I'm sure the NRA will have something sensible and well-reasoned to say about this.well. (http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-in-the-middle-of-todays-active-shooting-at-a-colorado-high-school-the-nra-tweets-this/news/2013/12/13/80244#.UquYy-LDtIp)
I've got a better idea than arguing this argument for the 10th time.
How about we find what's causing people to do this. What makes someone think it's a good idea? Last I checked it didn't happen a few decades ago. Is it because of the media's obsession with violence? Is it because there seems to be little other way to solve some problems other than violence? What's changed since the 1980s? It isn't gun laws, those have gotten stricter.
I've got a better idea than arguing this argument for the 10th time. How about we find what's causing people to do this. What makes someone think it's a good idea? Last I checked it didn't happen a few decades ago. Is it because of the media's obsession with violence? Is it because there seems to be little other way to solve some problems other than violence? What's changed since the 1980s? It isn't gun laws, those have gotten stricter.
here in New York too. And Oregon. And Michigan. And Washington...
I can keep going.
Two petrol bombs were also found inside the school.
Nope. He was white.
Ironbite-everyone knows terrorists can't be white.
You can keep discrediting gun control legislation all you want, but the fact is that it's severely reduced gun crimes in just about every other developed nation where it's been tried.
As for the laws getting "stricter", I don't buy it.
Nope. He was white.
Ironbite-everyone knows terrorists can't be white.
Sorry, but just because you don't believe facts doesn't mean they're not true. California, New York, and other states or cities have maintained the provisions of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, a rather silly bill loaded with nigh-useless laws that included attempts to regulate the frightening appearance of certain guns and had virtually zero effect on actual gun crime during its 10 years in service across the nation.
Nope. He was white.
Ironbite-everyone knows terrorists can't be white.
Unless they're Irish. Or is that only in the UK?
I honestly hate the United States, probably more than anyone here does.
We're a divided country with no real clear lines. Which is mostly forgivable. What's not forgivable is what we're divided on. The right wing is determined to drag us back to the pre-Civil War era, and the left wing is too busy bickering with itself to drag us forward.
It's one of those cases where Britain, with all of its problems, still feels like an improvement over the USA.
Please provide actual evidence that introduction of gun control into a country that lacked it caused a long-term decrease in crime.Why would anyone bother? Every time Australia is mentioned as an example of gun control successfully reducing violent crime, the gun nuts just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
Please provide actual evidence that introduction of gun control into a country that lacked it caused a long-term decrease in crime.Why would anyone bother? Every time Australia is mentioned as an example of gun control successfully reducing violent crime, the gun nuts just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
In other words:LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
In other words:LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
.....wait, hang on.
You literally just did the "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" tactic yourself by accusing me of doing it to you.
What the fuck?
Kind of, Chit asked for one specific example, was given a very solid one, and then came up with a bunch of ad hoc "problems" with the case study. That is the problem with case studies, anyone can say "but-for this element, the result would be different, it proves nothing" no matter how strong the link is, anyone can create an ad hoc problem.
In other words, Mant could post anything and Chit would find a problem with it. Such are the rules of the board. That isn't examining the evidence objectively, that's "I want my penis compensators and will manipulate the facts I accept to get the result I wish."
I've got a better idea than arguing this argument for the 10th time. How about we find what's causing people to do this. What makes someone think it's a good idea?Lol, look at this deflection complete with ignorance of biopsychosocial causes. The best part is the assumption that there are rational motives. Here let me summarize this for you:
Last I checked it didn't happen a few decades ago. Is it because of the media's obsession with violence? Is it because there seems to be little other way to solve some problems other than violence? What's changed since the 1980s? It isn't gun laws, those have gotten stricter.You just willfully ignored Columbine, a textbook example of 'psychopath shoots up a school'.
