gun control rant thread

Look... this has been going on for weeks... (well, two centuries, actually) with reasonable, well thought out arguments from citizens on both sides. We are not going to solve it here... but the Celebration Ale is making me post yet again.

So.... There are people starving all around us. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans dying from curable stuff and preventable things that the Government could be focusing on with much more dramatic results than gun deaths. Well, I guess if you count war as gun death you could skew it a few k... but I digress. They don't bother and in a lot of cases have cut funding to programs that benefit people who might starve or die of stuff because... you know... hard times. Cliffs... yada, yada... So, WHY (one must ask themselves), when the numbers don't justify the action... why pray-tell would a government body that shows up late for storm relief and disaster recovery, that looks the other way at a lot of other, more deadly things. Things, that must for such a humanitarian government that cares about us all, be a spending priority... spends assloads of energy and cash to leverage an emotional groundswell to get something done about the gun problem when they can't even get together to avoid tanking wall street for Q1? Why would they do that? Surely there must be a reason...

I say it is because they care too much. That must be it. Just like the English and the Aussies.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

rebelgtp wrote:

aircooled wrote: it was the US's industrial might.

Which is all but non existent these days as we produce very little in this country any more.

Please spare me your Red dawn fantasies. They are about as good as the revisiting an oppressive government fantasies. I work in the defense manufacturing sector. If you think a bunch of chubby guys running around with red jacket tacticool machines are a deterrent to the government, you need to do some reading on current satellite surveillance and something called a predator drones. This isn't Syria were the military is held together by a bunch of Russian Cold War cast offs. Also as a proud member of the manufacturing sector in the US, I think you should educate yourself. http://mercatus.org/publication/us-manufacturing-output-vs-jobs-1975 More jobs does not mean more productivity. We produce 18% of the worlds manufactured goods right now. Sure that percentage has fallen as a while, but the actual amount of stuff produced has steadily increased. Your comment about producing very little in this country is poorly worded and plain wrong.

"You're all just a bunch of paranoid psycho gun freaks who think the gov't is out to get you. By the way, the gov't is out to get you. I know. Cuz I work on an assembly line."

Beer Baron wrote: China is hot to disarm US citizens? That's a pretty serious claim to have no source for.

Here's a source for you.

This is your evidence that China wants to disarm US citizens? What am I missing here?

It looks to me like a news article on a Chinese website about the shooting and how gun control has become a big current issue in the US. Where is the "China hot to disarm US citizens" part? If you got that out of this then here is another headline for you: "GRM website hot to disarm US citizens", you know, because the topic is being discussed there also....

rebelgtp wrote:

aircooled wrote: it was the US's industrial might.

...why is China so hot on us disarming our citizens? I am sorry but there is nothing that you can say that will convince me that the fact our citizens have the right to be armed has not deterred other nations that have it in for us. All they have to do is strike up a deal with Mexico to return the land Mexico lost in the past and there they have a foot hold on the continent. In many invaded countries the civilian population is poorly armed at best. Many Americans have firearms that would make any soldier happy to carry.

Doubling down eh? OK, I'll call.

As mentioned previously, China really has no reason to invade the US (what, they hate our capitalism... uh, no) we are there primary source of income. Ignoring that important fact, lets move on to logistics. So... they will partner with Mexico then eh? So Mexico, who's top THREE sources of money in their economy come primarily from the US (oil, tourism, sent money), wants to destroy the US?

OK, lets assume they get past that minor speed bump (cough). You then have the minor issue of a what 7,000 mile supply line across an ocean, which happens to be patrolled by a navy that is probably many time more powerful!?!

I am not saying an occupation of the US would not be a nightmare for the occupying force because of the number of guns in private hands, that is very likely true. But the reality of the situation is that such a scenario is almost non-existent realistically. And one of the primary reasons for that is not all the guns, it's all the water... known as the Pacific and the Atlantic.

I think what you are doing here is what I like to call pulling a Micheal Moore (which makes it a bit funny considering). It's what I like to call an argument point that so ridiculously overstates points of the argument (that otherwise might have reasonable points) so as to serve only to provide ample ammunition (!) to your opponent to. You not only make it easy to dismiss your overstated point, but to effectively weaken any other points you might make (since it shows desperation).

I think there are some valid arguments here, but this really is not one of them.

I would consider being placed in the same realm as Michael Moore a personal attack......just a word of warning from watching this....

yamaha wrote: I would consider being placed in the same realm as Michael Moore a personal attack......just a word of warning from watching this....

