Ok whats the rate vs say 1975? Last year was actually a spike. Whats the rate from 50 or 40 or 30 years ago? Tell us that Scott Betts. Use your internet powers to save us all from ourselves, because YOU seem to think we cant find out on our own. (hint: its more than 2%)
Here, Ill do it for you From those "gun-nuts at Berkely
What do you think that shows, TheWhiteknife? Do you think it shows that we don't have a violent gun crime problem in America? Do you think it shows that everything that ought to be done is already being done? Do you think that's as fast as gun crime can possibly drop?
Or are you looking at moderate decreases in gun-related deaths and saying, "That's good enough,"?
I ignore you because I dream of a future where not only crime is down, but being a jerk and relying on demonisation of one's opponents is too.
Frankly, you deserve to be demonized for opposing gun control on the grounds that the rate at which people are dying is slowly dropping. But I'm not setting out to demonize you. I'm just holding up a mirror and a bright enough light.
How many people have been killed by their own govenrnment in the last 100 years? 300 million? more? And more are killed EVERY SINGLE DAY.
And I'm all for putting a stop to that, wherever it happens. But you're supporting gun rights so that you can fight off a fictional invading or occupying force - something that will never happen here. I'm supporting gun control so that we can further curb our gun violence problem - something that happens here daily.
I reject the idea of American exceptionalism. We are no diferent than anyone else. Bigger now, sure. But not different
We're not exceptional, that's true. But it's just as wrong to say that we're no different from anyone else. That is a narrow view and lacks the nuanced understanding that this requires.
Ok whats the rate vs say 1975? Last year was actually a spike. Whats the rate from 50 or 40 or 30 years ago? Tell us that Scott Betts. Use your internet powers to save us all from ourselves, because YOU seem to think we cant find out on our own. (hint: its more than 2%)
Here, Ill do it for you From those "gun-nuts at Berkely
I ignore you because I dream of a future where not only crime is down, but being a jerk and relying on demonisation of one's opponents is too.
I think we can do better. I also find the level of violence we've had to be unacceptable. Yes it's trending down, but it should just be lower as well.
The best deterrence to crime is increasing the chance of being caught. I'd like to hear a suggestion on how we can increase the chance that people who deal in black/grey market guns will be caught.
Right, I forgot youre the guy who thinks Civil Rights are for "monsters"
Youre the guy whose proposed solution for those living in high crime areas is to, and I quote, "move".
Show me. Show me right now, where Ive said, "its good enough". You cant, because I havent. Ive proposed for months now that you should work on fixing the underlying causes of violence, not the symptoms. "Fixing" the symptoms with civil liberty crushing and highly rascist ideas, I might add.
But to address your strawman, Ill once again state: Being anti-registry and anti-ban =/= wanting to watch kids die for the lulz.
I think we can do better.
I agree
I also find the level of violence we've had to be unacceptable. Yes it's trending down, but it should just be lower as well.
I agree, again.
The best deterrence to crime is increasing the chance of being caught.
I disagree. The best deterrence is not putting people in situations where they feel they HAVE to turn to crime.
I'd like to hear a suggestion on how we can increase the chance that people who deal in black/grey market guns will be caught.
End the black market?
But seriously, Kirth had a treasure trove of great ideas just upthread.I would add "quit voting for Republicans and/or Democrats" to his list, tho.
Right, I forgot youre the guy who thinks Civil Rights are for "monsters"
Youre the guy whose proposed solution for those living in high crime areas is to, and I quote, "move".
I agreed with the move comment, IIRC. Since the context wasn't "high crime areas", but locations where you were likely to need to fight off multiple determined armed attackers just to survive.
That's not a high crime area, that's a war zone.The example was given as a reason you'd need an assault weapon with a large magazine.
So if you dont like our gun laws, just move.
Seems rather silly doesnt it?
Edit- And anyways, I just checked. Nope, my memory served correct. copy/paste:
sharoth wrote:
Hey Scott.
Hi, Sharoth.
Quote
My home HAS been broken into twice and several people around here have been broken into too.
That's awful.
Quote
So I should move JUST because I live in an area that has crime?
It sounds like crime is a pretty huge issue in your area. If my home were broken into multiple times, and I knew that such break-ins were both common and ongoing, yeah, I'd probably move based on that alone. Especially if I had kids. You might want to consider doing the same.
Quote
WHERE should I move to,
Somewhere with a crime rate of less than oh-god-someone's-in-the-house.