In the last major gun debate thread, chitoryu12 was the one who posted the NRA propaganda video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo) from 2000 that declared the 1996 gun reforms a failure due to a spike in violence in 1997-98. So two years was long enough for him to declare gun control a failure, but 17 years is too short to declare it a success. This is the kind of bullshit we used to call skyfire out on.
In the last major gun debate thread, chitoryu12 was the one who posted the NRA propaganda video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyS3CEIbpJo) from 2000 that declared the 1996 gun reforms a failure due to a spike in violence in 1997-98. So two years was long enough for him to declare gun control a failure, but 17 years is too short to declare it a success. This is the kind of bullshit we used to call skyfire out on.
Kind of like how the anti-gun nuts stick their fingers in their ears when asked if it would even be (physically) possible to implement and enforce such draconian legislation in the U.S. or if there would even be any appreciable benefit given the huge number of guns already floating around the U.S.Please provide actual evidence that introduction of gun control into a country that lacked it caused a long-term decrease in crime.Why would anyone bother? Every time Australia is mentioned as an example of gun control successfully reducing violent crime, the gun nuts just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
Kind of like how the anti-gun nuts stick their fingers in their ears when asked if it would even be (physically) possible to implement and enforce such draconian legislation in the U.S. or if there would even be any appreciable benefit given the huge number of guns already floating around the U.S.Please provide actual evidence that introduction of gun control into a country that lacked it caused a long-term decrease in crime.Why would anyone bother? Every time Australia is mentioned as an example of gun control successfully reducing violent crime, the gun nuts just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
Honestly, have you even looked at the Aussie laws? They make the Canadian registration days look like the wild, wild west by comparison. Anything above a bolt action rimfire or break barrel shotgun requires a 'need' before you can acquire the permits necessary to buy one. That's just for a bolt action center fire rifle, the restrictions get even tougher for things like pumps shotguns and semiauto weapons.
Kind of like how the anti-gun nuts stick their fingers in their ears when asked if it would even be (physically) possible to implement and enforce such draconian legislation in the U.S. or if there would even be any appreciable benefit given the huge number of guns already floating around the U.S.Please provide actual evidence that introduction of gun control into a country that lacked it caused a long-term decrease in crime.Why would anyone bother? Every time Australia is mentioned as an example of gun control successfully reducing violent crime, the gun nuts just stick their fingers in their ears and go "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
Honestly, have you even looked at the Aussie laws? They make the Canadian registration days look like the wild, wild west by comparison. Anything above a bolt action rimfire or break barrel shotgun requires a 'need' before you can acquire the permits necessary to buy one. That's just for a bolt action center fire rifle, the restrictions get even tougher for things like pumps shotguns and semiauto weapons.
Gotta ask Illusive (when he isn't being a husk, anyway) : Were there any prior actions of his that would indicate a psychological break? Was there cause to believe he'd be this stupid?I will put this in simple terms for you:
Gotta If I were you, I'd be asking how he got the gun, because 99 times out of 100 for crimes like this, it was stolen or otherwise obtained illegally.[citation needed]
I'm pretty sure I've said this before but I'll say it again: this is one of those topics that everyone's already picked out their sides on the issue and they have no intention of changing their minds so all this "debate" boils down to is a thinly veiled "You're an asshole" statement. Nothing ever changes except for the resentment that comes from it so it's one of those things just best left alone unless you're actively seeking a drama-fest.
I'm no longer using that video as evidence, as I looked closer at it and saw the mistakes (willful or otherwise) that were made in producing the video.Sure, but by using that video you tacitly endorsed Australia as a case study for gun control. You had absolutely no qualms when you thought the facts supported your beliefs. Now that you know they don't, you make excuses for why Australia can't be used. A classic example of fundie behaviour.
Kind of like how the anti-gun nuts stick their fingers in their ears when asked if it would even be (physically) possible to implement and enforce such draconian legislation in the U.S. or if there would even be any appreciable benefit given the huge number of guns already floating around the U.S.Oh look, it's the good old "The USA is a special snowflake" argument. Do you employ this same argument when discussing the prospect of the US adopting a single-payer, socialised heath care system?
