login
'The' Gun Thread (Page 6)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-03-07 2:52 PM in reply to: #4650588 |
 Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Threadjmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. |
| 2013-03-07 2:58 PM in reply to: #4650696 |
Pro  15655    | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crowd will completely ignore that fact. Edited by Left Brain 2013-03-07 3:11 PM |
| 2013-03-07 3:14 PM in reply to: #4650708 |
Champion 7821  Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. |
| 2013-03-07 3:19 PM in reply to: #4650741 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. I have no idea if it does or not, and I've never said that.....and it doesn't matter. The anti gun crowd wants to do away with guns because they cause crime.....when clearly, since there are so many more guns than ever and crime is going down, they don't. You can't refute it.....there is no argument against it. The anti gun position is based purely on emotion....it always has been, and it always will be. |
| 2013-03-07 3:21 PM in reply to: #4650741 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. OK, we agree.....then what difference does it make how many or what kind of guns we have? (I can give you a hint if you want) |
| 2013-03-07 3:28 PM in reply to: #4650760 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Left Brain - 2013-03-07 3:21 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. OK, we agree.....then what difference does it make how many or what kind of guns we have? (I can give you a hint if you want) And again...you're preaching to the choir. Just because I don't have any guns doesn't mean I'm anti gun or that I'm automatically not "on your side" on at least some of the issues. |
| 2013-03-07 3:29 PM in reply to: #4650776 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:28 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 3:21 PM And again...you're preaching to the choir. Just because I don't have any guns doesn't mean I'm anti gun or that I'm automatically not "on your side" on at least some of the issues. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. OK, we agree.....then what difference does it make how many or what kind of guns we have? (I can give you a hint if you want) Oh....way to take all the fun out of it....thanks. |
| 2013-03-07 4:08 PM in reply to: #4650741 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 4:14 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. Absolutely true. So that leaves us with A Constitutional right that at worst does not cause more damage allowing it to be exercised unfettered. Gun control loses. |
| 2013-03-07 4:10 PM in reply to: #4650776 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 4:28 PM And again...you're preaching to the choir. Just because I don't have any guns doesn't mean I'm anti gun or that I'm automatically not "on your side" on at least some of the issues. As long as you're pro-choice, I've got no beef at all with you. You've made your decision. More power to you, I hope you revisit that and almost all other life decisions as time goes on. All I ask is you not push for laws that restrict my rights due to your decision for your situation. |
| 2013-03-07 6:25 PM in reply to: #4650854 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-03-07 4:10 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 4:28 PM And again...you're preaching to the choir. Just because I don't have any guns doesn't mean I'm anti gun or that I'm automatically not "on your side" on at least some of the issues. As long as you're pro-choice, I've got no beef at all with you. You've made your decision. More power to you, I hope you revisit that and almost all other life decisions as time goes on. All I ask is you not push for laws that restrict my rights due to your decision for your situation. Never have, never will. And I would hope that you would insist that every person who does choose to own a gun does so responsibly and legally. Constititional rights are not to be taken lightly. Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2013-03-07 6:38 PM |
| 2013-03-07 6:38 PM in reply to: #4651022 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 7:25 PM DanielG - 2013-03-07 4:10 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 4:28 PM And again...you're preaching to the choir. Just because I don't have any guns doesn't mean I'm anti gun or that I'm automatically not "on your side" on at least some of the issues. As long as you're pro-choice, I've got no beef at all with you. You've made your decision. More power to you, I hope you revisit that and almost all other life decisions as time goes on. All I ask is you not push for laws that restrict my rights due to your decision for your situation. Never have, never will. And I would hope that you would insist that every person who does choose to own a gun does so responsibly and legally. Constituional rights are not to be taken lightly. Absolutely. I just don't want incrementalism to get a foothold. If someone misuses a firearm to unnecessarily harm another, come down on them with both jackboots to the kidneys. Until then, leave them the heck alone.  Edited by DanielG 2013-03-07 6:40 PM |