Scott Betts Everybody! If you dont like it, just move!
So if you dont like our gun laws, just move.
Many of us have moved to areas of the country where our politics are more closely-aligned with those around us.
That doesn't really help the violence levels in all the other areas, now, though, does it?
Right, I forgot youre the guy who thinks Civil Rights are for "monsters"
And you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. Good lord.
Youre the guy whose proposed solution for those living in high crime areas is to, and I quote, "move".
Someone mentioned that they had been the victims of something like three armed robberies within a one-year period. I suggested they move, because staying there is a death wish. Clearly, that was so unreasonable of me that you think it deserves to be brought up in a completely new thread as an example of how morally bankrupt I am.
Of course.
Show me. Show me right now, where Ive said, "its good enough". You cant, because I havent.
Well seeing as how its been trending downward almost every year for the last 40 years, I fail to see why we need to do anything.
"Crime rates are falling slowly, therefore we don't need to do anything because 'falling slowly' is good enough for me."
Ive proposed for months now that you should work on fixing the underlying causes of violence, not the symptoms.
You mean like gun ownership? We've already demonstrated that gun ownership has a causal effect on incidence of suicide.
We should work on both causes and symptoms.
Your solution is like going to the doctor with an upper respiratory bacterial infection and being sent home with nothing more than advice to, "Wash your hands more often."
"Fixing" the symptoms with civil liberty crushing and highly rascist ideas, I might add.
It's neither of those things. It just makes it a little easier for you to defend if you pretend it is.
Right, I forgot youre the guy who thinks Civil Rights are for "monsters"
Youre the guy whose proposed solution for those living in high crime areas is to, and I quote, "move".
I agreed with the move comment, IIRC. Since the context wasn't "high crime areas", but locations where you were likely to need to fight off multiple determined armed attackers just to survive.
That's not a high crime area, that's a war zone.The example was given as a reason you'd need an assault weapon with a large magazine.
So if you dont like our gun laws, just move.
Seems rather silly doesnt it?
Edit- And anyways, I just checked. Nope, my memory served correct. copy/paste:
sharoth wrote:
Hey Scott.
Hi, Sharoth.Quote
My home HAS been broken into twice and several people around here have been broken into too.
That's awful.Quote
So I should move JUST because I live in an area that has crime?
It sounds like crime is a pretty huge issue in your area. If my home were broken into multiple times, and I knew that such break-ins were both common and ongoing, yeah, I'd probably move based on that alone. Especially if I had kids. You might want to consider doing the same.Quote
WHERE should I move to,
Somewhere with a crime rate of less than oh-god-someone's-in-the-house.Scott Betts Everybody! If you dont like it, just move!
I'm actually really glad you posted this. I gave Sharoth exactly the advice I would give a friend in the same situation, so if you're trying to make me eat my own words or something I don't think it's going to work out the way you want it to.
Im pretty sure Sharoth wasnt talking a hypothetical. He (she?) seemed to say that it actually happened to him. But he should move. I wonder why he didnt think of it before.
Everyone, move! Before those civil right monsters get you!
Or the hypothetical border ranch besieged by Mexican smugglers.
Probably my favorite volley from that thread.
Im pretty sure Sharoth wasnt talking a hypothetical. He (she?) seemed to say that it actually happened to him. But he should move. I wonder why he didnt think of it before.
Everyone, move! Before those civil right monsters get you!
I wondered that, too. If I were under constant threat of armed home invasion, I would find somewhere else to live, too. Even if I were a highly-trained former soldier who regularly maintained both his weapons and his combat skills (somehow), I'd still feel safer moving to a lower-crime neighborhood than trusting that I'll manage to repel such an invasion without being in serious danger of losing my life in the process.
Are you seriously telling me that if you had been the victim of multiple armed robberies in your home in a short period, you wouldn't be doing everything you can to move?
After all, you're the one that's always pushing for addressing the underlying problem rather than the symptoms. Finding a new neighborhood with less crime would address the problem. Buying an AR-15 so you can repel a home invader is just addressing the symptom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any of that boosts your safety more than a gun in the house does.
Given that having a gun in the house actually decreases your safety, making a ham sandwich would have a greater net positive impact on your safety.
Frankly, I'd suggest alarms. A dog, if you can have and like them. Maybe work on a Neighborhood watch type of organization.
Moving is an option, if possible.
Any of that boosts your safety more than a gun in the house does.
Id suggest all that too. What I wouldnt suggest is that we infringe upon the civil liberties of everyone else within the neighborhood, just to be safer.