Kind of like how the socialists stick their fingers in their ears when asked if it would even be (physically) possible to implement and enforce such draconian legislation in the U.S. or if there would even be any appreciable benefit given the huge number of sick people already floating around the U.S.See how stupid that looks?
To the thread in general, I'm just gonna go ahead and quote myself from last month.I'm pretty sure I've said this before but I'll say it again: this is one of those topics that everyone's already picked out their sides on the issue and they have no intention of changing their minds so all this "debate" boils down to is a thinly veiled "You're an asshole" statement. Nothing ever changes except for the resentment that comes from it so it's one of those things just best left alone unless you're actively seeking a drama-fest.
Lol, look at this deflection complete with ignorance of biopsychosocial causes. The best part is the assumption that there are rational motives. Here let me summarize this for you:
PSYCHOPATHS ARE DETACHED FROM REALITY. Empathic dysfunction cannot be taught, it has biological causes such as amygdale abnormalities. Such biological causes alter a person’s ability to cognate, learn and communicate. Psychosis cannot be cured because medical technology cannot perform drastic brain reconstruction. Thank the Republicans for holding back avenues of research that could accomplish this.
To the thread in general, I'm just gonna go ahead and quote myself from last month.There are many things regarding this debate on which I do not agree with you, but in this I agree with you fully.I'm pretty sure I've said this before but I'll say it again: this is one of those topics that everyone's already picked out their sides on the issue and they have no intention of changing their minds so all this "debate" boils down to is a thinly veiled "You're an asshole" statement. Nothing ever changes except for the resentment that comes from it so it's one of those things just best left alone unless you're actively seeking a drama-fest.
If y'all want to personally attack each other instead of debating each other's ideas or viewpoints, then take it to flame and burn, please. Y'all know who you are.
Sure, but by using that video you tacitly endorsed Australia as a case study for gun control. You had absolutely no qualms when you thought the facts supported your beliefs. Now that you know they don't, you make excuses for why Australia can't be used. A classic example of fundie behaviour.
It's time to face facts, you're wrong about gun control in Australia. You don't need to admit to me and the forum, you need to admit it to yourself.
To the thread in general, I'm just gonna go ahead and quote myself from last month.There are many things regarding this debate on which I do not agree with you, but in this I agree with you fully.I'm pretty sure I've said this before but I'll say it again: this is one of those topics that everyone's already picked out their sides on the issue and they have no intention of changing their minds so all this "debate" boils down to is a thinly veiled "You're an asshole" statement. Nothing ever changes except for the resentment that comes from it so it's one of those things just best left alone unless you're actively seeking a drama-fest.
I personally enjoy the discussion, and I find it highly condescending when people claim we should shut up about gun control debates. It fits into the taboo narrative.
If y'all want to personally attack each other instead of debating each other's ideas or viewpoints, then take it to flame and burn, please. Y'all know who you are.
THANK YOU! This flaming, raving, drooling & screaming is getting ridiculous!
ETA2: Because I know people will misinterpret it, when I say "gun humpers," I specifically refer to the NRA and other gun-humping talking heads in the media and the republican party. Hence why I qualify it with "it's so mainstream it has shown up here." Because I know someone will try to read me calling Storm, Rookie, and Damen "gun-humpers" which I am not doing...
ETA2: Because I know people will misinterpret it, when I say "gun humpers," I specifically refer to the NRA and other gun-humping talking heads in the media and the republican party. Hence why I qualify it with "it's so mainstream it has shown up here." Because I know someone will try to read me calling Storm, Rookie, and Damen "gun-humpers" which I am not doing...
Wait, the NRA and the Republican party have really been blaming it on mental illness?
That's new, they generally try to pretend it doesn't exist. More hypocrisy from the right, I guess.
