find a chart showing a correlation between gun crimes and voting patterns that is better than this.

Here's what I've found. I can do better if you really want.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi ... orld/4412/

New Orelans - 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people
Detroit - 35.9 (Democratic mayors from about 1962 to 2013)
Newark - 25.4
Miami - 23.7
Washington, D.C. 19
Atlanta - 17.2 (Democratic mayors from 1885 (yes 1885) to 2013
Cleveland - 17.4 (Democratic mayors from 1989 to 2013)
Buffalo - 16.5 (Democratic mayors from 1966 to 2013)
Houston - 12.9 (Democratic mayors from 1921 to 2013)
Chicago - 11.6 (Democratic mayors from 1931 to 2013)
Phoenix - 10.6
Los Angeles - 9.2 (Democratic mayors from 2001 to 2013)
Boston - 6.2 (Democractic mayors from 1910 to 2013)


I tend to think there is a causation link, but there is at least a correlation between high rates of gun violence and Democratic constituents, voters, and politicians. At least that's my take.


Which do you suggest would cause the other?

BMO


Poverty and a lack of quality education cause high rates of crime which cause high rates of gun violence.

Oh, sorry, also - Democratic policies cause poverty and cause the lack of high quality education. Additionally, Democratic-appointed and Democratic-elected judges tend to be pro-American Bar Association and thus pro criminal defendant.

Hope that helps. Would love to hear whether you think there is a correlation between the LEGAL availability of guns in those jurisdictions and gun violence and what proof you can provide (especially since two of those jurisdictions have pretty stiff gun control laws).
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Gun Control

Postby rdsrds2120 on Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:31 pm

thegreekdog wrote:Poverty and a lack of quality education cause high rates of crime which cause high rates of gun violence.


This I agree with, certainly.

Oh, sorry, also - Democratic policies cause poverty and cause the lack of high quality education. Additionally, Democratic-appointed and Democratic-elected judges tend to be pro-American Bar Association and thus pro criminal defendant.


This you could debate until the sun explodes, so I won't comment on the politics of it. Though, the bolded bit is interesting. I don't think that there's a correlation of pro-American Bar Association judges and being pro criminal defendant considering that we tend to have a pretty high incarceration rate (though, unless someone were to gather the stats, I can't suggest that with certainty). I feel that people are jailed in big cities for minor offenses to the letter of the law, however, that's only if they get to court. I don't doubt that cops are lenient with petty crime when cities often have much more exciting things going on.

Hope that helps. Would love to hear whether you think there is a correlation between the LEGAL availability of guns in those jurisdictions and gun violence and what proof you can provide (especially since two of those jurisdictions have pretty stiff gun control laws).


I think that the coincidence is almost secondary with gun laws, or that gun laws are only ever in response to crime rates. Also, I can't provide any proof either way, since I don't think there are observational studies showing the controlled effect on the introduction or reduction of gun laws/amount of legally available guns.

However, my personal opinion is that drugs are the prevailing common denominator. Each of the countries that your linked chart compares our cities to is an absolute drug world. I know that this is also the case for Detroit (the city that I am closest to). As if by nature, increased high-profile drug trafficking tends to involves the packaged illegal transfer of other black market goods. This drug culture is a catalyst for the poverty trap (drugs are expensive!) and therefore, other illegal activities (stealing, mugging, robbing) in an effort to survive. In the drug world, money can be more important than the sanctity of another human's life, and it can reach a point that it becomes groupthink.

Now, to connect that to the correlation you were talking to me about: No, I do not believe that the rate of the amount of legally available guns affects gun violence, but something else! I suggest that the rate of the amount of illegally available guns affects gun violence.

BMO
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class rdsrds2120
 
Posts: 6274
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:42 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby Juan_Bottom on Wed Apr 24, 2013 11:32 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
rdsrds2120 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:This one. Wow... there sure were a lot of "Phatscotty is a troll" and "Woodruff is stalking me" posts.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure PS can find a chart showing a correlation between gun crimes and voting patterns that is better than this.