After all, you're the one that's always pushing for addressing the underlying problem rather than the symptoms. Finding a new neighborhood with less crime would address the problem. Buying an AR-15 so you can repel a home invader is just addressing the symptom.
Finding a new neighborhood would do absolutely nothing to address the problem. Staying and addressing the problem would be addressing the problem. If sharoth moves, his neighborhood doesnt just go away. I assumed that you would know that.
And I apologize, you didnt call civil rights activists monsters. you simply stated that those who elevate civil rights as their number one priority have monstrous priorities.
Because that's completely different.
And by "elevate civil rights as their number one priority" you mean "gun rights", correct?
Because that's the only "civil liberty" any of the suggested solutions might infringe. And only marginally at that, since we're talking about registration and checks to avoid selling to certain criminals. Or possibly bans on certain types of weapons.
And pretty much only in the US is owning a gun considered a civil liberty at all. Basically any where else in the world, including some pretty nice places, that arguably treat their citizens better, this wouldn't even be part of the discussion.
Ummm no. Background checks are very much a search without probable cause that a crime has been comitted. I wouldnt consider the 4th amendment as strictly a "gun right". Remember when the left was up in arms over Bush's abuses against the Fourth? Where are they now? And Mexico, for one, has a constitutionally protected right to keep arms. They only have one licensed dealer in the whole country, if memory serves. (which might be why there is so much smuggling on the border.)
Cmon, thejeff, you know that I argue for more than just the second. I think its rather unbecoming of you to suggest otherwise.
EDIT- Remember that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights that applies to citizens. Everything contained within, restricts the government from doing something. It ONLY applies to the government. If you do not see the problem with the logic of forcing citizens to plead to the government to allow them to own something that the government isnt allowed to deny to them (with few exceptions), then I dont know what to tell you.
|
The Constitution is not holy writ. We have a gun problem, and the Constitution is getting in the way of solving it. That's okay, though. It wouldn't be the first time we've had to rework the Constitution in order to make anything like real progress.We have an alternative, it is called the Constitution........
We do NOT have a gun problem, we have a violent criminal trash problem.
Yep once you get rid of the constitution and all freedoms it assures us you and yours can dictate how we live to your heart's content.
Yep once you get rid of the constitution and all freedoms it assures us you and yours can dictate how we live to your heart's content.The Constitution is not holy writ. We have a gun problem, and the Constitution is getting in the way of solving it. That's okay, though. It wouldn't be the first time we've had to rework the Constitution in order to make anything like real progress.We have an alternative, it is called the Constitution........
We do NOT have a gun problem, we have a violent criminal trash problem.
Dont worry Andrew, thats just his way of pretending that anyone is seeking to pass an actual amendment.
|
|
So if you dont like our gun laws, just move.Many of us have moved to areas of the country where our politics are more closely-aligned with those around us.
That doesn't really help the violence levels in all the other areas, now, though, does it?
You are right, new york and chicago are both very anti gun. working out for you guys yey?
Interestingly, Chicago, NYC, and LA prosecuted the fewest gun crimes in the country.
No. But you agree to the background check in order to make the purchase, so it should be fine. Much like background checks for security clearances and the like. The only reason to object is because it's a gun which you have a 2nd amendment right to.And Mexico has so much gun smuggling because there's a drug war going on over the border. Yes, I suppose if guns were as easily available there, they wouldn't need to smuggle them, but that's sort of defeating the purpose.
Yes, you do argue for other things. Generally against anything "statist". :)
But in this context, gun rights seemed pretty obviously the focus.
Sure, I can live with background checks for handguns. But I dont pretend that theyre Constitutional in the least.
So then, the obvious answer is to start ending the drug war. No ones liberty is hurt and the desired result (less gun violence) is achieved. Seems pretty win-win to me.
Well, yeah, right now, Im focusing on gun rights in a gun rights thread. Just like I rail against the Patriot Act and indefinite detention and police brutality and assassinations in other threads. It seemed that you were trying to pigeon-hole me as one of "those" who sees no problem with Republican-backed civil rights violations. I apologize if I mis-read you.
I am cruious. Have you ever adressed a problem like that? I mean, have you ever, with your gun, make a neighborhood safer?
After all, you're the one that's always pushing for addressing the underlying problem rather than the symptoms. Finding a new neighborhood with less crime would address the problem. Buying an AR-15 so you can repel a home invader is just addressing the symptom.Finding a new neighborhood would do absolutely nothing to address the problem. Staying and addressing the problem would be addressing the problem. If sharoth moves, his neighborhood doesnt just go away. I assumed that you would know that.
No, Ive never used a gun to make a neighbor hood safer. Who said to use a gun to make it safer?
But, yes, I have volunteered for neighborhood watch. Yes, I have taken part in charity drives to feed and house the homeless. Yes, I have been involved in youth outreach, and petitioning (unsuccessfully 8( ) to allow a proposed arcade to be built (it was the 90s) to give youth a place to hang out. All of which increased neighborhood safety, without infringing upon anyone.Did you mis read my post or is this an attempted strawman?
EDIT- Infuriatingly, the Borough wouldnt allow the arcade to be built because they were afraid that a bunch of teenagers would always be "hanging around". Pulling my hair out, I could only think, "thats the point...."
|
|
I am cruious. Have you ever adressed a problem like that? I mean, have you ever, with your gun, make a neighborhood safer?
After all, you're the one that's always pushing for addressing the underlying problem rather than the symptoms. Finding a new neighborhood with less crime would address the problem. Buying an AR-15 so you can repel a home invader is just addressing the symptom.Finding a new neighborhood would do absolutely nothing to address the problem. Staying and addressing the problem would be addressing the problem. If sharoth moves, his neighborhood doesnt just go away. I assumed that you would know that.
So NY and Chicago are so safe for all that gun control compared to my home town with a murder rate of much less than once a year where many of us keep shotguns in our cars and no one flinches at the sight of a pistol at one's side?
So NY and Chicago are so safe for all that gun control compared to my home town with a murder rate of much less than once a year where many of us keep shotguns in our cars and no one flinches at the sight of a pistol at one's side?
Is your hometown comparable in population and population density to NYC or Chicago?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So..........fix that maybe?
There are literally a thousand ideas on these boards alone (probably) that could be tried. End some of the more oppressive federal agencies/laws, like DHS, DEA, fusion centers, war on terror, American imperialism etc etc. and taxes wouldnt even have to be raised, or raised that much. Hell go with the build a billion off shore turbines plan or whatever. Beats jailing more people and further degrading our liberty.
Finding a new neighborhood would do absolutely nothing to address the problem.
Of course it would.
The problem is, "I am often the victim of home invasion robberies."
The underlying cause is that you live in a neighborhood with high crime rates.
The symptom of living in that neighborhood is the robberies.
Moving solves the underlying problem. You no longer live in the neighborhood. You will no longer be victimized (anywhere near as often).
Owning an AR-15 addresses the symptom. It is designed to be used when you're already being victimized. It will not prevent you from being robbed in the future, but it might (might) help you deal with that next robbery when it happens.
Staying and addressing the problem would be addressing the problem. If sharoth moves, his neighborhood doesnt just go away. I assumed that you would know that.
"This is an awful neighborhood," isn't the problem we're discussing.
"I keep getting robbed," is the problem.
The former is a society-level problem, and as a sole actor there's not much you can do about it. The latter is a personal problem, and one you as an individual are equipped to deal with.
The rest of your post is trash.
End the black market?
Okay, so I ask the question: How would you reduce access to guns for criminals?
And your answer is: just make it easier for them to get the guns.
I was going to respond...but have decided I have broken one of my internet policies too much of late...that is don't get involved in political discussions on message boards.
So I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finding a new neighborhood would do absolutely nothing to address the problem.Of course it would.
The problem is, "I am often the victim of home invasion robberies."
The underlying cause is that you live in a neighborhood with high crime rates.
The symptom of living in that neighborhood is the robberies.
Moving solves the underlying problem. You no longer live in the neighborhood. You will no longer be victimized (anywhere near as often).
Without getting into the minituae of "I live in a high crime area, I need an AR-15"--I generally find that people who live in high crime areas can't move away because they are poor and that's why they live in high crime areas to begin with.
The Second Amendment does not address the question either yea or nay. But it's a given that none of the Bill of Rights provision are absolute.
Youre right. But the Fourth Amendment definitely cover searches without a probable cause. In fact, thats the only thing it covers.
If the First Amendment is not an absolute right. (you can be jailed for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater after all), why should the Second be?
Youre right, one's usuage of one's rights is limited. One cant yell "fire', just like one cant murder people. What we dont do is straight up ban certain words from ever being spoken or demand that people subject themselves to a search if they plan on using certain words or phrases.