ETA2: Because I know people will misinterpret it, when I say "gun humpers," I specifically refer to the NRA and other gun-humping talking heads in the media and the republican party. Hence why I qualify it with "it's so mainstream it has shown up here." Because I know someone will try to read me calling Storm, Rookie, and Damen "gun-humpers" which I am not doing...
Wait, the NRA and the Republican party have really been blaming it on mental illness?
That's new, they generally try to pretend it doesn't exist. More hypocrisy from the right, I guess.
...?
My point is that the Republican party only seems to acknowledge mental illness when it benefits them.
Which was a response to your second ETA
But Ravy, we register cars and other vehicles. Maybe I'm optimistic, but if we and our low population density can successfully register vehicles, I don't know why we can't do so with guns.
And when Canada had a gun registry (they being far less dense as a society) they had results around 75% compliance (which is misleadingly low because a lot of registration was done at the last minute and late. So some of the last minute registrations and all of the late registrations are included in the "non-compliance" section).
Didn't miss much, Queen; Chit and Mant are berating one another.
As for the "US is a special snowflake," it kinda is, in this regard. Each nation is unique, you can't just apply the laws of one nation to another, it won't work unless the laws are incredibly narrow in scope and small in effect. The US is, first and foremost, a huge country, in terms of pure land mass. We're around 25% larger (the US clocks in at 9,826,675 sq. km, whereas Australia is 7,692,024 sq. km), and that's not an insignificant size difference. That's a LOT of area to police, and also a LOT of area in which to hide from the police. Hell, we've still got reasonably successful moonshine (illegal liquor) operations going on, nowadays.
America has a population of approximately 317,000,000 people. If 1% of the population were part of a dedicated anti-gun taskforce, that'd 3,170,000 people spread out across 9,826,675 square kilometers, or one man patrolling an area of around 3.1 square kilometers; not an insignificant area for a single person to attempt to control. That's just the patrolmen; this isn't taking account to the people needed to get the necessary supplies to the patrolmen like food and water, the people needed to keep all their equipment running, the team (or teams) of people coordinating all the necessary logistics, communication personnel, and so on. It'd be a huge undertaking.
The gun laws we have work reasonably well when adequately enforced. We do not need legislation like Australia or the UK. What we need is better enforcement, and for loopholes in unlicensed gun acquisition to be closed. This is far, FAR simpler and doesn't tread on not just an amendment to the Constitution, and by extension the Constitution itself, but the Bill of Rights, something many people consider to be a document of almost equal importance to the Bible. To enforce near-draconian gun control legislation would require the removal of one of the founding rights of our nation, something that's been backed up by generation after generation of legal precedent. Again, that's only if you could find a way to adequately enforce it, which would be a logistical nightmare.
In short, we don't need your laws. We need better enforcement of the ones we've already go in place.
If y'all want to personally attack each other instead of debating each other's ideas or viewpoints, then take it to flame and burn, please. Y'all know who you are.
...?
My point is that the Republican party only seems to acknowledge mental illness when it benefits them.
Which was a response to your second ETA
My prior point is the the mental illness card is a complete red herring that is intended to either play on our fear "the mentally ill have guns and are scary*" or our sympathies "those poor mentally ill just need the proper mental health care." And while we are paranoid of the mentally ill or contemplating proper mental health care, we get off the topic of gun control. The media has not ignored this point. I've heard Rush Limbaugh, I've heard Wayne La Pierre, I've heard Fox news play this card 11 months ago. And the reason we continue to hear this point is because it gets our attention off the point that the more guns a society has the more dangerous it is. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/17/223508595/around-the-world-gun-ownership-and-firearms-deaths-go-together) Not to mention the obvious, the easier it is for ANYONE to get a gun (thanks America) the easier it is for dangerous individuals to get guns.
If y'all want to personally attack each other instead of debating each other's ideas or viewpoints, then take it to flame and burn, please. Y'all know who you are.
Does this apply to my post as well? 'cause I don't think that pointing out that his condescension was unnecessary, as well as ironic, is a personal attack.