Here's what I've found. I can do better if you really want.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi ... orld/4412/

New Orelans - 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people
Detroit - 35.9 (Democratic mayors from about 1962 to 2013)
Newark - 25.4
Miami - 23.7
Washington, D.C. 19
Atlanta - 17.2 (Democratic mayors from 1885 (yes 1885) to 2013
Cleveland - 17.4 (Democratic mayors from 1989 to 2013)
Buffalo - 16.5 (Democratic mayors from 1966 to 2013)
Houston - 12.9 (Democratic mayors from 1921 to 2013)
Chicago - 11.6 (Democratic mayors from 1931 to 2013)
Phoenix - 10.6
Los Angeles - 9.2 (Democratic mayors from 2001 to 2013)
Boston - 6.2 (Democractic mayors from 1910 to 2013)


I tend to think there is a causation link, but there is at least a correlation between high rates of gun violence and Democratic constituents, voters, and politicians. At least that's my take.


Which do you suggest would cause the other?

BMO


Poverty and a lack of quality education cause high rates of crime which cause high rates of gun violence.

Oh, sorry, also - Democratic policies cause poverty and cause the lack of high quality education. Additionally, Democratic-appointed and Democratic-elected judges tend to be pro-American Bar Association and thus pro criminal defendant.

Hope that helps. Would love to hear whether you think there is a correlation between the LEGAL availability of guns in those jurisdictions and gun violence and what proof you can provide (especially since two of those jurisdictions have pretty stiff gun control laws).



The two parties switched in the 1960s.
"Southern Strategy."
As Lyndon B. Johnson said when he signed the voting rights act "We've lost the South for a generation."
It's important to remember this.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Gun Control

Postby Night Strike on Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:04 am

ooge wrote:So the founding fathers also created the electoral college a antiquated system today,but I believe they thought they needed it because they did not trust the peons to vote correctly,leaving the ruling class the ability to overturn the vote.and we are meant to believe that if they were around today they would think it was just great that any American can buy 30 ammo clips and military style guns.I think Not.


Considering the founders actually lived under the tyranny of the King of England, they would have a much better understanding of the need to overthrow a tyranny than we do today and would understand that since the military has the best equipment available, the citizens need something that will allow them to have a chance.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun Control

Postby Night Strike on Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:06 am

Why do we need more gun laws when the ones already on the books are not enforced?

WASHINGTON — About 58% of federally licensed firearms dealers have not been inspected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the past five years, according to a report released Tuesday by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General.

The report finds that the federal agency that enforces gun laws is stretched too thin to keep up with the growing number of firearms dealers. The result: It often takes more than a year — sometimes more than three years — for the agency to revoke a dealer's license after finding serious violations.

The report found violations of record-keeping rules are up 276% since 2004, but the number of firearms licenses revoked is down 43%.

The inspector general's report is the most complete look at the nation's firearms-dealer-regulation system since 2004, and it comes amid a national debate over gun control after the shooting deaths of 26 people — including 20 children — at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last December.

"It's completely outrageous," said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "The agency has an appalling lack of resources."

He said the gun industry and some lawmakers in Congress have argued that existing laws should be enforced as a first step. "They're saying we can't pass more gun laws until the ATF does more enforcement, and then won't give them money for more enforcement. They're in a Catch-22."

President Obama's proposed 2014 budget asks Congress for $173 million more to enforce gun-safety laws, in part by increasing the frequency of inspections.

The number of gun dealers has increased 16% since 2004, and the report found ATF improving in some areas. Although license revocations are down, the number of other enforcement actions, such as warning letters and suspensions, is almost four times higher.

But the agency says it doesn't have the manpower to meet its goal of inspect every dealer at least once every three to five years. Even if every field investigator in the Kansas City region worked full-time on gun dealer inspections — and didn't have to travel up to six hours to cover far-flung gun stores — the region still wouldn't meet its goal of 1,981 annual inspections every year just to keep up, the report said.

In a formal response, the ATF says shifting resources to routine inspections isn't an option. That's because the law requires the agency to make other issues a priority: inspecting explosives licensees, processing new gun-dealer applications within 60 days and focusing on high-risk gun dealers.