| 2013-03-08 9:02 AM in reply to: #4643301 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Missouri Lt. Gov. fights back..... this is SFW, it's a radio interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkh9L9r5fas |
| 2013-03-08 9:34 AM in reply to: #4650110 |
Expert 839 Central Mass | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Left Brain - 2013-03-07 11:23 AM scorpio516 - 2013-03-07 8:34 AM tuwood - 2013-03-07 6:44 AM tealeaf - 2013-03-07 5:30 AM A new study from Childrens' Hospital in Boston finds that the rate of deaths from firearms is lower in states with a greater number of gun laws on the books. I've seen this pop up on my FB feed from groups such as the Brady campaign and other folks, using this to argue for an increase in legislation. I don't think that anti-gun people such as myself can necessarily make that jump from this specific study. The study says that number of gun laws and number of gun deaths are correlated. It doesn't draw a causal relationship. That said, I do think this study provides some ammunition, play on words intended, for those who argue against the NRA's very effective political strategy of opposing any and all efforts to conduct research into gun safety and legislation. I think that some objective party ought to try and find out the real reason for this correlation, which then might provide a non-emotional basis for further action. I think you hit on the key point about causal relationship. Gun laws have been going up everywhere (some places more than others) but also gun ownership has been going up everywhere. For me, I think it's more telling that with a massive increase in gun ownership over the past 20 years that homicides have gone down significantly. Correlation doesn't imply causation. Homicide rates directly track teen birth/pregnancy rates too. So you are saying increased gun ownership lowers teen birth rates too? Hey, where did you find that......I'd like to see the data. I can have some fun with it. On your other point.....you may be right that "correlation doesn't imply causation" but you sure as hell can't argue that more guns has caused MORE homicides. I had to go through some raw data from the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/births.htm But they have a data brief about it that is OK: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db89.htm |
| 2013-03-08 9:40 AM in reply to: #4650760 |
Expert 839 Central Mass | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Left Brain - 2013-03-07 4:21 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. OK, we agree.....then what difference does it make how many or what kind of guns we have? (I can give you a hint if you want) I was riding the commuter train into Boston yesterday, and saw a sign that took up almost all of the back side of Fenway. It basically said that 6550 children have been killed by guns since 2000, we need to ban assault rifles! Never mind the fact that ~6500 of those deaths wern't caused by assault rifles, and probably ~6000 wern't even cause by rifle or shotgun rounds, but handguns. Of course I couldn't do anything about it, or tell anyone about it, and I was too busy getting pissed about the faulty logic of the ad to notice who put it up... |
| 2013-03-08 10:55 AM in reply to: #4651710 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread scorpio516 - 2013-03-08 10:40 AM I was riding the commuter train into Boston yesterday, and saw a sign that took up almost all of the back side of Fenway. It basically said that 6550 children have been killed by guns since 2000, we need to ban assault rifles! Never mind the fact that ~6500 of those deaths wern't caused by assault rifles, and probably ~6000 wern't even cause by rifle or shotgun rounds, but handguns. Of course I couldn't do anything about it, or tell anyone about it, and I was too busy getting pissed about the faulty logic of the ad to notice who put it up... I don't even have to look. That's got to be one of John Rosenthal's billboards. He's never exactly been married to the truth, facts or anything else that gets in his way to "prove" how evil an inanimate object is. |