In short, we don't need your laws. We need better enforcement of the ones we've already go in place.(click to show/hide)
Can I still claim to be a "gun humper" if I think that gun registrations and licenses are a good thing?
Can I still claim to be a "gun humper" if I think that gun registrations and licenses are a good thing?
Just the same as how you can be a Christian and not beat people over the head with it.
Can I still claim to be a "gun humper" if I think that gun registrations and licenses are a good thing?
Just the same as how you can be a Christian and not beat people over the head with it.
I AM A LIVING PARADOX! This might mean that there are colours other than black and white. That people who aren't with me might not necessarily be against me either... This is way too frightening and complex!
Can I still claim to be a "gun humper" if I think that gun registrations and licenses are a good thing?
Just the same as how you can be a Christian and not beat people over the head with it.
I AM A LIVING PARADOX! This might mean that there are colours other than black and white. That people who aren't with me might not necessarily be against me either... This is way too frightening and complex!
Can I still claim to be a "gun humper" if I think that gun registrations and licenses are a good thing?
Just the same as how you can be a Christian and not beat people over the head with it.
I AM A LIVING PARADOX! This might mean that there are colours other than black and white. That people who aren't with me might not necessarily be against me either... This is way too frightening and complex!
I've said this before, but it bears repeating:
What really needs to happen is a full state-by-state review of gun laws. Get gun owners and law enforcement in on the debate. Look at what's on the books and get rid of all the crap that's unconstitutional, unenforceable, or otherwise completely and utterly ineffective. Then maybe we simplify the code so that people can understand it in a way that won't get the lawyers another paycheck or the police involved. And yes, a neutral party should be involved (within the country).
Yes, it will take time (years, if not decades), it will take patience, and it will mean using one's head for something other than more political BS, but maybe it'll actually get something DONE. One of the big problems with gun laws is that they vary wildly not just state-to-state, but county-to-county as well. A concealed-carry handgun that's legal in one county may be completely illegal in another. I don't think I need to explain how this can cause a lot of problems.
Or we can just go the Australia route. It's been mentioned already, but it reduced crime immediately. Further, even with a growth of about 25% since 1996, the overall crime continues to drop. Finally, the biggest testament to its success, it's not argued over there. If it were a failure or a waste of time, don't you think they'd be complaining "my tax dollars were wasted..."
That took 2 years before the decline began. So why should we waste "decades" when Australia has proven to us that "Yes, additional gun control legislation can and does work."
*Keep in mind, I'm using Australia as a counter-point to Storm's theory that we need to remove gun laws and laxen restrictions on guns. I'm using Australia to say "sometimes, additional gun control can be beneficial, as seen here."
I'd still like to see the actual evidence that the gun laws were responsible for the drop in crime. Again, violent crime in Australia remained quite low until a sudden and unusual short-term spike that led to the passing of the laws. It wasn't like a consistent high trend that lowered only after new laws were passed; it could very easily be a statistical anomaly that's being falsely attributed to particular laws.
Also, how in the bloody hell is "Nobody is publicly arguing against the laws" proof that it works? That's only proof that nobody is publicly arguing against it.
*Keep in mind, I'm using Australia as a counter-point to Storm's theory that we need to remove gun laws and laxen restrictions on guns. I'm using Australia to say "sometimes, additional gun control can be beneficial, as seen here."
*Keep in mind, I'm using Australia as a counter-point to Storm's theory that we need to remove gun laws and laxen restrictions on guns. I'm using Australia to say "sometimes, additional gun control can be beneficial, as seen here."
Words matter...
Let me remind you again, QoH, that the Australia rules won't fly because the ban on common-use firearms was already shot down some time ago by the SCOTUS. We've been over this.
And it bears repeating: don't put words in my mouth again. I'm saying eliminate the laws that don't work. I'm thinking "surgery" when you're trying to accuse me of "extermination." And Queen, I'm not affiliated with the NRA in any way, shape or form. Try the hell again. I go where my conscience dictates. The NRA, the Dems, Repubs, hell, any other political group, doesn't tell me what to think. I go where the facts lead, and I base my conclusions on my own research. And my conclusion is the Australia rules will not fly here.