Supplemental: The text of the Second Amendment refers to the right to bear arms in the context of a militia. It's generally an accepted fact that militias are units that have commanders and presumably rules and regulations attached to them. So it can be argued that the Second Amendment DOES provide not only a doorway but a reason for background checks and other regulation of firearm posession.
First off, if the second stated "A well rounded breakfast being important to an awesome day, the rights of the people to eat and enjoy bacon shall not be infringed."; would you interpret it to mean that bacon could only be eaten for breakfast?
Secondly, youre telling me that I have to fill out papers that say that if we go to war, the State has every right to force me into conscription or be locked in a cage, and Im not the militia?
End the black market?Okay, so I ask the question: How would you reduce access to guns for criminals?
I wouldnt. I would make it so that there would be less criminals to begin with.
Without getting into the minituae of "I live in a high crime area, I need an AR-15"--I generally find that people who live in high crime areas can't move away because they are poor and that's why they live in high crime areas to begin with.Finding a new neighborhood would do absolutely nothing to address the problem.Of course it would.
The problem is, "I am often the victim of home invasion robberies."
The underlying cause is that you live in a neighborhood with high crime rates.
The symptom of living in that neighborhood is the robberies.
Moving solves the underlying problem. You no longer live in the neighborhood. You will no longer be victimized (anywhere near as often).
That's absolutely true. Imperfect mobility is a very, very real problem. That said, there are a lot of other reasons why people choose not to move, and very few of them experience the frequency of violent victimization that we were suggesting justifies a move.
The point is that investing resources in moving (for instance, the roughly $1,000 cost of an AR-15) is going to be both more productive and much safer than going out and buying a semi-automatic rifle for "home defense".
This seems like a discussion that might enjoy some data as a break from growling at each other. :)
Data crunchers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but..um... I got nothing.
Thanks.
It's interesting that, for all the hew and cry about Illinois and New York, the conservative, gun-loving bastions of Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Arkansas all have higher per capita gun murder rates, despite their much less urban populations.
Heck, Illinois is in 23rd place - essentially no different than the country on average.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, if the second stated "A well rounded breakfast being important to an awesome day, the rights of the people to eat and enjoy bacon shall not be infringed."; would you interpret it to mean that bacon could only be eaten for breakfast?
Secondly, youre telling me that I have to fill out papers that say that if we go to war, the State has every right to force me into conscription or be locked in a cage, and Im not the militia?
It's not worth trying to argue against the 2nd amendment as written. It's bunk, of course, from any reasonable perspective, but its stalwart defenders don't care. Instead, let them know that you don't give a damn about what's written in the 2nd amendment - the Constitution is a living, mutable, interpretable document designed in both explicit and implicit ways to adapt to the needs of the country, and that the rights enumerated within are not justified by their presence on the paper, but rather by the rational basis for their being enshrined as rights; those rights deserve to be re-evaluated on occasion.
In other words, when they wrap themselves in the "armor" of the Constitution, remind them that, for all the pomp and circumstance, in the end they're really just wearing paper.
I wouldnt. I would make it so that there would be less criminals to begin with.
End the black market?Okay, so I ask the question: How would you reduce access to guns for criminals?
I'm willing to talk about other issues, such as poverty and education. I'm HUGELY in favor of trying to address those problems. I've been writing papers on things like welfare reform for over half my life.
Right now though, this topic is about managing criminal access to firearms. All I'm getting from you is a giant sidestep. You seem unwilling to do anything to try to prevent criminals from getting guns. We have criminals in this country, no matter what there will always be some level of criminal activity. Do you think criminals, not ordinary citizens but criminals, should have free and unfettered access to firearms?
That's absolutely true. Imperfect mobility is a very, very real problem. That said, there are a lot of other reasons why people choose not to move, and very few of them experience the frequency of violent victimization that we were suggesting justifies a move.
The point is that investing resources in moving (for instance, the roughly $1,000 cost of an AR-15) is going to be both more productive and much safer than going out and buying a semi-automatic rifle for "home defense".
You're right. Someone living in, say, Camden, NJ, would be better off purchasing a Saturday night special rather than an AR-15.
It's interesting that, for all the hew and cry about Illinois and New York, the conservative, gun-loving bastions of Louisiana, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Arkansas all have higher per capita gun murder rates, despite their much less urban populations.
Interesting, but not surprising, seeing as how two of those states are (MI and AR) are the two poorest states and the other two are also on the Top 10 Poorest States.