| 2013-03-08 11:43 AM in reply to: #4651710 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread scorpio516 - 2013-03-08 9:40 AM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 4:21 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. OK, we agree.....then what difference does it make how many or what kind of guns we have? (I can give you a hint if you want) I was riding the commuter train into Boston yesterday, and saw a sign that took up almost all of the back side of Fenway. It basically said that 6550 children have been killed by guns since 2000, we need to ban assault rifles! Never mind the fact that ~6500 of those deaths wern't caused by assault rifles, and probably ~6000 wern't even cause by rifle or shotgun rounds, but handguns. Of course I couldn't do anything about it, or tell anyone about it, and I was too busy getting pissed about the faulty logic of the ad to notice who put it up... It’s frustrating, because I see an opportunity to make some genuine progress towards enacting some of the changes that even many gun advocates agree with (universal background checks, e.g.) and it’s going to end up getting derailed because so many people on the anti-gun side can’t get past the “assault rifle” conversation. Even if someone believes that guns are the problem, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on the type of gun that is used in the overwhelming number of crimes, rather than the kind that was used in a couple of highly-publicized ones? It’s like saying trying to address the problem of traffic accidents by making it illegal to own cars that can go over 150mph when the vast majority of accidents are caused by cars going a lot slower. |
| 2013-03-08 1:07 PM in reply to: #4651977 |
Expert 1002 Wind Lake WI | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 11:43 AM scorpio516 - 2013-03-08 9:40 AM It’s frustrating, because I see an opportunity to make some genuine progress towards enacting some of the changes that even many gun advocates agree with (universal background checks, e.g.) and it’s going to end up getting derailed because so many people on the anti-gun side can’t get past the “assault rifle” conversation. Even if someone believes that guns are the problem, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on the type of gun that is used in the overwhelming number of crimes, rather than the kind that was used in a couple of highly-publicized ones? It’s like saying trying to address the problem of traffic accidents by making it illegal to own cars that can go over 150mph when the vast majority of accidents are caused by cars going a lot slower. Left Brain - 2013-03-07 4:21 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. OK, we agree.....then what difference does it make how many or what kind of guns we have? (I can give you a hint if you want) I was riding the commuter train into Boston yesterday, and saw a sign that took up almost all of the back side of Fenway. It basically said that 6550 children have been killed by guns since 2000, we need to ban assault rifles! Never mind the fact that ~6500 of those deaths wern't caused by assault rifles, and probably ~6000 wern't even cause by rifle or shotgun rounds, but handguns. Of course I couldn't do anything about it, or tell anyone about it, and I was too busy getting pissed about the faulty logic of the ad to notice who put it up... I don't know any "gun advocates" that agree with universal background checks. Would anyonne agree to universal background checks on free speech or freedom of religion? |
| 2013-03-08 1:22 PM in reply to: #4651885 |
Expert 839 Central Mass | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread DanielG - 2013-03-08 11:55 AM scorpio516 - 2013-03-08 10:40 AM I don't even have to look. That's got to be one of John Rosenthal's billboards. He's never exactly been married to the truth, facts or anything else that gets in his way to "prove" how evil an inanimate object is. I was riding the commuter train into Boston yesterday, and saw a sign that took up almost all of the back side of Fenway. It basically said that 6550 children have been killed by guns since 2000, we need to ban assault rifles! Never mind the fact that ~6500 of those deaths wern't caused by assault rifles, and probably ~6000 wern't even cause by rifle or shotgun rounds, but handguns. Of course I couldn't do anything about it, or tell anyone about it, and I was too busy getting pissed about the faulty logic of the ad to notice who put it up... Yep, that's it. The irony is that he started and runs "Stop Handgun Violence", and handguns have caused the vast majority of the deaths, but the whole message of the billboard is "assault rifles". But I already pointed that out |