In 2011, 62% of inspections found no violations. Most of the violations the ATF did find were paperwork errors, such as failing to keep updated records, keep a copy of a purchaser's identification or sign and date the required forms. Unless inspectors find multiple violations that would require a reinspection, a 1986 federal law bans the agency from making more than one unannounced inspection every year.

The association representing firearms dealers says it generally supports more inspections. "The industry is very concerned about making sure that firearms can be traced, because it is a vital law enforcement tool. We don't have any problem at all with any reasonable requests," said Andy Molchan, director National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers.

"As to violations, that tends to be a tricky thing. There's a lot of trivia that can be violations," he said. For example, he said, a dealer in Texas was cited for using an incorrect state abbreviation. "Technically, it was a violation, but what does it mean?"

By reconciling dealer inventories with records, the inspections also reveal that thousands of guns are unaccounted for. Since 2004, ATF inspections have discovered 174,679 guns missing from gun dealer inventories and presumed lost or stolen.

Though there are sometimes innocent explanations for those missing firearms — paperwork on dealer-to-dealer transactions might be missing, for example — they're a problem for law enforcement.

"They are untraceable," said George Semonick, an ATF spokesman and former field inspector. "They'll be traced down to that dealer, but that's where the trace stops."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/23/gun-store-inspections-lacking/2106267/
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun Control

Postby AndyDufresne on Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:06 am

Night Strike wrote:Why do we need more gun laws when the ones already on the books are not enforced?


...18 bad translations later, Bing gives us:
Bad Translator wrote:
"Why do I have multiple weapons isn't it right for you?



--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Gun Control

Postby Woodruff on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:07 am

thegreekdog wrote:This one. Wow... there sure were a lot of "Phatscotty is a troll" and "Woodruff is stalking me" posts.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure PS can find a chart showing a correlation between gun crimes and voting patterns that is better than this.

Here's what I've found. I can do better if you really want.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politi ... orld/4412/

New Orelans - 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people
Detroit - 35.9 (Democratic mayors from about 1962 to 2013)
Newark - 25.4
Miami - 23.7
Washington, D.C. 19
Atlanta - 17.2 (Democratic mayors from 1885 (yes 1885) to 2013
Cleveland - 17.4 (Democratic mayors from 1989 to 2013)
Buffalo - 16.5 (Democratic mayors from 1966 to 2013)
Houston - 12.9 (Democratic mayors from 1921 to 2013)
Chicago - 11.6 (Democratic mayors from 1931 to 2013)
Phoenix - 10.6
Los Angeles - 9.2 (Democratic mayors from 2001 to 2013)
Boston - 6.2 (Democractic mayors from 1910 to 2013)


I tend to think there is a causation link, but there is at least a correlation between high rates of gun violence and Democratic constituents, voters, and politicians. At least that's my take.


I would think it's more of a link toward high population centers than anything else (including number of guns or gun control or anything else you want to name). High population centers tend to coincidentally be more Democratic, but it seems much more likely that it is the level of population congestion that is more the culprit.
Last edited by Woodruff on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby Woodruff on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:08 am

thegreekdog wrote:Oh, sorry, also - Democratic policies cause poverty and cause the lack of high quality education.


I can somewhat understand the argument you're making regarding poverty, but how exactly do Democratic policies cause a lack of high quality education, as opposed to Republican policies?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby patches70 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:23 am

Some say money is the root of evil when it turns out that it's lack of money that is the root of evil! All these people forced to commit crimes is because they are poverty stricken. If they only had money then crime would go away.

I find that deliciously ironic.

If indeed crime rates are primarily caused by poverty, poor education, family breakdowns and all the other things cited as why there is crime, how is taking away guns change any of that? Seems like focusing on the weapons doesn't do a thing to address the root causes at all.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Gun Control

Postby Woodruff on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:38 am

patches70 wrote:Some say money is the root of evil when it turns out that it's lack of money that is the root of evil! All these people forced to commit crimes is because they are poverty stricken. If they only had money then crime would go away.

I find that deliciously ironic.

If indeed crime rates are primarily caused by poverty, poor education, family breakdowns and all the other things cited as why there is crime, how is taking away guns change any of that? Seems like focusing on the weapons doesn't do a thing to address the root causes at all.