Sweet Jesus, Ironchew's making sense. I think we've officially entered the End Times, folks.
Sweet Jesus, Ironchew's making sense. I think we've officially entered the End Times, folks.
Seriously, Queen?
So, somehow, eliminating gun laws such as things that only ban certain cosmetic features on firearms, looking into laws that might already be on the books, but haven't been enforced, eliminating unenforceable laws, and making the entire thing so that it can be more easily enforced and work, without compromising anyone's liberties, is "eliminating all gun laws?" And before you start, I'm also of the belief that the "PATRIOT" act needs to be thrown on the bonfire, along with prohibition, the Jim Crow laws, and the "3/5ths" part of the Constitution.
If change can be done using laws that are already on the books (and just haven't been enforced) that'll make it a lot more doable than trying to change the laws en masse in the current political climate.
As for the strawmanning? You first, I insist. You're misrepresentation of my words is beginning to annoy me.
I'm reluctant to pass new laws because we don't know what's already on the books that isn't being enforced for various reasons. I'd rather dig and find out before any new laws are passed, if any are even needed.
You're gonna have a hell of a time getting rid of the 2nd amendment in the current climate. Prohibition was only shut down because of massive public outcry, coupled with the realization that banning alcohol created far more problems than it solved. I like to think that the restoration of alcohol sales helped get the US out of the Depression, but that's just me.
I've been bypassing the 2nd amendment removal for good reason. 1) I'm against it in the first place. People have a right to defend themselves in a reasonable manner. Besides, I'd rather keep or expand civil liberties than eliminate them. 2) Amending it wouldn't be doable in the current climate, and besides, a lot of people would be very reluctant to change one of the original 10 amendments on the bill of rights.
Okay I'm only gonna say this
we need gun laws since for the last time and please stop correcting me this is imperical more successful suicides. Key word successful other methods are more common but you die quicker from a shot to the head
we need gun laws since for the last time and please stop correcting me this is imperical more successful suicides.What the fuck did I just read?!
There are more successful suicides in places with guns.we need gun laws since for the last time and please stop correcting me this is imperical more successful suicides.What the fuck did I just read?!
OKAY ARTIt's not even the terrible grammar. That sentence is more akin to a random jumble of unrelated words.
deep breath
could you not tell by the context. sorry just you know grammar corrections and saying WTF is hard on my mental state which is shattered
Ah. Well, I suppose that's another issue to consider.There are more successful suicides in places with guns.we need gun laws since for the last time and please stop correcting me this is imperical more successful suicides.What the fuck did I just read?!
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/
Because when it's easy to kill yourself, it's much easier to take that fatal step, whereas if you have to actually make an effort to off yourself, the time if takes
The fact that a suicide leads to failure might also mean that the same person will later attempt to kill themselves again and again untill they succeed. I think I've read that most people who commit suicide have in fact tried it before, either failing in it or just changing their mind. Therefore I'm not sure if the availability of firearms has impact on the amount of suicidal people. Even if it does make it more likely for them to succeed in their first attempt, the people who don't have access to guns try repeatedly untill they either succeed (or get help and recover) and therefore the amount of attempted suicides compared to succesful ones is greater.OKAY ARTIt's not even the terrible grammar. That sentence is more akin to a random jumble of unrelated words.
deep breath
could you not tell by the context. sorry just you know grammar corrections and saying WTF is hard on my mental state which is shatteredAh. Well, I suppose that's another issue to consider.There are more successful suicides in places with guns.we need gun laws since for the last time and please stop correcting me this is imperical more successful suicides.What the fuck did I just read?!
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/
Because when it's easy to kill yourself, it's much easier to take that fatal step, whereas if you have to actually make an effort to off yourself, the time if takes