| 2013-03-08 1:27 PM in reply to: #4652172 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread firstnet911 - 2013-03-08 1:07 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 11:43 AM scorpio516 - 2013-03-08 9:40 AM It’s frustrating, because I see an opportunity to make some genuine progress towards enacting some of the changes that even many gun advocates agree with (universal background checks, e.g.) and it’s going to end up getting derailed because so many people on the anti-gun side can’t get past the “assault rifle” conversation. Even if someone believes that guns are the problem, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on the type of gun that is used in the overwhelming number of crimes, rather than the kind that was used in a couple of highly-publicized ones? It’s like saying trying to address the problem of traffic accidents by making it illegal to own cars that can go over 150mph when the vast majority of accidents are caused by cars going a lot slower. Left Brain - 2013-03-07 4:21 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. OK, we agree.....then what difference does it make how many or what kind of guns we have? (I can give you a hint if you want) I was riding the commuter train into Boston yesterday, and saw a sign that took up almost all of the back side of Fenway. It basically said that 6550 children have been killed by guns since 2000, we need to ban assault rifles! Never mind the fact that ~6500 of those deaths wern't caused by assault rifles, and probably ~6000 wern't even cause by rifle or shotgun rounds, but handguns. Of course I couldn't do anything about it, or tell anyone about it, and I was too busy getting pissed about the faulty logic of the ad to notice who put it up... I don't know any "gun advocates" that agree with universal background checks. Would anyonne agree to universal background checks on free speech or freedom of religion? One doesn't need a license for speech or religion, but I have the sense that most gun owners aren't opposed to the idea of requiring people to get licenses to carry guns. Likewise, my sense is, perhaps I'm mistaken, that most (or many, at least) gun owners aren't opposed to enhancing the existing background checks to ensure that people with criminal records and a history of violent mental illness are prevented from having access to guns. |
| 2013-03-08 1:54 PM in reply to: #4652238 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 2:27 PM One doesn't need a license for speech or religion, but I have the sense that most gun owners aren't opposed to the idea of requiring people to get licenses to carry guns. Likewise, my sense is, perhaps I'm mistaken, that most (or many, at least) gun owners aren't opposed to enhancing the existing background checks to ensure that people with criminal records and a history of violent mental illness are prevented from having access to guns. No. The just about universal dream sheet for pro-rights people is VT style carry. "It is illegal to carry a firearm either concealed or unconcealed, for the purpose of committing a violent crime." You want to make that a 20 year mandatory sentence, go for it. There is no other right you require a license for, so no license for that either. I would not mind being able to do a background check when selling a gun. The devil is in the details. No collection of firearms owners, ever. No database of background checks, ever. Now, if you set it up so Joe Citizen can do a background check, what's to stop me from saying, "Heyyyy, I've got this guy applying for a job I've got. I'm going to run him through the background check and see..." or "I don't like the guy dating my daughter, lemme take a look..." As I've said many a time. The only reason I know that people who get frustrated with the NRA and leave it's just about universally that the NRA is too willing to "compromise" away our rights. |
| 2013-03-08 2:28 PM in reply to: #4643301 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread The other problem with "universal background checks" is that as proposed they are not universal. Because of privacy rights, and HIPA restrictions, and legislation in the individual states, mental health treatment records may not be subject to being included in the "universal" background checks. Those that are involuntarily civilly committed due to mental illness would be captured, but individuals that voluntarily seek mental health treatment and may be diagnosed with severe mental illness will not be caught in the reporting requirements of the "universal" background checks. Thus, even if the proposed "universal background" checks as currently proposed were passed without alteration, it probably would never have caught the Newtown shooter. His mental health issues simply would not be the subject of current reporting requirements.