Since I'm not in favor of taking away guns, I can't answer that question adequately. I really haven't seen TOO many people in this fora who have advocated for it either. JB, perhaps?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:47 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Lootifer wrote:But its not binary PS; its not:

- More [or less] guns = less crime/murder
- Less [or more] guns = more crime/murder

Its:
- More guns sometimes means more crime/murder
- More guns sometimes means less crime/murder
- Less guns sometimes means more crime/murder
- Less guns sometimes means less crime/murder


I agree, it's not always true that more guns equals less crime/murder. It's just that way most of the time and in most places (in my country)


Citation needed.

(And your JB-esque picture is insufficient).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Gun Control

Postby patches70 on Thu Apr 25, 2013 12:15 pm

Woodruff wrote:
patches70 wrote:Some say money is the root of evil when it turns out that it's lack of money that is the root of evil! All these people forced to commit crimes is because they are poverty stricken. If they only had money then crime would go away.

I find that deliciously ironic.

If indeed crime rates are primarily caused by poverty, poor education, family breakdowns and all the other things cited as why there is crime, how is taking away guns change any of that? Seems like focusing on the weapons doesn't do a thing to address the root causes at all.


Since I'm not in favor of taking away guns, I can't answer that question adequately. I really haven't seen TOO many people in this fora who have advocated for it either. JB, perhaps?


Not just taking away guns, but even further restricting them since the current laws aren't being or are unable to be enforced. Why keep adding more laws? Since it seems everyone acknowledges that it's other factors that primarily cause crime, not guns. By advocating taking away or further restricting guns when that's not even the root cause for the crimes doesn't make any sense.

Why not work on the other problems first? If the answer is that we are, then why don't we actually do things that actually work to address those other problems before we keep adding to the wish list of liberal sycophants?
Poverty is a primary cause of crime? Then we take more and more from those who have money and give it to people who don't. We increase entitlements, add more social programs until there are hundreds of redundant programs and it doesn't fix the crime.
We ban assault weapons, automatic weapons, large magazines, and it doesn't fix the crime problem.
We cite the teenage pregnancy problem, unwed mothers and yet snide and ignore abstinence endeavors and preach contraception but it doesn't work.
We cite racism and pass legislation such as affirmative action and yet racism is claimed to be as bad as ever.

Haven't people figured out that the politicians need these problems to keep going on and on so they can have a platform of "issues" so that we think we have to have the politicians elected to "solve" the problems that they can't solve even if they really wanted to?

Is it possible that there is another underlying cause that we largely ignore? Or if that fundamental flaw is pointed out as the root cause of the rest that it is just summarily dismissed?

You see, besides the point that there is never a such thing as "solutions" but rather there are only trade offs, there is the one true crime that is the entire basis of our society. It's the monopoly on the creation of money by a tiny group of select individuals who systematically steals the value of our labors day after day year after year.
To keep the system going endless distractions are endorsed that crush the moral fiber of the population. While other forms of relief which are no better or worse than those endorsed, are crushed and suppressed.

It's that very same system which cause the export of actual jobs where we actually produced things. Since a consequence of running the world reserve currency is that this currency must flow out of the nation more than it flows into. This turns us into a service industry and a financial industry based economy. The majority of people won't have the aptitude (let alone the opportunity) to get into the financial industry are instead forced into the service industry which just keeps getting crushed economically since it's so vulnerable to market cycles. In lean times the service side is beat down, but excels during the boom times. Meanwhile the financial side grows like a behemoth during the boom times and sucks the life out of everything during the lean times.

And we are in a period of extended lean times, are we not? Why?

Want to lower crime? Increase liberty, have a robust economy and plenty of opportunity. Not everyone will get the same results, but everyone will have a better chance of finding what particular niche they will fit into best under these conditions.
As it stands now, the US is just a one or two act pony. We don't do anything else. We are good at telling everyone else in the world what to do and financing (read: Bribing) the world into doing and if that doesn't work we just destroy them. People can't find that niche to fit into because that niche has been removed all together.

The Boston bombing engrossed the nation but few know that on the very day of the bombing which left 3 or 4 dead and 170+ wounded, in Iraq on the very same day there were 40 bombings, 100+ people killed and 100's wounded. And we don't bat an eye at that, do we? Yet we were instrumental in being a part of that, weren't we?

And all the roots lead right back to the debt based currency system we have. Why don't we have a go at addressing that? If there was ever a place to truly start to get ourselves and the world back on the right track, it would be there. How can it be that such a tiny group of people get to determine the most valuable thing each and every individual has? The value of their time and efforts.
And why do so many of our politicians ignore this?
Because they are benefiting from the system at the expense of the rest of us.


Is it any wonder that people get pissed off and start killing, maiming and generally causing havoc when we live under such conditions?

Now don't get me wrong, I consider myself blessed to live where I do, have what I have. No matter what conditions come I'm going to figure a way to prosper under those conditions. Things could certainly be worse. But I see the trends, I see how much more difficult it is getting for more and more people. And all that is being done or proposed won't do a thing to address any of that. Those proposals and moves are only adding more and more downward pressure. This fucking lid is going to blow one day, and that's when things will get out of control.

The United States was designed to be a classless society. Where anyone could improve the conditions of their lives based on their own merits and talents. But we are not that way anymore, are we? Do we not see ourselves in several distinct classes? Not just middle class, upper class, rich poor, but the whole spectrum. Each and everyone of us is labeled, classified and set one upon another to argue stupid shit that no legislation will ever solve. And the whole while we all ignore that one thing, the one group who is truly running the world. The God Damned Money Powers.

If there is anyone who needs to be brought to heel, it's those fuckers. We put a leash on those bastards and train them to sit and roll over like they are supposed to instead of them being the one's leading us around like dogs. It would be painful in the short run, but after that you'd see how well we all start getting along without that blood sucking element able to suck the wealth, sweat and blood out of us.


/rant.

Go back to your regular schedule of blaming this side or that side like any of what we say or do makes any damn difference at all.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Gun Control

Postby greenoaks on Thu Apr 25, 2013 4:48 pm

you can't prevent 100% of crime but you can limit the harm down by restricting the weapons available.
User avatar
Sergeant greenoaks
 
Posts: 9977
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:47 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby Woodruff on Thu Apr 25, 2013 5:33 pm

patches70 wrote:Not just taking away guns, but even further restricting them since the current laws aren't being or are unable to be enforced. Why keep adding more laws? Since it seems everyone acknowledges that it's other factors that primarily cause crime, not guns. By advocating taking away or further restricting guns when that's not even the root cause for the crimes doesn't make any sense.


While I do agree with the general point you're making, it is also true that guns DO make crime a bit easier, from an intimidation standpoint. A knife, while just as dangerous in the hands of someone who knows how to use it well, just isn't as "fear-inducing" for most people as a gun is. I'm not saying that's enough of a reason, but it is something that I believe is true. I do agree that at the very least, those other problems need to be worked on in conjunction with any action regarding guns.

patches70 wrote:Why not work on the other problems first? If the answer is that we are, then why don't we actually do things that actually work to address those other problems before we keep adding to the wish list of liberal sycophants?


Because it is in our government's interest (as well as the large corporations that control them) to have a significant crime rate. Poverty is a good status for both. That's really why.

patches70 wrote:We cite the teenage pregnancy problem, unwed mothers and yet snide and ignore abstinence endeavors and preach contraception but it doesn't work.


Actually, preaching contraception and not giving abstinence programs whole reign really IS working. So I'm going to have to disagree with you fully on this one.

patches70 wrote:We cite racism and pass legislation such as affirmative action and yet racism is claimed to be as bad as ever.


I don't really agree here either. Racism is still alive and well, but it is becoming much more of a generational situation as anything else.

patches70 wrote:Haven't people figured out that the politicians need these problems to keep going on and on so they can have a platform of "issues" so that we think we have to have the politicians elected to "solve" the problems that they can't solve even if they really wanted to?


Indeed.

patches70 wrote:Is it possible that there is another underlying cause that we largely ignore?


Our government isn't really interested in solutions.

patches70 wrote:You see, besides the point that there is never a such thing as "solutions"


I'm afraid I have to disagree with this as well.

patches70 wrote:there is the one true crime that is the entire basis of our society. It's the monopoly on the creation of money by a tiny group of select individuals who systematically steals the value of our labors day after day year after year.


You got my agreement here...

patches70 wrote:To keep the system going endless distractions are endorsed that crush the moral fiber of the population.


I don't think they're intended to crush the moral fiber of the population at all. I think they're intended to distract the population.

patches70 wrote:The Boston bombing engrossed the nation but few know that on the very day of the bombing which left 3 or 4 dead and 170+ wounded, in Iraq on the very same day there were 40 bombings, 100+ people killed and 100's wounded. And we don't bat an eye at that, do we? Yet we were instrumental in being a part of that, weren't we?'


Indeed.

patches70 wrote:And why do so many of our politicians ignore this?
Because they are benefiting from the system at the expense of the rest of us.


Absolutely.

patches70 wrote:Is it any wonder that people get pissed off and start killing, maiming and generally causing havoc when we live under such conditions?


Oddly, that's typically not cited as a reason...

At any rate, I do believe that going to a publicly-funded-only method of election system would make a tremendous inroad into the problem you're referring to. I'm not AS MUCH on board with the term limit deal, because I've seen the problems that specifically caused in California, but that is also something to look at.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Never Again

Postby AslanTheKing on Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:42 pm

AndyDufresne wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Man, it's too bad the native Americans didn't have guns.

Just wait until the robots (or appliances) become self aware and have guns. They'll no longer be our slaves anymore.

Image


--Andy



we“ll get there, no worries
I used to roll the daizz
Feel the fear in my enemy“s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:

Long live the Army Of Kings !


AOK

show: AOK Rocks
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class AslanTheKing
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Background Checks/Gun Control: Do They Work?

Postby AslanTheKing on Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:45 pm

Phatscotty wrote:The truth will set you free

Image


interesting for sure

but manipulating, even more

best wishes from hamburg, germany

before i forget

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: you guys are so full of shit
I used to roll the daizz
Feel the fear in my enemy“s eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:

Long live the Army Of Kings !


AOK

show: AOK Rocks
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class AslanTheKing
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:36 am
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Re: Gun Control

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:36 pm

Night Strike wrote:
ooge wrote:So the founding fathers also created the electoral college a antiquated system today,but I believe they thought they needed it because they did not trust the peons to vote correctly,leaving the ruling class the ability to overturn the vote.and we are meant to believe that if they were around today they would think it was just great that any American can buy 30 ammo clips and military style guns.I think Not.


Considering the founders actually lived under the tyranny of the King of England, they would have a much better understanding of the need to overthrow a tyranny than we do today and would understand that since the military has the best equipment available, the citizens need something that will allow them to have a chance.


The founding fathers did not mean to have a standing army any larger than it took to defend the frontier. That's something like 200 soldiers. So if you're for an army, you're already going against the founding fathers. Among the reasons they did not want a standing army was the fear that a dictator could use it to oppress the people.
Also, in 1783 the Continental Army's leadership considered marching against Congress and conquering the country.
Later Madison formed a private Army and asked permission to conquer Florida.

You can see how times have changed.

This is all moot, because our system of government in no way supports a dictator. And the rich people today cannot form their own private army's. It's simple paranoia.

Night Strike wrote:Why do we need more gun laws when the ones already on the books are not enforced?

I dunno, maybe because I already answered this question for you in that it's against the law to enforce the law?

Woodruff wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:Oh, sorry, also - Democratic policies cause poverty and cause the lack of high quality education.


I can somewhat understand the argument you're making regarding poverty, but how exactly do Democratic policies cause a lack of high quality education, as opposed to Republican policies?

Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Gun Control

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:37 pm

Woodruff wrote:
patches70 wrote:Some say money is the root of evil when it turns out that it's lack of money that is the root of evil! All these people forced to commit crimes is because they are poverty stricken. If they only had money then crime would go away.

I find that deliciously ironic.

If indeed crime rates are primarily caused by poverty, poor education, family breakdowns and all the other things cited as why there is crime, how is taking away guns change any of that? Seems like focusing on the weapons doesn't do a thing to address the root causes at all.


Since I'm not in favor of taking away guns, I can't answer that question adequately. I really haven't seen TOO many people in this fora who have advocated for it either. JB, perhaps?

I've never advocated for taking away all guns.
I'm for banning the sales to private individuals of-

    Any Military - level weaponry
    Assault Type Rifles
    Handguns
    Explosives
and
    Renewing the lawful ability of civilians to sue gun manufacturers who knowingly distribute guns to criminals. (they all do)
    Background checks for all gun sales.
    National do-not-sell list.
    All Gun Sales reported, including private ones.
    And Gun Insurance.

The deal is that most gun deaths are caused by the guns of people that you know. You're by far more likely to be shot by your husband or wife than you are to be shot by a home invader. And when I say "more likely" I mean it. It literally triples the risk of a homicide, and abused women are six times more likely to be murdered if there is a gun in the home. And even when there is a home invader, you're still more likely to be shot than the home invader when you are armed with a gun. In siege warfare, the attacker almost always wins. A gun in your home will increase your own risk of being shot by seventy-two percent. And even if you do somehow manage to shoot and kill a home invader who would hurt you, the FBI says that only 2.2% of shootings are justifiable homicides. Those numbers just absolutely devastate the classic myth of a coked-out rapist climbing through your window, only to be shot down by your trusty Smith & Wesson. No, and again NO! It's more likely that your little son finds your handgun and shoots his baby brother to death than it is that you heroically save your family from a street gang.

That said, you can just as well defend your house from our roving gangs of road-warrior Esq bandits with a rifle or shotgun as you can with a handgun or Assault Rifle. And as we all know, handguns are the #1 choice of criminals, due to their conceal-ability. That's why we should get rid of them at the dealer level, to make crime safer. All you need is a law banning the sale and distribution of new handguns after XX date for any but government employees like cops or soldiers. All those handguns already on the market or in private hands would be exempt.
And as for Assault-Type Rifles, it's not likely that they will be used in crime, but when they are used the results are pretty devastating. And since there's no marketable selling point for an assault-type rifle aside from it's general badassery, and human killing power, they should also be banned like handguns.

And also, don't forget to look to other countrys. Australia had 14 mass shootings, then they took away the guns from the market. They've had no mass shootings since then, and homicide rates from guns are dramatically down.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Gun Control

Postby Night Strike on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:03 pm

So how government is set up in a way that we can't have a tyranny today, yet only the government is allowed to purchase new, useful weapons? How would this work Juan_Bottom? And who are YOU to tell someone else what gun they can best use to protect themselves? What right do you have to take away the freedom to choose self-protection from people?

And how does insurance stop gun violence? Insurance doesn't pay out for criminal actions, so what's the point of it?

Plus, how do we have the 2nd amendment if people aren't allowed to buy guns? How do people protect themselves in public if they can't carry a concealed weapon? Do we have to just cry in fear until a police officer shows up to save us? Why are we no longer allowed to protect ourselves?

Your views are utter BS and a complete infringement on our Constitutional rights. Why don't we take away your ability to speak or have a trial by jury since Constitutional rights are irrelevant to you?

By the way, it's funny how you promote a "right" that doesn't exist yet kills every time it's carried out while trying to take away a right that is specifically protected and only kills on rare occasions. If protecting life is important to you, you should start being consistent.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Gun Control

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:34 pm

Night Strike wrote:And how does insurance stop gun violence? Insurance doesn't pay out for criminal actions, so what's the point of it?

It does two things:
    a) promote responsible gun ownership, just like safe driving does
    b) It helps victims to get back on their feet, or take care of themselves. If someone steals your gun, and shoots Jeremy into paralysis, Jeremy will get some insurance money to help him out.

Night Strike wrote:So how government is set up in a way that we can't have a tyranny today, yet only the government is allowed to purchase new, useful weapons? How would this work Juan_Bottom?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Night Strike wrote: And who are YOU to tell someone else what gun they can best use to protect themselves?

I have no power, I'm arguing common sense. 90,000 American murders in 10 years, and no dictators overthrown shouldn't be ignored. That's something like 7 children killed everyday.

Night Strike wrote:Plus, how do we have the 2nd amendment if people aren't allowed to buy guns? How do people protect themselves in public if they can't carry a concealed weapon? Do we have to just cry in fear until a police officer shows up to save us? Why are we no longer allowed to protect ourselves

Well, I just went over why you don't have to protect yourself in public. Only 2.2% of gun deaths are ruled "justified." Where the hell do you live that you're being shot at all the time?

Night Strike wrote:Your views are utter BS and a complete infringement on our Constitutional rights. Why don't we take away your ability to speak or have a trial by jury since Constitutional rights are irrelevant to you?

Dread Scott Case.
Also;
Thomas Jefferson July 12, 1816 wrote:I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Image

Night Strike wrote:By the way, it's funny how you promote a "right" that doesn't exist yet kills every time it's carried out while trying to take away a right that is specifically protected and only kills on rare occasions. If protecting life is important to you, you should start being consistent.

You mean Gay Marriage kills, or what are you talking about?
If you want to talk about rare occasions, how many times do people need Assault Rifles or handguns?
Now compare that with the number of innocent people who are shot every year, often by some deadbeat with no money to pay their hospital bills.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: Gun Control

Postby Woodruff on Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:46 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
patches70 wrote:Some say money is the root of evil when it turns out that it's lack of money that is the root of evil! All these people forced to commit crimes is because they are poverty stricken. If they only had money then crime would go away.

I find that deliciously ironic.

If indeed crime rates are primarily caused by poverty, poor education, family breakdowns and all the other things cited as why there is crime, how is taking away guns change any of that? Seems like focusing on the weapons doesn't do a thing to address the root causes at all.


Since I'm not in favor of taking away guns, I can't answer that question adequately. I really haven't seen TOO many people in this fora who have advocated for it either. JB, perhaps?

I've never advocated for taking away all guns.


Sorry...I wasn't trying to pin something on you. I just couldn't think of anyone else who might have advocated for it, and I couldn't remember where exactly you stood.

Juan_Bottom wrote:That said, you can just as well defend your house from our roving gangs of road-warrior Esq bandits with a rifle or shotgun as you can with a handgun or Assault Rifle.


Actually, I would disagree with this. I find it much easier to use a handgun in small quarters. It would by far be my choice if I were trying to defend my home.

You are of course right about them being the prefered firearm for most criminals because of concealability.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby Woodruff on Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:52 am

Night Strike wrote:How do people protect themselves in public if they can't carry a concealed weapon?


In complete seriousness, your best protection is simply being aware of your surroundings. Obviously, that's not perfect protection (nothing is, after all), but for most situations, this is the best.

Night Strike wrote:Do we have to just cry in fear until a police officer shows up to save us? Why are we no longer allowed to protect ourselves?


The Wild West rocked!

Night Strike wrote:Your views are utter BS and a complete infringement on our Constitutional rights. Why don't we take away your ability to speak or have a trial by jury since Constitutional rights are irrelevant to you?


Why don't we take away your ability to speak or have a trial by jury since Constitutional rights are irrelevant to you? Oh wait, it's ok for the government to invade our bedrooms, as long as they don't invade our gun safes.

Night Strike wrote:By the way, it's funny how you promote a "right" that doesn't exist yet kills every time it's carried out while trying to take away a right that is specifically protected and only kills on rare occasions. If protecting life is important to you, you should start being consistent.


Guns only kill on rare occasions?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby Woodruff on Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:54 am

Juan_Bottom wrote:I have no power, I'm arguing common sense. 90,000 American murders in 10 years, and no dictators overthrown shouldn't be ignored. That's something like 7 children killed everyday.


Well that's just a rarity.

But seriously...I don't think you can conflate the 90,000 to being all children. That's a Phatscottyesque derivative.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Gun Control

Postby Nobunaga on Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:38 am

Woodruff wrote:... Oh wait, it's ok for the government to invade our bedrooms, as long as they don't invade our gun safes.


Who is invading your bedroom, Woodruff? What are you referencing here?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Nobunaga
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:09 am
Location: West of Osaka

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users