I think he knows this. You shouldn't say silly things about china wanting us to ban all guns. That's about makes as much sense as trying to will a fat baby not to fart.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

yamaha wrote: I would consider being placed in the same realm as Michael Moore a personal attack......just a word of warning from watching this....

I think he knows this. You shouldn't say silly things about china wanting us to ban all guns. That's about makes as much sense as trying to will a fat baby not to fart.

And if that's his source, the argument would have to be made that most countries with stricter gun control laws than us want to ban U.S. citizens from having guns so that they can take over.

Look out! Norway wants to disarm all US citizens! They're planning another viking invasion! They know that being larger and better at wielding swords and axes than us, they will be stronger if they take away the advantage our guns provide over them!

Beer Baron wrote: Look out! Norway wants to disarm all US citizens! They're planning another viking invasion!

I welcome our blond, blue eyed, big chested, fit Nordic governesses. We've been bad. Punish us.

I don't think the Brits at The Economist want to invade, but they definitely need to mind their own business.

TTAG summary The paper [.....] recommends a package of gun control laws which, by its own admission, the United State Supreme Court has already struck down. Twice. Recently. “If, as seems probable, this is held to conflict with the constitution, then the constitution needs to be amended.”

A new study from two harvard researchers:
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?

pg. 673 said: in nations that have ex‐ perienced high and rising violent crime rates, the legislative reac‐ tion has generally been to enact increasingly severe antigun laws. This is futile, for reducing gun ownership by the law‐abiding citi‐ zenry—the only ones who obey gun laws—does not reduce vio‐ lence or murder. The result is that high crime nations that ban guns to reduce crime end up having both high crime and stringent gun laws, while it appears that low crime nations that do not signifi‐ cantly restrict guns continue to have low violence rates.

pg. 673 Whether causative or not, the consis‐ tent international pattern is that more guns equal less mur‐ der and other violent crime. Even if one is inclined to think that gun availability is an important factor, the available in‐ ternational data cannot be squared with the mantra that more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death. Rather, if firearms availability does matter, the data consistently show that the way it matters is that more guns equal less violent crime.  

pg 674 said: Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

JoeyM wrote: A new study from two harvard researchers: WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?

harvard boffins said: Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

There is violent crime rate and homicide rate. The statistics I have seen show the UK (for example) to have roughly half the homicide rate of the U.S., but roughly double the violent crime rate.

The paper listed seems to contradict itself as well. It starts out showing that different countries in Europe can have widely divergent gun ownership rates and violent crime rates. Then it goes on to pick a few examples with low gun ownership and high violent crime, and claim that these indicate an inverse relation between gun ownership and violent crime rates.

If we isolate just murder rates, the U.S. is still way up there in the statistics this paper uses. We get beat out only by former Soviet Bloc countries. I'd explain those numbers as more likely being "These are E36 M3ty places to live where people have low hopes in life and are generally angry."

If there is a relation between crime and guns, it looks most likely that gun ownership tends to decrease violent crime, but escalates the severity of crimes committed.

However, I'm not sure I buy that and am more inclined to say that the effects of gun ownership on crime and murder is much less significant than other social factors. I would wager that education, unemployment rate, and quality of life are probably the factors most closely tied to violence and murder.

Beer Baron wrote: However, I'm not sure I buy that and am more inclined to say that the effects of gun ownership on crime and murder is much less significant than other social factors. I would wager that education, unemployment rate, and quality of life are probably the factors most closely tied to violence and murder.

I think that seems reasonable. What - if any - things/thoughts did you hear about guns while training in Germany recently?

JoeyM wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: However, I'm not sure I buy that and am more inclined to say that the effects of gun ownership on crime and murder is much less significant than other social factors. I would wager that education, unemployment rate, and quality of life are probably the factors most closely tied to violence and murder.

I think that seems reasonable. What - if any - things/thoughts did you hear about guns while training in Germany recently?

Not much. Definite impression was of lower gun ownership there. General feeling of safety and security was better than what I felt in big cities in the U.S. Didn't hear about any shootings or anything while I was in Berlin. Break-ins and thefts were a lot more common though.

My German flatmate thought I was kind of stereotypically American when I mentioned owning a gun and that my family had a gun collection. She did not seem bothered or think I was violent or foolish or anything though. Just that owning a collection of guns seemed odd to her. Explaining that many of the guns had been in the family for generations and that many came from a time when people lived on farms out in the country or from military service also made sense to her. She was also fairly liberal leaning even for a continental.

This was also in Berlin, which is not the most representative of Germany as a whole.

I noticed much more attitudes about America and our foreign policy. General consensus was that people really like America and Americans. They disagree with a lot of our policies and don't totally like how active we are militarily in the world, but if there has to be one country being so active, they're pretty glad it's us. Older Berliners definitely feel a lot more positively towards Americans. They were universally glad that the U.S. won WW2.

Beer Baron wrote: They were universally glad that the U.S. won WW2.

Woah there buddy, you had some help from several countries, most of whom were involved for 2 years before the US was forced into action by a really dumb Tojo move.

The Allies won WW2, not the US.

In reply to aussiesmg:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: I welcome our blond, blue eyed, big chested, fit Nordic governesses. We've been bad. Punish us.

Finally, a response in this thread I can agree with.

aussiesmg wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: They were universally glad that the U.S. won WW2.

Woah there buddy, you had some help from several countries, most of whom were involved for 2 years before the US was forced into action by a really dumb Tojo move. The Allies won WW2, not the US.

Fair enough, but the people I spoke to sounded more like they were referring more the the U.S. than all the allies. We are talking Berlin here where the U.S. was the predominant strength for the allied occupying force. Being occupied by the Soviets sucked for them, where the Americans treated them very well.

I suspect many people wished we'd rolled into Berlin before the Soviets had a chance to.

In reply to aussiesmg:

The allies won it, but if the US hadn't entered the war, would the allies have still won? I honestly doubt it. Perhaps a stalemate would have been the outcome instead of total destruction, but by 1941, they weren't in much of a shape to continue.

I think the germans have the positive feelings towards americans mainly due to what the soviet union died to east germany/east berlin. I believe the ones in the west were thankful for the american presence there.

aussiesmg wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: They were universally glad that the U.S. won WW2.

Woah there buddy, you had some help from several countries, most of whom were LOSING for 2 years before the US was forced into action by a really dumb Tojo move. The Allies won WW2, because of the US.

FTFY. No offense to the allies that helped, but without US involvement in both troops, supplies and armament, they were pretty screwed. Hitler already had control over the European Continent, was bombing England into submission and had the Russians on the defense.

Could the US have won in Europe without any help from the French resistance and having a foothold in England? Not in my opinion. But I don't think England could have lasted more than another year before an invasion was immenent from Germany.

I was just thinking that the gun may not be the problem. Would it be too Ez to ban things like. http://www.rapidfiretriggers.com/

Bobzilla wrote:

aussiesmg wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: They were universally glad that the U.S. won WW2.

Woah there buddy, you had some help from several countries, most of whom were LOSING for 2 years before the US was forced into action by a really dumb Tojo move. The Allies won WW2, because of the US.

FTFY. No offense to the allies that helped, but without US involvement in both troops, supplies and armament, they were pretty screwed. Hitler already had control over the European Continent, was bombing England into submission and had the Russians on the defense. Could the US have won in Europe without any help from the French resistance and having a foothold in England? Not in my opinion. But I don't think England could have lasted more than another year before an invasion was immenent from Germany.

same for both of the WW's ... really don't think that the allies could have won either without the US ... then again I don't think the US could have won either without the allies .....

Beer Baron wrote: If we isolate just murder rates, the U.S. is still way up there in the statistics this paper uses. We get beat out only by former Soviet Bloc countries. I'd explain those numbers as more likely being "These are E36 M3ty places to live where people have low hopes in life and are generally angry."

Seems like that observation also applies to our densely populated areas where existing gun laws are the most restrictive and other programs haven't dramatically improved the quality of life; i.e., guns aren't the root cause but they are an important symptom.

Beer Baron wrote: If there is a relation between crime and guns, it looks most likely that gun ownership tends to decrease violent crime, but escalates the severity of crimes committed. However, I'm not sure I buy that and am more inclined to say that the effects of gun ownership on crime and murder is much less significant than other social factors. I would wager that education, unemployment rate, and quality of life are probably the factors most closely tied to violence and murder.

Bingo. Firearm possession/ownership by law-abiding citizens isn't our problem. Creating or enforcing legislation that focuses on actual criminals (and their actions) is a better place to start.

In reply to oldsaw:

And that is where I expect the coalition on decreasing gun crime will find it most effective to start, not with restricting ownership once again. You all may have your expectations, this is where mine are.

Beer Baron wrote: I suspect many people wished we'd rolled into Berlin before the Soviets had a chance to.

"We're going to have to fight the Russians eventually anyway. It might as well be now while we've already got the army here to do it."