That's one of the objections to the "universal background" checks system. It sounds great, and pro-gun control people argue "how can you be against it?" but the fact is that it isn't as advertised, it won't do what it is claimed it will do, as such it is yet another impediment to lawful gun owners. |
| 2013-03-08 2:31 PM in reply to: #4652238 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 11:27 AM firstnet911 - 2013-03-08 1:07 PM One doesn't need a license for speech or religion, but I have the sense that most gun owners aren't opposed to the idea of requiring people to get licenses to carry guns. Likewise, my sense is, perhaps I'm mistaken, that most (or many, at least) gun owners aren't opposed to enhancing the existing background checks to ensure that people with criminal records and a history of violent mental illness are prevented from having access to guns. jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-08 11:43 AM scorpio516 - 2013-03-08 9:40 AM It’s frustrating, because I see an opportunity to make some genuine progress towards enacting some of the changes that even many gun advocates agree with (universal background checks, e.g.) and it’s going to end up getting derailed because so many people on the anti-gun side can’t get past the “assault rifle” conversation. Even if someone believes that guns are the problem, wouldn’t it make sense to focus on the type of gun that is used in the overwhelming number of crimes, rather than the kind that was used in a couple of highly-publicized ones? It’s like saying trying to address the problem of traffic accidents by making it illegal to own cars that can go over 150mph when the vast majority of accidents are caused by cars going a lot slower. Left Brain - 2013-03-07 4:21 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:14 PM Left Brain - 2013-03-07 2:58 PM True, but by the same token, one can point out over and over that more guns does not automatically mean less crime either (using the Houston vs NYC argument, for example), and the pro-gun crowd will turn an equally deaf ear. My point is that there doesn't seem to be any relationship between quantity of guns in a population sample and the amount of violent crime in that same sample, one way or the other. DanielG - 2013-03-07 2:52 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2013-03-07 3:02 PM In the end, I think it's pretty obvious that crime statistics are a vastly complex thing that is driven by hundreds of factors-- regional, socioeconomic, geographic, even meteorological, and it defies being tied statistically to any one factor, whether it's gun ownership, poverty, etc. Which ends up being a pro-rights argument. More guns does not equate to more crime. That's all that any study has actually been able to find. So, it's a Constitutional right. In order to restrict that right further, there needs be an alteration to the amendment, not just ignoring of it. You can point that out over and over (I do) and what you will get is a deaf ear. There is really NOT A SINGLE SHRED of data, even anecdotal, that says otherwise, but the anti-gun crown will completely ignore that fact. OK, we agree.....then what difference does it make how many or what kind of guns we have? (I can give you a hint if you want) I was riding the commuter train into Boston yesterday, and saw a sign that took up almost all of the back side of Fenway. It basically said that 6550 children have been killed by guns since 2000, we need to ban assault rifles! Never mind the fact that ~6500 of those deaths wern't caused by assault rifles, and probably ~6000 wern't even cause by rifle or shotgun rounds, but handguns. Of course I couldn't do anything about it, or tell anyone about it, and I was too busy getting pissed about the faulty logic of the ad to notice who put it up... I don't know any "gun advocates" that agree with universal background checks. Would anyonne agree to universal background checks on free speech or freedom of religion?
How about background checks before people are allowed to vote. $25 for the verification plus a photo ID before you go and vote each year. Would you object to that? |
| 2013-03-08 2:35 PM in reply to: #4652384 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread crusevegas - 2013-03-08 3:31 PM
How about background checks before people are allowed to vote. $25 for the verification plus a photo ID before you go and vote each year. Would you object to that? Heyyyy, you're onto something there. We could call it a "Poll Tax" Maybe just to make sure we could have a small test on which party was for/against what issues, just to make sure the people were well versed in the vote. We could call that a "Literacy Test" |
| 2013-03-08 3:28 PM in reply to: #4643301 |
| Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread |
| 2013-03-08 3:46 PM in reply to: #4643301 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Brock Samson - 2013-03-08 2:28 PM The other problem with "universal background checks" is that as proposed they are not universal. Because of privacy rights, and HIPA restrictions, and legislation in the individual states, mental health treatment records may not be subject to being included in the "universal" background checks. Those that are involuntarily civilly committed due to mental illness would be captured, but individuals that voluntarily seek mental health treatment and may be diagnosed with severe mental illness will not be caught in the reporting requirements of the "universal" background checks. Thus, even if the proposed "universal background" checks as currently proposed were passed without alteration, it probably would never have caught the Newtown shooter. His mental health issues simply would not be the subject of current reporting requirements.
That's one of the objections to the "universal background" checks system. It sounds great, and pro-gun control people argue "how can you be against it?" but the fact is that it isn't as advertised, it won't do what it is claimed it will do, as such it is yet another impediment to lawful gun owners. Makes sense. But, hypotheticaly, if it were possible to remove those restrictions-- let's say that laws were passed that would give those authorized to conduct background checks access to all of a person's mental health records-- would you be in favor of them (background checks)? Or are you fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of background checks as a prerequisite for gun ownership? Clearly there are many who are. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK