Slashdot Mirror
TSA: Gun Discoveries In Baggage Up 20% In 2015 Over 2014 (networkworld.com)
coondoggie writes: There was a 20% increase in firearm discoveries at TSA airport checkins from 2014's total of 2,212. It's an astounding number really, but the details get worse. The TSA goes onto say 2,653 firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at checkpoints across the country, averaging more than seven firearms per day. Of those, 2,198 (83%) were loaded. Firearms were intercepted at a total of 236 airports; 12 more airports than last year. Last year a TSA spokesman, when asked of the TSA has a theory on why so many more guns are being brought onboard airlines, Tweeted “The vast majority of passengers just tell law enforcement, ‘I forgot.’ We continue to remind passengers they can check them.”
Rape and homicide by minorities were also up in 2015 over 2014
Citation, please? Not trivial to find. Google is showing me a lot of stuff written in 2015 about 2013, which is how it usually works.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Why they're non-existent...
Propagandistic (and probably paid for) scare article is propagandistic.
And not a singe terrorist caught.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
It is not surprising that there are ths many attempts, or that most of them are accidental. There are a staggering number of people flying, and a high number of guns in the US.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/) says there were 689 million passenger enplanements. You can do the math, but approximately 2,000 guns found is nowhere near a concerning number. It sounds shocking on the face of it, but with a decade of record gun sales and a strong movement for people to carry concealed, I expected for more to be found.
More people are bringing guns or the TSA is getting better at finding them?
Maybe they just work better to make more discoveries!
Most of the increase in gun violence is in cities where they have passed gun control laws. It's fairly obvious evidence that gun control laws actually have the opposite effect of what they are intended for. Criminals wind up being the only one with guns, and they run rampant and terrorize the law abiding populace.
Women are the majority of gun owners
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160...
Gun ownership among men: 45%
Gun ownership among women: 12%
I live in Sweden: If ONE person here was found to have tried to bring a gun aboard a plane it would be such a sensation that it would be all over the news.
But so forgetful that you leave it in your carry-on accidentally?
It's not like they changed the rule about firearms on planes recently. That kind of irresponsibility should get you on some ATF no-buy list. If you can't be bothered to be cognizant of carrying a weapon, you shouldn't carry one.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Actually, the top 5 cities for violent crime are all cities lack gun control (4 of which are legally banned, by state law, from enacting gun control).
and cities like New York, with its strict gun control, is actually ranked one of the safest cities in the country.
Damn.
So much for your BS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No, it hasn't.
Chicago has not been the murder capital for at least the past 25 years.
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
Damn those pesky facts.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I like how the summary implies horrible things that the majority of the guns were loaded, as if people were intending to do evil things with them. The truth is an unloaded gun is good for nothing more than a paperweight or a very inefficient club. I think this story is reflecting something: namely that more people are beginning to carry guns. What does concern me though is that this could also indicate that a lot of people new to guns are carrying them as well. You should never lose track of where your guns are; that's how guns get lost, stolen, or found(ie kids).
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The public clearly wants to take airport security in their hands. Privatized public security, war lord style.
Most of the increase in gun violence is in cities where they have passed gun control laws. It's fairly obvious evidence that gun control laws actually have the opposite effect of what they are intended for. Criminals wind up being the only one with guns, and they run rampant and terrorize the law abiding populace.
I read your whole comment, and not only does it not contain a citation, but it doesn't even address the point "raised" in "your" prior comment. I conclude that you have no point, and you are a typical trolling AC.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"You forgot?"
You are carrying into an airport the single most effective thing invented for immediate creation of death and destruction. An item so effective is it not only regulated but supposedly the only thing standing between individual liberty and tyranny.
But you can't remember where you put it?
A gun isn't a a missing ingredient from your 1,000 ingredient cake recipe. (One hopes.)
The statement itself is a casual disregard for safety that is almost not believable were it not involving that most unreliable of animals, man. I'd almost believe they were simply caught red handed and do not want embarrassment of also being arrrested.
"Oh, I could have stopped that guy mugging me but this is my suede jacket. Left my DeathBringer 5000 in the tweed jacket. At the daycare. Maybe with the safety off. Who knows? Certainly not me."
These previous gun owners will have to deal with loss of their property. But after seeing how poorly some people checked large quantities of ammo (saran wrap in a random case?) one can only say: stupid is and stupid does.
Different AC here. One of the arguments for carrying firearms is that they provide deterrent and protection from violent crimes. Does the lack of gun control cause the high violent crime rate? Does the high violent crime rate encourage firearm ownership and lead to resistance against attempts to implement stricter gun control? Or does correlation not indicate causation in any direction? In many places that have strict restrictions on purchasing guns, those rules can be circumvented by crossing city limits or state lines to neighboring places where it's a lot easier to buy a weapon. There's also no reason to assume that criminals will bother with legally purchasing firearms.
I certainly think some gun control is warranted, but we need to be careful and not give away constitutional rights without carefully measuring the consequences and whether they can be justified by the possible benefits. The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments can be rolled back just as easily, especially once precedents are set. Even if you don't care about owning firearms, it's worth insisting that the government can't easily limit any constitutional right. I've never understood why the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments are strongly defended on this site but the second amendment is considered expendable.
http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2015/07/07/chicagonola.jpg
What's interesting to me is how stunningly higher the murder rates are than the gun-only murder rates: less than 18% of Detroit's murders were committed by a gun.
We should ban whatever they use the other 82% of the time.
Damn those peskier facts.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/crime-patrol-2015-rape-molestation-cases-shoot-up/
Next time, you should maybe consider reading your own links. Unless you think Obummer (heh heh) somehow has an impact on crime rates in India.
Do you really think it's an accident every time? If you were caught in the TSA line with a gun, what do you think would be the "correct" response?
A) "I was planning to hijack the plane, sir."
B) "I was planning to defend the plane in case of a terrorist attack, sir."
C) "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands."
D) "I forgot."
It wouldn't surprise me if there were that many gun-lovers who think they have a right to carry regardless of the circumstances, or at least just like to see what they can get away with. Also makes me wonder how many guns make it past TSA.
As a European, I continue to be utterly bemused/scared by America's obsession with owning guns. I know all the arguments that usually get trotted out, they just sound like crazy talk to me.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments can be rolled back just as easily, especially once precedents are set.
They already have. The second is protected because people want their toys, not because they worry about the constitution.
Trusting mediamatters on something is like trusting pravda to have no propaganda. And mediamatters has a long history of massaging legitimate stats in order to paint an agenda.
Om, nomnomnom...
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Mark Twain
So are more people attempting to transport guns or did the TSA just get better at detecting them?
Both of those are pretty bad things.
Also :
Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW): 153
That is like 1 every 2 days. At least the numbers show where most idiots live. Yes I uses idiot there. They must totally disregard gun safety to do this.
I am really surprised that anyone who attempts to transport a gun does not automatically get added to the no fly list.
"...2,198 (83%) were loaded."
"...The vast majority of passengers just tell law enforcement, ‘I forgot.’"
To address the other 17%, you forgot to do what? Load the damn thing?
I mean hell, if you're going to be THAT forgetful as a gun owner, might as well not even carry around a worthless steel brick.
There is approximately one billion of passengers in United States, an approximate number which includes domestic, international and private aviation helicopters and planes.
Let's crunch some numbers: 2,700 handguns were discovered for one billion boardings equals to approximately one gun per 370,000 passengers.
Let's take into the prospective:
On average, statistically, in this country there is 1.1 weapon per every person. We do not break down by the type of gun or passenger, but three forgetful citizens out of one million is a really really low number.
Here are some sobering conclusions:
1. None of the passengers had intention of using the weapon. Why? Because nobody used. Because if they wanted to they would have.
2. Even if there would be no TSA, the safety would not deteriorate or decrease. Metal detectors manned by the private screeners could detect all the forgotten weapons. More: currently cockpit doors are locked as such, a handgun inside the plane is pretty much useless. Yes: you can shoot a hole or kill a passenger or two, but the rest of passengers will tear you apart.
So it all boils down to how the question is presented:
" Why so many guns were brought to the airport".
The real questions should have been following:
Question: "In a country with 400 million guns only less than 3,000 guns are brought to the airport. All of the owners meant to leave the gun in a checked in bag? Is existence, the cost, and the false sense of security of TSA justified?"
The real answer: "No. One segment fee of $5.60 is an evidence of mind boggling waste and incompetence. This $5.60 will only increase in the future. TSA should be disbanded and handling of the security should be up to the airports and the carriers".
Based on your comments, like most people, you believe that in order for citizens to have a right, it must be granted by the constitution. In fact, it is just the opposite. The constitution grants rights and responsibilities to the government and any responsibility not explicitly granted to the government remains the right of the people. Many of the founders specifically objected to the Bill of Rights for this reason because it made it seem like if the constitution wasn't giving a right to the people, then they didn't have that right. You don't only have the rights in the bill of rights. You have ALL rights unless a specific limitation is put in place in the constitution granting the government dominion over a particular activity. Do not fall into the trap of saying that if it isn't in the Bill of RIghts, it's not a right.
"I forgot" as an excuse for bringing a firearm on a plane should mean you are instantly put on a no-buy and no-fly list, and that any other guns you own must be turned over to authorities.
If you're so irresponsible that you can't remember that you're carrying a firearm, let alone a loaded one, onto a plane, then you're far, far, far too irresponsible to be trusted with a firearm under any circumstances. It very likely means you "forget" to put the guns properly in a safe or "forget" rules of responsible use, or "forget" who the hell knows what.
If you're so paranoid about terrorists that you'll try and sneak a firearm onto a plane "just in case" (and then cowardly enough to lie about why you did it, to boot) then you're probably not mentally stable enough to be a responsible firearm owner and the same rules should apply - no-buy, no-fly and your guns are confiscated.
I don't have a problem with responsible, sane gun ownership, but in no way, shape, or form does bringing a firearm onto a plane in your carry-on unless you're an air marshal, intersect with either "responsible" or "sane."
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments can be rolled back just as easily, especially once precedents are set.
They already have. The second is protected because people want their toys, not because they worry about the constitution.
Project much?
No, it hasn't.
Chicago has not been the murder capital for at least the past 25 years.
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
http://cloudfront.mediamatters...
Damn those pesky facts.
How many of those cities are run by Democrats?
Damn those pesky facts.
You're going to have to use a different reference point. That one has a very severe anti-gun bias and therefore is not trustworthy.
I can see that you extrapolated based on those three columns, but the graphic isn't exactly clear on how they're arriving at those numbers - they could be pulled from two totally different sets of data for all we know. In a clearer statement, "data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders" in 2011.
http://www.nij.gov/topics/crim...
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
They're 20% better at trying to distract from it though.
And before anyone tries to claim they're deterring terror attacks, don't be fooled. That's really the work of my magic terror-preventing rock.
Yeah.... those are the kind of "facts" you get when your source is a random jpeg... directly from the FBI itself:
Information collected regarding types of weapons used in violent crime showed that firearms were used in 67.9 percent of the nation’s murders, 40.3 percent of robberies, and 22.5 percent of aggravated assaults. (Weapons data are not collected for rape.) (See Expanded Homicide Data Table 7, Robbery Table 3, and the Aggravated Assault Table)
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/violent-crime/violent-crime
... we could all just fly naked. Think of the advantages! No more worries about concealed weapons that are any larger than will comfortably fit in an orifice. An opportunity to really get to know your neighbor. Necessarily improved climate control -- no more flights that are too cold or too warm. And a complete lack of literalist religious folk on the aircraft, because for most of them appearing naked in public is an even bigger sin than allowing infidels to spread lies about the one true faith or failing to bring on the apocalypse so Jesus can return to usher in the Kingdom of Heaven.
The merely prudish would, of course, take the train, which would be a welcome burst of new business for alternative transportation. Throw in a little alcohol and a whole new meaning of "in-flight entertainment" could emerge as a new cultural norm. The increased happiness among fliers could lead us to world peace!
It's the perfect solution. At least as long as they have one of those boxes that say "your body must fit inside of this box in order to take this flight" -- for humans...
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Really? What kind of special rock do you live under that you are concerned enough about your personal security to carry a weapon, but are unaware that it's been illegal to carry a loaded weapon on a plane for the last four(?) decades? It significantly pre-dates the existence of the TSA.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Rape and homicide by minorities were also up in 2015 over 2014 which is why women have flocked to guns for self protection, even when traveling on airplanes. The country is scared, the country is angry, and Trump will make America great again come Nov 2016.
Yup. New gun owners make noob mistakes with their new guns.
23 million NICS checks in 2015 represent somewhere between 20 million to 50 million new firearms purchased. (Depending on what you think the number of forms with more than one firearm are, and the checks that don't involve firearms, or used firearms sold through an FFL, or the ones that were just denials.)
This breaks previous records, and 2016 is on track to breaking previous monthly records the whole way through too.
And when a terrorist comes on board with a legal CC weapon? How about when 4-6 of them do, as with the 9-11 hijackers? Two dozen people (4 terrorists and 20 armed citizens) in a firefight in an airplane at 30,000 feet is very likely to result in the same number of deaths (i.e. everyone in the plane) whether the terrorists take over the plane or not.
Remember - someone who intends to blow up or otherwise crash a plane to incite fear in the population is already a dead man who has already made peace with his God over dying that day. Threatening to shoot him (or her) to try and stop a takeover is not a viable deterrent.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"when asked of the TSA has a theory on why so many more guns are being brought onboard airlines"
I would thought that preventing people from taking guns "onboard airlines" was sort of the sine qua non for a TSA checkpoint.
I suppose the sentence should be "why so many guns are being brought into security checklanes". Or maybe not, as TSA has been shown to be an abject farce.
The countdown for the Top 30 Murder Capitals of America:
Rank City
30 Chicago Heights, IL
29 Baton Rouge, LA
28 Buffalo, NY
27 Hattiesburg, MS
26 East Chicago, IN
25 Birmingham, AL
24 Desert Hot Springs, CA
23 Compton, CA
22 Myrtle Beach, SC
21 Fort Pierce, FL
20 Harvey, IL
19 Bridgeton, NJ
18 Flint, MI
17 Rocky Mount, NC
16 Pine Bluff, AR
15 Petersburg, VA
14 Newark, NJ
13 Baltimore, MD
12 Harrisburg, PA
11 Jackson, MS
10 Wilmington, DE
9 Trenton, NJ
8 Riviera Beach, FL
7 New Orleans, LA
6 Camden, NJ
5 Detroit, MI
4 Gary, IN
3 St. Louis, MO
2 Chester, PA
1 East St. Louis, IL
http://www.neighborhoodscout.c...
Then can we come to the conclusion that MediaMatters is issuing grossly misleading pseudo-statistics that actually harms their argument?
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
So, are these people prosecuted, or just given a waggled finger and a box to store their firearm safely to take home?
I ask because:
"9 U.S. Code 46505 - Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft
(b)General Criminal Penalty.—An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual—
(1) when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;"
Since only embarking passengers are allowed through security now, going through the TSA station might constitute an "attempt to get on..." This is, afaict, a felony. With the exception of the (somewhat controversial, and funded/unfunded times for reviews) BATFE Relief program, those convicted of a federal felony are barred from purchase or possession of firearms.
Was this pursued on any of the 2000 cases?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That simply is not true. Oakland California and two cities in Michigan (Flint and Detroit )fill the top 3spots. In Michigan municipalities can create gun control laws as long as they do not conflict with state laws and you essentially need a permit for a hand gun as well as a permit for most private sales of firearms. In Oakland, they just passed two gun control laws and are working on a third after the terrorist incident in San Bernardino. California already has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books. In fact, they have been sued over them, lost, and refuse to change them until an appeal is exhausted.
I should point out that murder is not the only violent crime.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
And how many of these firearms were intended for nefarious uses? Do they even contend a single one was an attempt to do something unpleasant on a plane? As others are noting I would imagine this is more a function of them improving their terrible detection methodology which misses most "threats" (fake bombs, lighters, etc) and somehow still doesn't result in chaos in the air. "Terrorism" isn't even a rounding error in overall mortality statistics, you're literally more likely to be struck by lightning than be involved in a terrorism incident. Put a few common sense safeguards in place (armed Air Marshalls, robust aircraft, reinforced cockpit doors, training, severe criminal penalties, etc) and get on with life.
Desert Hot Springs, CA - population 27,902 (2013)
16 Pine Bluff, AR - population 46,094 (2013)
Chester, PA - population 34,046 (2013)
East Chicago, IN - population 29,212 (2013)
Chicago Heights, IL - population 30,423 (2013)
Perhaps a town with under 50k people should not be compared to large cities when looking at "murders per 1,000 residents". One murder/suicide can skew the numbers for the whole year.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
Every firearm sold by an FFL has a background check, unless the transaction is in a state where a gun license supplants a background check (for both new and used)
You really are clueless or a propaganda machine aren't you.
Now seriously shut up, you give the right ammunition when you try and use your twisted understanding to convince people. Stop with the noise and at least parrot the signal if all you are going to do is mouth off other people's talking points.
Or something in the middle?
"TSA officers screened 708,316,339 million passengers (more than 1.9 million per day), 40,780,330 million more than for the same timeframe in 2014."
That's a big number.
intelligence to carry a gun: if you try to take it on a plane, you fail.
The 4th kind is quote misattributions :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
Actually, the top 5 cities for violent crime are all cities lack gun control (4 of which are legally banned, by state law, from enacting gun control). and cities like New York, with its strict gun control, is actually ranked one of the safest cities in the country.
Damn. So much for your BS.
Not to mention, have the gun nuts become so irrational that a simple check-in process for your firearm become a "They're takin' r Gunz away!!" moment?
You check the gun in, and you get it back when you land. I've watched the process, it's simple, and easy.
I know the typical ammosexual has erotic fantasies of saving a planefull of people by pumping some slugs into a bunch of tersts and saving the day, but really, we don't want to be firing off weapons inside a thin hulled pressurized cabin at 35,000 feet.
Air Marshalls even have special rounds that are designed to not penetrate the walls of the cabin and depressurize the plane. Let them do their job.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
FYI, air marshals are not on every flight.
0% of all murders were committed by a gun.
Cities which relax gun controls see dramatic decreases in crimes but there are gun restricted cities with low crime rates. Those stats are definitely muddied with and colored by agendas across the board. Those trying to boost the stats want to call every crime where someone had an arm a violent crime to skew the stats or quality crime with the tag 'gun' as if it worse to get robbed at gunpoint than knife point. The truth is, with more guns about people are more likely to have them good and bad. Obviously the more guns that are around the more gun related accidents as well. It is also true that mass shootings are only successful in a gun free or gun restricted environment and the damage is minimized when people in the crowd can shoot back.
.308 rifles which are much more powerful than the AR15. Mostly people want AR15's for target practice or self defense. The AR15 "assault rifle" which isn't a real class of gun btw is desired for entertainment and target practice and to secure the home, not from the time when they come to take our guns but from the time when a foreign invader or a civil war occurs. Or more commonly when attacked by an armed city gang or crazy pumped up ranchers.
It is certainly true that as the president said, "No self respecting hunter needs an AR15." The AR15 is powerful enough for shooting people but generally isn't considered powerful enough to ensure a clean shot on a large deer and completely useless vs a bear. Instead hunters tend to use
I think some gun control is warranted, as in not allowing convicted felons and those with mental issues to own guns. Additionally, a safe gun handling and usage course should be a high school requirement.
As for types of weapon, if the military is allowed to have it the people should be allowed to have it which is a far cry from actually being able to afford it, large arms are expensive and it would take a large number of citizens, such as a community funded volunteer militia to be able to afford big arms. It's worth remembering that a reasonably intelligent person can read a couple library books and build explosives with far more deadly potential than what the military classifies as "small arms" which is the category all the guns that gun control ever talks about. The Constitution divides military power between citizens (and no, the national guard is not it) and the state so that the few need always fear the wrath of the many. Which was wise since there is no evidence of true democracy ever occurring except on the other side of the many getting fed up with the few. Currently arms are restricted to the degree this is not the case in the US.
The worst gun control actually takes two forms. First it is in the ATF definition of a gun, which essentially limits civilian owned firearms to 18th century technology. The second is the ATF redefining essentially all maintenance and gunsmithing you'd perform on guns to constitute "gun manufacturing" never mind that you started with a gun that was recorded when manufactured and ended with just that one gun. The second is Secretary Clinton, hijacking a federal body empowered to regulate organizations exporting military grade arms and expanding the list of military grade arms to include essentially all weapons, despite the fact that the military does not use them. The AR15 is a good example, the AR15 is the demilitarized civilian version of the M16 firing mechanism. The AK is a similar type of weapon that just didn't originate in the US. The idea that these are somehow more dangerous than other civilian arms being used for hunting is ridiculous. The AR and AK mechanical designs are reliable and effective military developed designs that are good at shooting a bullet when you want and not shooting a bullet you don't want to. Those designs can be resized and put in guns ranging from the most deadly to the least deadly.
With more modern arms we could build new types of projectile weapons that aren't essentially hundreds of little bombs in our pockets. We could build technology in t
I should point out that it is pretty much impossible to find a measure for violent crime that doesn't count the mere presence of weapon as "violent."
The funny thing about guns in cities is that they are only loosely related.
Chicago. Last year. Same laws for the entire city. Some zip codes had NO shootings, and others had around 100. What is the difference? Poverty.
No surprise, but zip codes with no shootings have money. Zip codes with dozens of shootings have poverty. So, instead of focusing on the guns, why not focus on the REAL problem?
Does anybody think that lax gun laws would actually create shootings in areas with money? Chicago already HAS strict gun laws, and that does not seem to help much.
And before anybody says "The criminals get their guns from cities with looser laws," compare Chicago with Dallas. About the same size, but Dallas has more lax laws, and less homicide.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Then please feel free to cite a few good counter-examples to demonstrate your point. Gang beatings and rapes probably correlate quite nicely to murders with or without a firearm.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Here is a challenge for you. Go to this page that has a convenient table with gun ownership and homicide rates. Copy and paste this table into your favorite spreadsheet. Make an X-Y scatter graph with "Gun ownership %" as the X axis and "Homicides per 100,000" as the Y axis. Add a linear trend line.
Hey, look at that! The trend is that more gun ownership is correlated with LESS homicide. It is a weak correlation, but it is there. OK, Washington DC has few guns, but by far the most homicides. Delete that row. Hey, look! The trend still holds!
Some people ding Wikipedia, but at least I trust in, in this instance, to be relatively unbiased, and they have links to the source data (FBI and Census Bureau).
Now, the nice this about THIS instead of some random article from some biased journalist is that the source data comes from someplace that you can trust, and you can do the math yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Let's face it, we have no real stats here. Violence rates improperly consider the presence of a weapon during the commission of a crime to be violence and most statistics improperly target GUN violence and not violent crime. That is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy, obviously having guns means that there will be more cases where someone had a gun. Especially with police trying to find excuses to charge people who have them. You are no less dead when beaten to death and no less robbed when the guy was just big enough to take your stuff, you are no more raped when simply physically overpowered.
This is why people pull out murder statistics. It's a solid statistic that shows number of people who died as a result of criminal action without adding loaded qualifiers like "gun" or counting the presence of a gun during a crime where nobody was injured at all. And especially avoids counting cases where police charged the guy who defended himself or his property against a criminal.
Murder statistics are also reasonably consistent. Relaxing gun control restrictions has dropped the murder rate. Less good people die at the hands of bad guys when more good people are armed. And if shooting at an armed crowd having a large capacity magazine doesn't generally allow you to shoot more people since the crowd shoots back.
...yes, gun control laws "so tough" that they couldn't even manage to get rid of magazine fed rifles. That's quite sad really. You would think that it would be trivial and easy to functionally define the weapons you actually want to ban.
California even has gun grabber squads. So they could even have gotten rid of the legacy weapons too.
You can blame the NRA for this sort of thing in Colorado or Texas but not the Peoples Republic of California.
Liberals need to get their act together before they try this stuff on a national scale. It's a total joke and no one should be taking them seriously.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
New York City... safest in the country... you're so funny.
Do you even hear the nonsense coming out of your mouth?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Considering a previous report that the TSA has a tendency to miss 95% of weapons that subjects brought with them to " test " the TSA's effectiveness
and
Considering the odds of your firearm going missing when you jump through all the hoops to transport one properly thanks to the airlines basically being the equivalent of a modern day thieves guild.
( The folks at the airport managed to cut off one of my locks on the Pelican Case I was using to transport mine. They only stopped presumably because the remaining lock was sporting one of the TSA Hologram stickers that effectively says "We've inspected it, it's definitely a firearm. Don't open it. " )
The odds for keeping your firearm from going missing are better if you just pack it in your carry on apparently :D
FYI, air marshals are not on every flight.
Correct, but not my point. You don't want to be busting up airplanes with a .45.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The question isn't the only spin in this article.
The fact that the majority of these "forgetful passengers" are actual LAW ENFORCEMENT has been oddly omitted. I've got a buddy that worked for the TSA. Every gun he caught was some police officer or sheriff thinking it was ok because he was LEO. Changes the whole message.
So given that there are 7 guns on airplanes everyday, can we assume that in years prior that was a good rule of thumb?
Why then are there not 7 highjackings every day?
Why are there not 7 air rage shootings everyday?
Could it be because most people carrying weapons aren't bad guys? They just want protection and don't mean to cause any harm? Certainly if they wanted to cause harm they could have.
Don't skew things in the wrong direction. "Gun" crime goes up, especially in relative terms, with less restrictive gun control but the murder rate goes down. It doesn't particularly matter what you were killed with, dead is dead. Something about stalemates and bringing a knife to a gun fight. Detroit has heavy gun control.
Other violent crime stats are mixed up because police tend to try to make some kind of charge stick when someone has a gun and any crime committed while holding a weapon gets tagged as violent whether or not violence occurred.
You actually specifically *mention* a case where the FFL doesn't have to run a background check (a state where a gun license substitutes for the background check), and then go on to claim the OP is 'clueless', or 'a propaganda machine'. Apparently, your rant was based on a pretty severe misreading of what the OP actually said. Way to be aggressively, and belligerently *wrong*.
The estimate (20-50million new firearms purchased) was followed by a list of things that would cause the NICS check count to differ from the number of new firearms purchased. His list included:
a) sales of more than 1 firearm per check (would under-inflate the proxy metric)
b) checks that don't involve firearms at all (would over-inflate the proxy metric)
c) *used* firearms sold through an FFL (the check exists, but does not involve a *NEW* firearm)
d) checks that were denials (don't involve *sales* of a firearm, new or otherwise)
Any legal sale of a *new* firearm will, indeed require a background check (excepting states where your license can be used, since the state runs periodic checks on all licenses and revokes those which are no longer valid). But a *long* list of circumstances exist which will cause the number of NICS checks to not reflect new gun sales on a 1:1 basis.
New York City... safest in the country... you're so funny.
Do you even hear the nonsense coming out of your mouth?
New York City was the only American city to crack the world Safe cities index compiled by the Economist. http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/... It comes in at number 10, and as no American cities were ranked any higher, his statement is not necessarily nonsense.
Remember, Law and Order and Law and Order Special Victims Unit are fiction, not the news. I admit it doesn't sound truthy, but hey, I've walked around New York City without fear. Then again, I'm not a fearful person.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
But we could have 7 flights with a gun on them if the TSA would let them pass right thru.... lol.
Every day I get closer and closer to moving to Canada.
My favorite gun lie of late is that you can buy a gun on the internet w/o a background check. Certainly you can pay for it, but it must be shipped to an FFL who will run a background check on you. So yes, you can buy, but no you cannot take possession of a gun brought on the inter-webs.
Citation please. My sources say the exact opposite, so... I call BS.
Talking with someone back then who said when he checks in baggage, he wants to carry on his pistol as valuable possession not to get lost in baggage. This was before 9-11 and I don't think they objected. I may have not remembered some details, I think airline would at least request it be placed with pilot.
Also before 9-11 another who loves to cook and he always brings his knives as carry on as these are expensive and doesn't want to get lost in baggage. Those were the days!
mfwright@batnet.com
"but the details get worse. "
"The vast majority of passengers just tell law enforcement, ‘I forgot.’"
So, not worse. Just as can be expected, a non-issue.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
If it's an accident, they're a stupid fucking gun owners and don't deserve to possessing a firearm of any kind.
If it's deliberate, they're arrogant assholes and still don't deserve to possess a firearm of any kind.
Not knowing where your firearms is completely irresponsible.
Not knowing what's is your carry on luggage is also completely irresponsible.
Slick Teddy Cruz makes Slick Willy look like an amateur.
He may be the most spectacular liar ever to run for president.
Police shootings while in the line of duty and civilian lawful self defense is usually counted amongst homicide statistics as well. There should be a distinction between murder and all other acts of homicide, as common sense would dictate, but this is rarely acknowledged, particularly by progressivistas with an agenda to grind.
No, we can come to the conclusion that MediaMatters is tracking death by gun, and that nij is tracking murders that involve a gun.
There is a big difference. The latter can involve death by falling off a cliff, death by battery, death by non-gun weapon (eg: knife), or even death by heart attack so long as at some point in the fight a gun was involved (eg: The gun was used to threaten, and the person being threatened had a heart attack and died).
It is entirely possible that at the same time MediaMatters is grossly misleading with pseudo-statistics, but is it equally possible that both entities track different statistics.
This isn't 100% accurate. Yes, if you ship to a dealer (IMO the smart thing, it is what I did with package theft on the rise in my area) they run a background check and you fill out paperwork. However, I could have had the gun shipped directly to my house, which to my knowledge would have been the end of the transaction. So I very well could have bought a handgun online with no bg check.
Speaking of statistics, let's ask an uncomfortable question: what percent of Detroit's murders were committed by black men? What about Chicago's murders? New Orleans'?
If you want to lower the murder rates in America, you have to address the actual problem: that there is a slice of the population that commits violent crime, including murder, at rates far exceeding that of the general population. Black people commit murder at rates far higher than white or Asian populations, but the percentage of black prisoners in the justice system is below the percentage of crimes committed by blacks - blacks are underrepresented in the prisons. The answer to America's crime problem, if you go by statistics, is simple: police the black communities more heavily that we do now.
How did you get a FFL issued for your personal house? You can't ship guns across state lines except to a FFL holder.
They need to have their guns and rights to purchase and carry guns revoked for one year, and then pass a gun safety class to have your guns returned. If you can't be bothered to even remember that you are currently carrying a gun, you are in no condition to be using guns.
Actually, Air Marshalls carry the .357 SIG, a round that was chosen for its higher penetration than more standard 9mm or .40 SW rounds. The reason a round with better penetration was desired is that it is likely they will have to shoot through a seat and the fact that, despite what Hollywood says, shooting a window on a passenger jet will not explosively decompress the plane and cause people to get sucked out like they are in outer space.
It's perfectly legal to have guns in CHECKED bags. You need to declare it at the time of check in to the ticketing agent and make sure it's not loaded. Check with ticketing agent for additional restrictions.
But TSA of course STEAL these items from checked bags without any warrant, and of course the TSA puts those numbers in with all the other fabricated numbers to make it look like they are actually doing something.
I find it hard to credit the TSA with anything. I don't believe more guns are being carried on planes, just that the TSA may have stumbled onto a few more by blind luck. Even a blind chick finds a kernel of corn now and then. That kind of statistical increase is unrealistic, more likely the TSA has finally tripped over a search procedure that works, or maybe even hire 2 or 3 competent workers which would account for the increase.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
You're comparing murder rate within the city limits to the gun murder rate in an unspecified area larger than the city limits (with lower overall murder rate). Why is this modded insightful?
It's kind of baffling, IMO. We have to assume that these weren't found in what most people would call "luggage". After all, most sane people don't keep firearms in their carry-on luggage, because you would never be allowed to travel anywhere with a firearm packed that way—not in a plane, not on a train, not in a car, not in a jar, not on a bus, not with a fuss, not with a bear, not anywhere.
So the only plausible assumption is that these are almost all in handbags that people carry around on a daily basis, which likely means these were mostly women (because few men carry anything approaching a handbag). That's way outside what most people think of as the main target demographic for concealed carry, which makes this, at a minimum, fascinating.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Actually, Air Marshalls carry the .357 SIG, a round that was chosen for its higher penetration than more standard 9mm or .40 SW rounds.
That's true. the birdshot type rounds were used in the 70's and 80's. Regardless, these are supposed to use hollow point rounds to expand upon penetrating the perp.
The reason a round with better penetration was desired is that it is likely they will have to shoot through a seat and the fact that, despite what Hollywood says, shooting a window on a passenger jet will not explosively decompress the plane and cause people to get sucked out like they are in outer space.
Of course not. But putting a hole in a plane is not just something where they say - "yup a hole in the plane, tthis is good". As well, there are other things in the body of a plane that might not be happy if taken out of commission. they are not mere canisters with nothing else around them. http://www.meriweather.com/fli...
And perhaps this is why the highly trained US Air Marshals have to date have only taken out one person - at least according to my research. You might dispatch a terst, but will probably have collateral deaths as well.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well that's simply not true. On the list of most dangerous cities, the top 5 are: #5 Wilmington, DE, #4 Alexandria, LA, #3 Detroit, MI, #2 Camden, NJ, and #1 East St. Louis, IL. Of those, IL has relatively strict gun control laws, although they have loosened up a little bit in the last few years. New Jersey has very strict gun laws. Both Michigan and Detroit require someone to jump through a lot of hoops to legally get a gun. Louisiana is pretty lax, so you're correct there. Delaware is fairly middle of the pack in terms of gun control.
So much for your BS.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
Also, all used firearms sold through an FFL require a background check just like new guns. What is left out is that many states have firearm permits or concealed carry permits which mean the holder has already passed a background check and doesn't need to be submitted for new ones. So a firearm permit in Nebraska from 2014 can be used to buy 5 firearms in 2016 and not a single background check would be done for those 5 sales since the holder is already validated.
Why blame Clinton? The definite trashing of the Second Amendment was in 1986, under Reagan, when a law was enacted that said it was illegal for a civilian to own a newly manufactured infantry rifle. I believe the Second was intended to guarantee the right of people to carry military weapons.
"Assault rifle" is indeed a real class of firearm, and describes most modern infantry rifles. You can't get a modern one, of course. The idiots who want gun control seem to think it's a scary-looking gun. (Note: I'm not calling people who want gun control idiots. I'm saying that some of them are idiots.)
Your firearms are going to be pretty much useless in case of foreign invasion or civil war. Legally, there are very strong restrictions on when an ordinary citizen can fight in a war. Moreover, a bunch of civilians with obsolescent weapons are not going to be effective against a modern first-world military unit. If you're attacked by people with firearms and you shoot back, fine with me.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If the weapon is at all involved, then at least the threat of violence was used, and I'll count that as violent crime, even if the weapon is not actually used against the victim.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Was the person the Air Marshals taken out the guy who was off his meds and harmless, and who was shot when probably trying to comply with their orders?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
FYI you should really cite your sources. I looked up some top 10 lists and they seemed to have different cities depending on the site. At least list the cities in your comment as it would be interesting for the rest of us.
"I forgot" just isn't much of a reason. It might be truthful, I'm not saying it's not, but good grief people.
.357 with me. It's in a locked metal box in one bag, and the ammo is in a locked metal box in the other. The boxes don't go anywhere except the luggage, and since I find them immediately when I start packing it's very easy to put the gun in them pretty much at that point too.
I travel several times a year, always taking my
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Some manager at the TSA may have found a way to "enhance" the statistics. Probably that. Nothing more.
There was a 20% increase in 1 year? Not likely, unless the TSA was failing to find guns before.
MOD PARENT UP to +10. Quote: "Many of the founders specifically objected to the Bill of Rights for this reason because it made it seem like if the constitution wasn't giving a right to the people, then they didn't have that right."
Maine, one of the poorest States yet has one of the highest per-capita firearm ownerships. No need for a permit to conceal carry. The lowest firearm (including theft) crime rate, per capita, in the country according to Wikipedia the last time I checked which was about two weeks ago. I, err, I kind of skew that number a bit but, really, that's only the firearms that they *know* about. I don't think I know anyone who doesn't have a firearm in their home but I'm sure there's someone. I have an obscene number so I make up for them. No, really, they keep mating and I end up with more and more. I have firearms that I've never even fired - collectible antiques and the likes.
On the other hand, I have a whole room, lined with safes, that's concrete on all four sides, and has a steel door that's embedded into the concrete. I own two select fire firearms and am obligated to ensure they're kept in a safe condition. It's part of my moral code to ensure that I do my best to keep my collection secure. It would be unfortunate for some of them to be out on the street.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Low income and poverty are different things. Maine is fairly rural. Income in the countryside goes a lot further than in the city. It is not so much raw income that counts, rather inequality. Living in the gutter right next to someone who lives in an expensive condo may drive people to crime.
That's one way to try to look at it but there's still quite a bit of wealth disparity. Maine has some surprisingly rich people and a lot of wealthy property owners who come on vacation. While you're busy looking for reasons, check Maine's per capita mental illness rate, educational level, and see if you can find a decent metric for potentials for upward mobility financially.
Also, please be aware that I'm not trying to steer you to an answer, lead you to a conclusion, or calling you necessarily wrong. I do not know the reasons for the disparity myself and I've pondered and researched and I can not make any real conclusions. We do have high wealth disparities. For instance, I sold my business for a good sized 9 digit sum - and retired to Maine. Wayne, Maine supposedly has one of the highest millionaires per capita in the US. The coast is loaded with VERY wealthy people. We've got maybe five things that I'd call "cities." Even those have very little firearm related crimes.
We don't even need a permit to carry concealed any more. I still have my permit because it's valid in other States. I also don't need to wait or go through a background check because I already have my permit. I own an obscene number of firearms. A lot are collector items that I just felt needed to be owned by someone who'd keep them in good condition and they're in a moisture and temperature controlled environment, protected with a separate alarm, surrounded on all four side by 1' reinforced concrete - with extra rebad, plating, and a steel door that's embedded in the concrete - the frame is, at least. That's obviously locked and there are further safes inside that room. I consider myself more a custodian of some of them than an owner. If that makes sense.... They also seem to mate 'cause every time I turn around, I'm finding myself with more. I am literally thinking about building another room and, while I am at it, having the first room cut a little and have the whole thing covered in a layer of case hardened steel or similar. Just to add the extra layer of protection...
I think we need to have, as a nation, a serious conversation about how we should be educating kids, adults, everyone - about safe and responsible firearm ownership. It's a right but rights come with obligations and we're not doing out end of it very well. I am, I try to - at least. Hell, I even own two (legal) select fire (automatic) rifles. If I did not feel that I was safe with them, I'd not own them. I own them because they're a piece of history, they're fun, and I enjoy improving my skills. I like it, a lot. I'm not your typical gun nut - I think all the amendment are kind of important. I think we need to really discuss the 2nd and iron out what we owe out society in order to maintain that right. We have failed to uphold our end of the social contract. I saw we, I'm an American too. I do what I can. But, I can only do so much.
I do kick myself. I turned down a Thompson with two drum magazines for $7500. I just didn't want to do the paperwork and I'd just picked up the M14. So, I still kick myself for letting that piece of history go. But, again, I don't know what the answers are and I'm not saying your wrong - I'm saying keep looking. Your views of Maine aren't entirely accurate. There's some serious wealth here - a lot of it is moldy money or in land or other hard assets like that. I spent a shitload on land but there are people who have much more land than I do and I have 5 digits worth of acres just in one connected parcel - I had to get a bunch of it at different auctions from paper companies.
Yet, my house is locked and the alarm is on. In a few hours a friend will be there, opening it up, and getting the pool table ready, all while I'm gone. The key is easy to find and the alarm code is known by all my friends. So, I don't know what the difference is.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I think he was citing "Trump Facts". They are a subset of "GOP Facts". As such, they require no evidence because "everyone knows it's true." They are serious.
Only boring people are ever bored.
...yes, gun control laws "so tough" that they couldn't even manage to get rid of magazine fed rifles. That's quite sad really. You would think that it would be trivial and easy to functionally define the weapons you actually want to ban.
What's quite sad is that my tube-fed (in the stock) .22 LR semi-automatic Winchester holds 15 rounds and is completely legal, but a rifle with a six-round magazine is illegal. Welcome to Kalifornia! People have built quick-reload equipment for tube-fed rifles before...
You can blame the NRA for this sort of thing in Colorado or Texas but not the Peoples Republic of California.
People own guns here in California, too. The NRA is an effective lobby in California, too.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
is a good man who remembers that he's carrying a gun.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Rape and homicide by minorities were also up in 2015 over 2014 which is why women have flocked to guns for self protection, even when traveling on airplanes. The country is scared, the country is angry, and Trump will make America great again come Nov 2016.
somebody's doing the raping. it's illegal mexicans, sneaking in on airplanes,
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Here is a challenge for you. Go to this page that has a convenient table with gun ownership and homicide rates. Copy and paste this table into your favorite spreadsheet. Make an X-Y scatter graph with "Gun ownership %" as the X axis and "Homicides per 100,000" as the Y axis. Add a linear trend line.
Hey, look at that! The trend is that more gun ownership is correlated with LESS homicide. It is a weak correlation, but it is there. OK, Washington DC has few guns, but by far the most homicides. Delete that row. Hey, look! The trend still holds!
Some people ding Wikipedia, but at least I trust in, in this instance, to be relatively unbiased, and they have links to the source data (FBI and Census Bureau).
Now, the nice this about THIS instead of some random article from some biased journalist is that the source data comes from someplace that you can trust, and you can do the math yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
have you done that? because for the states with below 30% gun ownership, it's almost linear that gun murders depends on gun owner percentage, then it flattens out, and gets noisy. the missing factor, of course, is population density. gun murders go up with population density at the low end of densities with a lot of noise, but then level off. if you look at similar population densities you see a definite correlation between gun ownership percentage and gun murders. sort by density and see
there is still some variation, though; the problem, even if you want to do a multifactor analysis, is that state is too large a unit, you need data by city/town. looking at the table, it seems that states with no big cities has fewer gun murders than one with similar overall population density and gun owner percentage, but which has a big city in it. that explains DC too, of course, where population density and gun murder rate are both outliers. so if you sort by population density and use only states with no large cities you see a real correlation between more gun owners=more gun murders. except for Utah. mormons apparently don't shoot people.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
The first, fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments can be rolled back just as easily, especially once precedents are set.
They already have. The second is protected because people want their toys, not because they worry about the constitution.
in the history of the US, the only tyranny that gun owners appear to have opposed is any sort of gun regulations. if anything, it appears they are in favor of things like incarcerating japanese americans, shooting unarmed protesters, police killing unarmed blacks in custody, etc, in that the same "conservatives" arguing against gun laws are the guys espousing every sort of oppressive racist idea.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
America has about 97 males for every hundred females. Since rape and homicide are very largely the purview of that minority, then it's simply a question of getting accurate rape and homicide counts for the country. If the rates are going up, then the OP is correct, but that would actually go against historical trends.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Those are both grossly irresponsible behaviours. If someone were to be caught driving so irresponsibly, you'd at least expect them to get hauled up in front of the court, and potentially to lose their driving license for a couple of years.
So, the TSA is confiscating (and destroying) these weapons AND cancelling the gun licenses of the people in charge of the weapons AND of the weapon's owners (if different) because giving a weapon to such an irresponsible idiot is itself an act of gross irresponsibility which is incompatible with being licensed to hold such dangerous machines.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Well, the point is that gun ownership and homicide rate are LOOSELY correlated. I made a point in another post, but I will summarize it.
Let's compare gun laws. Chicago. A few zip codes had ZERO shootings last year. Some zip codes approached a hundred shootings last year. The gun laws are the SAME. The difference? Poverty.
Take guns away from areas with high poverty, and you will see an increase in stabbing and beating deaths.
Give plenty of guns away in the areas with money, and they will suddenly not decide to start committing murder.
But, how much easier it is to simply add more ineffective gun laws, rather than focus on the ROOT cause of violence -- poverty?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
The funny thing about guns in cities is that they are only loosely related.
Chicago. Last year. Same laws for the entire city. Some zip codes had NO shootings, and others had around 100. What is the difference? Poverty.
No surprise, but zip codes with no shootings have money. Zip codes with dozens of shootings have poverty. So, instead of focusing on the guns, why not focus on the REAL problem?
Does anybody think that lax gun laws would actually create shootings in areas with money? Chicago already HAS strict gun laws, and that does not seem to help much.
And before anybody says "The criminals get their guns from cities with looser laws," compare Chicago with Dallas. About the same size, but Dallas has more lax laws, and less homicide.
The problem with this is, you'd need to admit that gun culture in the US is horribly broken and that is something the gun nuts and RWNJ's are unwilling to even allow the question to be raised, let alone admit to it.
Shootings will continue until the US changes it's attitudes on guns. Until they're treated as a potential hazard which can be handled safely under the right conditions (much the same as a car) the US will continue having gun problems. When attitudes become more sensible, gun control will be a natural consequence rather than a precedent. However the US has a long history of trying to put the cart before the horse.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Well, the point is that gun ownership and homicide rate are LOOSELY correlated. I made a point in another post, but I will summarize it.
Let's compare gun laws. Chicago. A few zip codes had ZERO shootings last year. Some zip codes approached a hundred shootings last year. The gun laws are the SAME. The difference? Poverty.
Take guns away from areas with high poverty, and you will see an increase in stabbing and beating deaths.
Give plenty of guns away in the areas with money, and they will suddenly not decide to start committing murder.
But, how much easier it is to simply add more ineffective gun laws, rather than focus on the ROOT cause of violence -- poverty?
it could be argued that the real root cause of our civil dysfunction is the segregation of neighborhoods by class/wealth/race, makes it possible for whole neighborhoods to just be abandoned to their own devices.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Or perhaps both gun violence and poverty are related to cultural factors that lead to devaluation of life and lack of marketable skills (e.g. lack of self-discipline).
Hey, look at that! The trend is that more gun ownership is correlated with LESS homicide. It is a weak correlation, but it is there.
That sounded great until I remembered that the USA has an unusually high rate of gun-related deaths. If your correlation held we wouldn't be looking at countries like France enviously.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
What YOU say sounds great, until you realize that you use several logical fallacies.
Let's take a mythical land, Kevinville. It has guns, and every year there are 100 murders, all with guns. Guns are banned, so suddenly there are NO gun murders, but instead 100 murderers with knives. According to people like you, success since there are no more gun deaths. However, the same number of people die in either case,so how is that an improvement?
By focusing on a bogus number like "gun deaths" you are somehow implying that a person stabbed to death is somehow less dead.
The phrase "gun deaths" also include mostly SUICIDES. Where is the victim there, since the victim and the perpetrator are the same person? Do you think that a suicidal person, lacking a gun, will be too dumb to find other methods? The phrase "gun deaths" also include LEGITIMATE shootings (self-defense, police shootings, etc.). By throwing this figure out there, you are implying that legitimate shootings should not happen, and that criminals should not be stopped, and should be allowed to run rampant.
Also, should I note that other countries have different economies, different poverty rates, different social programs, different media, different language, different health care system, and different cultural values? Obviously, if you are laser-focused on just one statistic, it is easy to ignore the hundreds of other differences between countries that could account for differences in homicide and violent crime.
I could point out that Japan has NO guns, and a much higher suicide rate. Therefore, according to YOUR logic, if we gave guns to Japan, their suicide rate would drop to our level. However, I am not that dishonest.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Do you think that a suicidal person, lacking a gun, will be too dumb to find other methods?
Actually many suicides are rather spur-of-the-moment. There have been countless tales of aborting a suicide through intervention, that's why suicide hotlines exist. Guns make an attempt far more opportunistic, that's one of the reasons they're linked with gun ownership.
Guns are banned, so suddenly there are NO gun murders, but instead 100 murderers with knives.
Would you feel just as comfortable protecting your home with a knife instead of a gun?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps. But are YOU at danger of being a suicide victim from your neighbor having a gun? If you worry about that sort of thing, don't own a gun. It is that simple. But a person committing suicide does not put YOU in any danger.
No thanks. You can protect your home with a "no guns allowed" sign, or a knife. Your choice. I will protect my family with a firearm.
The president and celebrities are protected with guns. Once the Secret Service just protects the President with "gun free zone" signs, then I will do the same. The way that I figure, the Secret Service knows how to protect people. I will learn from them and try to do what they do. If they carry guns, it must be because they are effective.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Any neighbor of mine firing his gun in his place certainly is endangering me. Not only just by the travel of the bullet, but also by the fact that I am friends with my neighbor and it would hurt to find that he had used his gun in a weak moment. You overestimate how resolute suicide attempts are, it can happen just by a change in medication.
Oh and thank you for pointing out how much more effecitve guns are to knives, it spared me from having to explain to you why they are not even close to being equal in effectiveness. Now you're a big step closer to spotting the fallacy in your argument that violence is a fixed number and not connected with the capabilities of the weapon.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
No. The bullet will be stopped by his head. No problem.
So, you want to control the behaviors of OTHERS based on the fact that they MIGHT hurt your feelings? Go back to your safe space to keep away from micro-agressions. You will feel better after a while.
Once again, COMPLETELY wrong. The number of people WILLING to COMMIT violence is actually a pretty fixed number. For violence to happen, there also has to be a CRIMINAL! I would think that this would be common sense, but I guess not.
Give an honest man a gun, and he will STILL not hurt anybody. Take a gun away from a criminal, and the criminal will just use another tools. Would taking guns away from criminals reduce the deaths caused by a criminal? Yes, it will REDUCE, but not eliminate homicides. Now, conversely, take a gun away from an HONEST man, and will the murder rate fall? No, it will, in fact, go UP because the honest man is far less capable of defending himself.
So, if you did actually manage to remove EVERY gun from America, you have the criminals being capable of causing less damage, but you also have unarmed victims too. Those will tend to balance each other out.
So, the ideal solution would be to allow honest people to arm themselves, but keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Will a law do this? No, because criminals DO NOT OBEY THE LAW (look up "criminal" in a dictionary). So laws disproportionately affect honest people. I don't imagine that a guy selling a gun out of the back of a trunk would be conducting background checks.
Did you know that guns are used to prevent or deter crime in close to a million incidents per year? Compare that to the fewer than 8,500 firearm homicides.
By the way, did you know that homicide is down by 50% since 1993? You are safer now that you have ever been in your entire life. Quick! We need to do something to reverse this horrible trend.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
No. The bullet will be stopped by his head. No problem.
...
So, you want to control the behaviors of OTHERS based on the fact that they MIGHT hurt your feelings?
Oh I love this debate style. Here, I'll mimic it: "So you want to kill people who don't want to die by giving them too much easy access to dangerous equipment? Go back to your gun safe and clutch your penis extension until your aggressions die down. You will feel better after a while."
Anyway, let's detour back to the point, here...
The number of people WILLING to COMMIT violence is actually a pretty fixed number. For violence to happen, there also has to be a CRIMINAL! I would think that this would be common sense, but I guess not.
Common sense is knowing that opportunity is an element of crime. Actually, you said it yourself: " Yes, it will REDUCE, but not eliminate homicides." Your own common sense seems to be at odds with your agenda.
Did you know that guns are used to prevent or deter crime in close to a million incidents per year?
Did you know that most of those incidents involve the criminal having a gun in the first place? In fact, that's the reason you would prefer to have a gun over a knife or a baseball bat in your house.
By the way, did you know that homicide is down by 50% since 1993? You are safer now that you have ever been in your entire life. Quick! We need to do something to reverse this horrible trend.
It's down a lot further in many other places. Also the rate of decline is constant in those places too, meaning we have a lot of fully-preventable deaths happening in this country. Yes, we do need to do something about it. You've already demonstrated you feel this way, not sure why you're suddenly in denial about it.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
So, I assume that you also want background checks for chainsaws too. Sorry, but gun accidents are remarkably low given how common they are. Stupid people are often killed by dangerous equipment. That is not a reason to ban competent people from owning gun, chainsaws, or drill presses.
My "penis extension?" I feel flattered that you think about my penis so much, but I am married. I don't actually have ANY aggression. My kids think that I am pretty even-tempered. I also do not have an irrational fear about what my neighbor might own or what he might be doing right now. What my neighbor does is his business. I don't go around looking for a reason to interfere in the lives of others. You could take a lesson from that.
Yes, I have an agenda. It is called "The US Constitution," and I happen to think that it is a great idea. You must have MISSED the part where I also said that homicides might then INCREASE as a result of disarming victims. I guess you ignore sentences that contradict your flawed opinion of reality. Pick and choose your facts -- that is the anti-gun way.
Proof of that? And even if it WERE true, explain to me how disarming a victim makes them safer. As I said, criminals BREAK THE LAW. Duh! If guns are outlawed, criminals will not be turning theirs in.
The BEST situation is to have an armed victim and an unarmed criminal.
The WORST situation is to have an unarmed victim and an armed criminal.
Explain to me how a law could disarm criminals and not honest people.
Proof of this? Any? I did the numbers myself -- Australia confiscated hundreds of thousands of guns back in 1986, and put severe restrictions on who can own them. Result? The homicide rate over there has dropped JUST AS MUCH as it has over here in the US. In terms of overall violent crime reduction, the USA has beat the pants off of Australia during the same period. So, what overall effect did Australia's gun grab have compared to the US? The USA still showed better improvement WITHOUT taking away freedoms.
So, you really think that murders are "fully preventable?" Perhaps, but NOT with gun law. How about looking at WHY people murder? Like I said, Chicago -- some zip codes have NO shootings, while others have around a HUNDRED (google "Chicago Crime Gap" if you don't believe me). The difference between the zip codes is ECONOMIC, not gun laws. But, yeah, passing "feel good" gun laws that do nothing to stop crime is much easier than trying to fix poverty.
If it is your assertion that NOT having a gun makes you safer, then convince the FBI and police first. Once they give up all of their guns, I will do the same.
Now, as to things that are likely to happen, the average penis (your favorite subject) is about 30 times more likely to commit a rape than the average gun is to commit a murder. I have four daughters
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
So, I assume that you also want background checks for chainsaws too.
Nope. Shall I assume you'd be okay with toddlers playing with chainsaws?
Sorry, but gun accidents are remarkably low given how common they are.
Heh. So if they were less common, there'd be less accidents, right?
I don't go around looking for a reason to interfere in the lives of others.
Nah, you've just armed yourself because you live in fear of others. In doing so you've increased the risk of you or a family member being seriously harmed.
This does make me curious about your views on the 'freedom of being allowed to drive drunk'.
Explain to me how a law could disarm criminals and not honest people.
This is part of the discussion we actually agree on. I don't have an answer to this question. What I do know is that the answer isn't: "Everything's just fine right now.", because it isn't. It's just easy to hide behind the words. You really should spend time finding an answer to that question for the simple reason that one day, one person too many will be shot, then your rights will be gone. I don't want to give up the second amendment either, but every incident we have here is more power to make that happen. You can bitch about what should or shouldn't happen until you're blue in the face, until the numbers go down you're going to perpetually have this problem.
The USA still showed better improvement WITHOUT taking away freedoms.
So our rate is now as low as Austalia's, right?
If it is your assertion that NOT having a gun makes you safer, then convince the FBI and police first. Once they give up all of their guns, I will do the same.
You're afraid of the same thing they are.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. The fail is strong in this one...
What an IDIOT. Where were you when they were passing out common sense? You DO know that you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a hand gun, right?
Same argument for chain saws, cars, wood lathes, and propane heaters. DUH!
I don't fear anything. I am not afraid of fire and I don't want to ban lighters and matches, but I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. I am not afraid of car accidents, but I wear a seat belt and have air bags in my car. Sensible precautions. Plus, guns are great for hunting, or target shooting for recreation. Did you know that some Olympic sports even use guns?
Simple. Driving drunk is a crime. Convict the criminal. Making cars illegal isn't the solution. Making alcohol isn't the solution either. Ban the BEHAVIOR.
If I took YOUR approach, to stop drunk driving, we have to ban alcohol, since you are willing to ban guns to stop gun crime.
I know what the problems isn't too -- more gun laws. Yeah, with 10,000 gun laws on the book, law #10,001 will be the magic one that makes everything all better. The solution is to go after WHY people want to commit murder. Change the person. Change the economy. Change the culture. Why is it that guns are glorified in movies? Why is it that some music encourages illegal violent behavior? This is not a GUN problem, but a HEART problem.
Pay attention. The numbers HAVE been going down -- 50% since 1993. Once again, DUH!
Once again, different countries, different economy, different poverty levels, different social services, different cultural values, different mental health care system. But, yeah, you can ignore all those differences and instead focus on the ONE difference that you care about.
My approach was to see what effect the new Australian law had, since they drastically changed their law a few decades ago (change a variable, see the difference). According to that metric, it did not help so much.
Yeah, criminals. Pretending that they don't exist won't make them go away.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Where were you when they were passing out common sense? You DO know that you have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a hand gun, right?
That's a weird response that doesn't answer my question in any meaningful way. "Look! There's a distraction!"
Did you know that some Olympic sports even use guns?
Are you training right now? Is the hope that you'll win a Gold Medal and that it's worth the increased risk to your loved ones?
Simple. Driving drunk is a crime. Convict the criminal. Making cars illegal isn't the solution. Making alcohol isn't the solution either. Ban the BEHAVIOR.
Actually drunk drivers are often arrested before they've caused any damage. By your logic their freedoms have been taken away. You're against that, right? They shouldn't be put in handcuffs until there's a collision, right?
The numbers HAVE been going down -- 50% since 1993. Once again, DUH!
They went down everywhere else at that rate as well, we're still way higher in the rankings. "DUH!"
Once again, different countries, different economy, different poverty levels, different social services, different cultural values, different mental health care system. But, yeah, you can ignore all those differences and instead focus on the ONE difference that you care about.
Heh. Yeah, Australia is great until it's used against you, then it's too different to use as a point of reference.
Yeah, criminals. Pretending that they don't exist won't make them go away.
Pretending you live in Robocop's "Old Detroit" doesn't put you or your family in a better position, either. Extremes suck. Sorry.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I would not feel comfortable letting a toddler own a gun, a razor blade, or a power drill. What does that have to do with ANYTHING? You mentioned giving guns to toddlers, not me.
Is that any of your business. You know that having a pool at your house greatly increases the chance of drowning, right? Are you campaigning against owning pools? Since it is MY family, it is MY decision to make. You don't get to make decisions for others. It is called "Freedom." Look it up in a dictionary.
No, my logic is to arrest a person once they have committed a crime. Driving drunk is a crime. Using a gun in a crime is also a crime. I don't want to ban guns or beer. I am all for giving people as much freedom as they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody else. You are apparently for taking away somebody's freedom based on fear of what the MIGHT do.
And once again, comparing places with different levels of poverty, different languages, blah blah blah, means that things are DIFFERENT. You can't directly compare apples to oranges, as you always want to do.
But, OK. Japan has no guns and a lot more suicides. We need to give Japan guns in order to save all those people who kill themselves. We can safely ignore the COMPLETELY different culture and different language. There, see how easy that is to compare things that aren't alike?
Australia STARTED a lot less violent, even before their gun grab. But since you want to play this game, Russia has no private guns, but a higher murder rate than the US. Clearly, you can see that more guns = less murder. See, I can play this "let's blindly and stupidly compare" game too. At least I am honest enough to admit that I am making a false comparison.
No, I actually live in a pretty safe area. I am happy, my wife is happy, and my kids are happy. I don't pretend anything. However, I don't like it when people start sticking their nose all up in my business and telling me how I should live and what I should be allowed to own. I have hurt nobody. I raise my kids. I do my job, and help improve the economy. I pay my taxes. Why is it asking too much to just be allowed to live my life the way that I see fit? Why do you insist on trying to control what I do? What have I ever done to hurt you?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Anyways, this has been fun.
Hey, once you are done here, let's go into vi vs. emacs. I am an emacs guy myself. If you could pretend to like vi for a while, we could have some more fun!
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
You mentioned giving guns to toddlers, not me.
No, I didn't. I asked about how you felt about giving chainsaws to toddlers. Next question: How would you feel about somebody handing a chainsaw to your child at say the age of 4?
You know that having a pool at your house greatly increases the chance of drowning, right?
Actually your pool is a lot less dangerous right now than it would have been if not for regulations about how it's constructed and maintained. By your own admission gun ownership requires a great deal of responsibility, even moreso than a pool since it's singular purpose is to kill. You're thriving in that world, not suffering from it. It's the same reason the fish you get at the supermarket doesn't land you in the hospital.
I am all for giving people as much freedom as they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody else. You are apparently for taking away somebody's freedom based on fear of what the MIGHT do.
What you're describing here is exactly the scenario in the drunk driving example. It is a crime enforced specifically to prevent harm from occurring. I'm pretty confident if gun ownership was suddenly a crime you wouldn't immediately go "welp, then I believe gun owners should be arrested!". Instead you'd be upset, and rightly so, at your rights being taken away.
And once again, comparing places with different levels of poverty, different languages, blah blah blah, means that things are DIFFERENT. You can't directly compare apples to oranges, as you always want to do.
Well you can and I cannot apparently. But it doesn't matter since it's roughly uniform across the globe. But you are correct that you can create a rant that doesn't make sense by intentionally misunderstanding the point being made. I humbly admit that I have no idea what bearing that has on our discussion.
Why is it asking too much to just be allowed to live my life the way that I see fit?
Because you're part of a group of people who have ruined it for everybody. Get that rate down and your freedoms will be preserved. Sit there with your arms crossed and you can expect the worst for you to happen.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Have a good day, man.
If it matters: I don't actually support banning guns, I just feel something needs to change. I hope you and your family stay safe.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Well, obviously, dangerous items need to be kept out of the hands of children. I have kids. That is why I keep a lock on my drill press, and I keep a lock on my guns. Safety is common sense. YOU were the one that brought toddlers into this.
Yes, and guns need to be LOCKED UP if you have kids in the house. Simple enough. But I don't want to ban guns or pools.
Guns are doing a remarkably bad job then, since for every gun used in a murder, over 30,000 guns hurt nobody. Show me a single other tool that fails so spectacularly. I bet that more than 90% of steak knives actually cut steak each year, and at least 80% of table saws cut wood each year. To have only one out of over 30,000 tools used for its intended purpose shows that maybe that is NOT its intended purpose.
I am all for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. But you can't just say that OWNING a gun is irresponsible.
What is uniform across the globe? The murder rate? Hardly. In fact, try this. Take the US homicide rate. Exclude the gang-related homicides that happen in high-poverty areas. With what is left, you are as safe here as pretty much anywhere in Europe. It is a sad fact that most of the violent crime is concentrated in a few areas.
In fact, if you want to be safe from guns, here is what you need to do:
1) Don't own a gun. If you want to commit suicide, you will need to use a rope or pills, like they do in "more civilized" countries.
2) Avoid poverty-stricken areas.
3) Avoid gun-free zones. This will keep you safe from mass shootings.
4) Don't hang out with people of questionable character (ex-convicts, people with violent tendencies, etc).
If you do these things, the odds of you dying from a gun are almost completely zero.
How, exactly? I am honest. I have killed nobody. I obey the law. I pay my taxes. I respect the Constitution. What have I ruined, except the plans of those who want to tell me how to live.
I have five kids. I want them to grow up to be as free as I am. I want my kids to have the ability to live their lives the way that they want, and the ability to stop those who would want to deprive them of life or liberty. In what way is that wrong?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I am reminded of this famous quote:
More gun laws is clear, simple, and wrong.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Huh. I thought this conversation was over. Well, okay...
I have kids. That is why I keep a lock on my drill press, and I keep a lock on my guns.
And how would you react if I let your kids play with my drill press unsupervised?
Yes, and guns need to be LOCKED UP if you have kids in the house. Simple enough.
But but but shouldn't they have the freedom to choose whether they lock up their guns?
Guns are doing a remarkably bad job then, since for every gun used in a murder, over 30,000 guns hurt nobody.
So what are they being used for then, changing the channels on the TV?
What is uniform across the globe?
Violence in general.
Exclude the gang-related homicides that happen in high-poverty areas. With what is left, you are as safe here as pretty much anywhere in Europe. It is a sad fact that most of the violent crime is concentrated in a few areas.
Where are the guns in those areas coming from?
3) Avoid gun-free zones. This will keep you safe from mass shootings.
... I still cannot believe the wide-spread brain-damage people must have to believe this. Weird sort of confusion about cause and effect. You do know that guns are banned in most workplaces, right? If you don't believe me then try bringing yours to work tomorrow. If that logic actually prevailed we'd have a lot more 'postal' situations.
How, exactly?
How are you part of that group? By owning a gun. You're part of the reason other people want to own guns. Your ownership of that gun creates the potential to have it taken from you and misused, either by a criminal or possibly even someone in your own family. You could one day fire on an unarmed intruder. Or maybe you could be shot by a police officer coming to your rescue, not realizing you're not a bad guy because you're holding your gun in defense.
In what way is that wrong?
It's not wrong. What is wrong is too many people are dying.
You're offering obstruction without a solution.
More gun laws is clear, simple, and wrong.
The "Let everybody have guns!" approach is simple, clear, and also wrong. But, hey, at least we'll get to repeat this again in a month or so when the next mass-shooting happens. Within a year or two it could even reach once-a-week! Aren't you looking forward to this endless debate?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I would not let my kids play at your house.
Gun ownership is a right -- and a responsibility. With young kids in the house, locks are necessary. How old still qualifies as "young" is another discussion.
Well, putting meat in the freezer, shooting holes in paper targets, killing pests that threaten your crops and/or livestock.
Generally, from areas with looser gun laws and less crime.
You really think that Switzerland has the same level of violence as Venezuela? Wow. Just.... wow.
OK. How many mass shootings can you name in the past 20 years that did NOT happen in gun free zones? Go ahead. I will wait...
Really? That is what you are going with?
1) I am a danger to NOBODY, unless you break into my house or try to seriously hurt my family. If you don't want to be a victim of my gun, it is simple -- don't be a criminal.
2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire. Yeah, it is like that. What you say MIGHT happen, but those are the long odds. I bet you base your financial future on winning the lottery.
3) And wanting to take away my gun because I MIGHT hurt an intruder? What about the fact that the intruder MIGHT hurt me?
And the number of people dying goes DOWN every year. Plus, I have yet to actually hear a solution from you. All you propose are things that are unconstitutional and ineffective. Which of those traits appeals to you more? The fact that you would be going against the Constitution, or the fact that more laws just inconvenience the people who follow the laws?
Did I ever say "everybody have guns?" If so, show me where. I don't remember saying that. How much easier to attack people if you can invent things that they say.
And, yes, there will be another shooting eventually in another gun-free zone where all of the victims are unarmed. Didn't the person committed to mass murder realize that he will be breaking the law by bringing a gun in where it is not allowed? Maybe we need to make gun in a "gun free zone" MORE illegal, maybe then the criminal will obey that law.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I would not let my kids play at your house.
He dodges! So why don't you want to answer my question?
Gun ownership is a right -- and a responsibility.
Thank you.
Well, putting meat in the freezer, shooting holes in paper targets, killing pests that threaten your crops and/or livestock.
Heh. Yeah this country is just chock-full of hunters protecting their farms.
OK. How many mass shootings can you name in the past 20 years that did NOT happen in gun free zones? Go ahead. I will wait...
Plenty actually, for example all of the postal rampages that happened in the 90's. But I am using your definition of 'gun-free-zone'. Most places of employment do not allow guns. If you don't believe me then try taking your gun to work tomorrow and see how many of your coworkers show you theirs.
More recently there was the community college in Oregon. But I'm not sure why we're talking about this since in nearly all those cases the shooter had ties to the location, as opposed to the 'randomly appeared and started blasting' theory that people like you seem to think.
Generally, from areas with looser gun laws and less crime.
Thank you for supporting my point.
You really think that Switzerland has the same level of violence as Venezuela? Wow. Just.... wow.
I didn't say that, perhaps this message was intended for someone else?
1) I am a danger to NOBODY, unless you break into my house or try to seriously hurt my family. If you don't want to be a victim of my gun, it is simple -- don't be a criminal.
You have a gun in your house. It can be stolen. It can be used by your kids. It can be used by you. Don't act like there's a non-zero risk introduced by your purchase of that weapon, You yourself alluded to how your ownership of that gun has the potential to end up in the inner-city.
2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire.
Nah, but you should be pulled over if you're driving drunk. Fiery crashes aren't 100% preventable, but drunk driving is.
3) And wanting to take away my gun because I MIGHT hurt an intruder? What about the fact that the intruder MIGHT hurt me?
You want to have a gun so you can kill anybody the law will allow? Why are you so eager to shoot a living being?!?!?! If you find that to be a mis-characterization of your point, instead of hitting reply instead pause for a moment to let that sink in.
And the number of people dying goes DOWN every year.
Except mass shootings, which are going up rather dramatically. Which is why we're even having this conversation.
Plus, I have yet to actually hear a solution from you. All you propose are things that are unconstitutional and ineffective
I haven't proposed anything. What I have told you is I don't want to give up the second amendment. I'm starting to see why you're so confused by my points, you're not reading my comments in their entirety. You are right, however, that I don't have a solution. I also don't have a gun. You, however, are in danger of losing your rights, so I suggest you get to thinkin'.
Did I ever say "everybody have guns?" If so, show me where. I don't remember saying that. How much easier to attack people if you can invent things that they say.
Oohhhhh the irony of that statement, Mr. Venezuela, fiery seatbelts, and pool banishment. The difference is I have some grounding in what I said. You've expressed disgruntlement against existing gun laws, and you've expressed the desire to do whatever you want without anybody sticking their noses in. Unless you're proposing you get your own personal set o
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I answered the question that you asked. No dodge.
Around where I live, a lot of hunters. Fresh elk and antelope are yummy.
It was a gun-free zone, at according to the president of the college. Carrying a gun there is not illegal, but you can get fired or expelled, so yeah, gun-free zone, at least if you want to keep your job and/or diploma.
Please know your FACTS. If you are in doubt, I can provide a link to a video of the college president saying that no guns are allowed.
So, once again, how many mass shootings in the last 20 years not in gun free zones?
And YOU dodge.
No, I am not eager. I hope it never happens. However, if forced to choose between a criminal or a family member dying, I am going to save my family.
More publicized, maybe. More in general? I don't think so.
But his victims shouldn't have guns? Yeah, makes sense. That worked out SO well in movie theaters, schools, and churches in S. Carolina. All had a "no guns" policy.
We protect the President with guns. We protect our kids with plastic signs.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
I answered the question that you asked. No dodge.
No, you didn't.
If you are in doubt, I can provide a link to a video of the college president saying that no guns are allowed.
Go ahead, and I'll show you a link to an armed student that was there. He went on to say others were, too, and elected not to engage for fear of shooting innocent bystanders or becoming a target by the police.
So, once again, how many mass shootings in the last 20 years not in gun free zones?
Do you understand how gun-free zones came into being?
And YOU dodge.
Actually, unlike you, I did answer. "2) Let me guess, we should ban seat belts because you MIGHT get trapped in your car, and unable to flee if it catches on fire." "Nah..."
No, I am not eager. I hope it never happens. However, if forced to choose between a criminal or a family member dying, I am going to save my family.
You should have finished reading that paragraph.
More publicized, maybe. More in general? I don't think so.
Yes. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09...
But his victims shouldn't have guns? Yeah, makes sense. That worked out SO well in movie theaters, schools, and churches in S. Carolina. All had a "no guns" policy.
How would people with widely varying skills with firearms somehow end in less bloodshed? We already have statistics that show that, at best, the "Good guy with a gun" only works about 15% of the time. Meanwhile you're opening the door to problems like people rage shooting, accidental discharge, innocent victims, etc.
In fact a woman was shot in a theater just this last weekend. Was the problem that the shooter had a gun or that she wasn't armed?
We protect the President with guns. We protect our kids with plastic signs.
We've already learned that surrounding our kids with more guns doesn't make them safer. That's actually how we got into this in the first place. Remember when I said you got your cause and effect mixed up? Why do you think those signs suddenly appeared? I'll give you a hint: I wasn't from someone predicting the future.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, I did. I did not answer the way you wanted, but I answered it honestly.
Yeah. He broke the rules. So did that shooter. That did not mean that there was not a "gun free zone" policy there.
Or, will you present evidence of a guy going 100 MPH down the highway as proof that there is no speed limit?
Yes. Stupid people think that a person who is willing to commit murder will actually obey a sign.
Now, I will ask you ONCE AGAIN... which mass shooting in the last 20 years have NOT been in a "gun free" zone. I am expecting a dodge again.
When a mass shooter attacks unarmed victims, it ends badly 100% of the time. Even your supposed 15% of the time is much better than 0% of the time.
Sorry, but we have seen repeatedly the consequences of gun free zones. It is stupid to think that the answer is more gun free zones. I would rather be protected by a gun than a plastic sign.
Yeah, we learned that at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia tech. Those "no guns allowed" sign really worked. I can believe you, or I can believe reality. Hmmm, which to choose...
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Yes, I did. I did not answer the way you wanted...
That is correct. Instead of answering the question I asked, you answered a question I did not ask. And you are continuing to dodge.
Yeah. He broke the rules.
No, he didn't. The college can frown on it all they like but he did not break any rules.
Yes. Stupid people think that a person who is willing to commit murder will actually obey a sign.
So, no, you don't understand how those signs came into being.
Now, I will ask you ONCE AGAIN... which mass shooting in the last 20 years have NOT been in a "gun free" zone. I am expecting a dodge again.
Oregon Community College. Postal shootings. I don't know why these keep falling out of your head. Since you want more: Planned Parenthood in Texas. The shooting in Arizona that Gabriel Giffords miraculously survived. And so on. Again, most places of business actually ban guns anyway so by your definition everywhere is fair game.
When a mass shooter attacks unarmed victims, it ends badly 100% of the time. Even your supposed 15% of the time is much better than 0% of the time.
Not really. It means more shots fired, broader group of potential victims, and confusion about who the police shoot.
Sorry, but we have seen repeatedly the consequences of gun free zones. It is stupid to think that the answer is more gun free zones.
Going by that logic you can avoid having an unwanted child by not purchasing a mini-van.
Yeah, we learned that at Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia tech. Those "no guns allowed" sign really worked. I can believe you, or I can believe reality.
Ah, reality. Here's reality: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the school up in Oregon were shot up by actual students attending there. The sign did not attract them. In fact the student that shot up the Oregon school was aware of the local conceal carry laws and knew there were likely armed students around him, that did not deter him. Again, you have your cause and effect reversed about where these signs came from.
You're not choosing reality, you're cherry-picking what you want to hear. I'm just not sure if that's out of laziness or passion about owning guns.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. Is lying the only way that you can make your point? Here is your question:
And here is my answer:
So, YES, I answered your question. Duh!
Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.
Here is the PRESIDENT OF THAT COLLEGE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A NO GUNS ON CAMPUS POLICY. If you can't believe the person who RUNS the college, then who will you believe?
Sorry, post offices are officially "gun free" zones. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...
So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head. Well, you choice, but not the one that I would make. However, how dare you force your stupid decisions on me?
And as to police, they warn you before they shoot. If you put your gun down, you will be OK. Let the police arrest EVERYBODY carrying a gun and sort it out later. Better to be arrested than dead.
You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.
And here is MORE reality. The victims were DISARMED, so nobody could stop the bad guy until good guys showed up -- with guns.
Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones. And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.
Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies. It is just too easy and not much fun. Please at least make it challenging for me to prove you to be a liar. Be more clever! It is more fun that way.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
So, YES, I answered your question. Duh!
You didn't answer my question about how you'd feel if I let your kids use a drill-press, you answered an imaginary question of if you'd ever let me hang out with them. You're dodging, presumably because you know it's a good point.
Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.
Nope. They tried it and were sued in 2013... and they lost. They cannot supercede Oregon law, all they can do is politely ask that nobody bring their guns.
Sorry, post offices are officially "gun free" zones. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...
Hey, I'll give you credit, you taught me something. I thought the Post Office became gun-free in 93 when schools did, but as near as i can tell it was back in the 70's. Okie doke, you can have that.
So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head.
According to you: Guns are safe because they don't actually hurt anybody. Anyway, I'd rather wait for police to arrive than have a numbnut who think he's John McClane adding more bullets to the mix. Your fantasies about how heroism works are based on what Hollywood has shown you, not reality.
You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.
Thank you for confirming that your logic doesn't make sense.
Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones.
I did.
And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.
I don't understand this sentence.
Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies.
Apparently when you're misinformed anybody who disagree with you is 'lying'. I bet I know talk show on the radio you listen to. Mega-dittos, man.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You asked me how I would "react" not how I would "feel." Sorry, but I answered the question that you asked, not the one that you MEANT to ask.
How I would FEEL? I would think that you are an unfit parent.
Funny, that is not what it says in the student handbook -- and, yes, I read it after the shooting. Once again, I can believe you (without references), or the word of the college president and the college handbook. Hmmmm, which one is more trustworthy?
Well, *IF* your statement is true, despite evidence to the contrary, you are up to ONE shooting not in a "gun free" zone.
Let me list the ones, just off of the top of my head, that were in gun free zones:
Movie Theaters. Columbine high school, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, Churches in S. Carolina. Military recruiting offices. Yeah, all of those were gun free zones.
So, you would rather be locked in a room with a murderer unarmed with help 10 minutes away rather than have somebody in the same room be armed and take a chance of stopping the bad guy? Like I said, history has shown what that looks like, and it isn't pretty.
Now, this incident happened about TWO MILES from my house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So, yeah, a lady with a concealed carry permit stopped a bad guy. Once again, whom do I believe? Facts, or your opinion?
Here is another incident where a good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. Only one innocent killed, but without the good guy, who knows how many?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
Like I said. Make this interesting. Please deal in the truth. If I can prove what you say is false with 10 seconds of Googling, you aren't doing it right.
Tell you what. Before you post again, Google for evidence to the contrary to save me time.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
You asked me how I would "react" not how I would "feel."
Okay. Your response still wasn't an answer to that. But, fine...
How I would FEEL? I would think that you are an unfit parent.
Unfit, as in I shouldn't be allowed to have kids?
Hmmmm, which one is more trustworthy?
I like how I gave you enough information to verify it on your own but... no you choose to believe what you wish to. Here you go:
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/the-oregon-shooting-and-gun-free-zones/
Redell, Oct. 19: The student misconduct policy regarding firearms does not apply to students with a valid concealed weapons permit. There is a general prohibition against the possession of weapons on campus that would apply to College patrons, but this, similarly would not apply to those with valid concealed weapon permits pursuant to Oregon law (ORS 166.170).
Oh and there was a student that went on camera saying he was armed that day, he's still a student there.
Well, *IF* your statement is true, despite evidence to the contrary, you are up to ONE shooting not in a "gun free" zone.
Heh. Two actually, you're intentionally ignoring one I mention, not sure why. Given how hard it's been to get you to read even that It's not suprising you haven't heard of more. There was the Hartford Distributors shooting in 2010, 9 dead. 8 shot, 1 killed in Modesto over the summer. Six killed, 2 injured at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis 2012. Six killed one injured in a Seattle Cafe in 2012. Four killed in a spa in Atlanta, 2012. Four killed at an IHOP in Nevada 2011. Four cops killed in a coffee shop in Washington 2009, here they opened fire on clearly armed people. Eight killed in a nursing home in North Carolina, 2009.
Sorry I'm bored with writing these up.
Movie Theaters. Columbine high school, Sandy Hook Elementary, Virginia Tech, Churches in S. Carolina. Military recruiting offices. Yeah, all of those were gun free zones.
With one possible exception they all had a connection to the shooter, important detail in this topic.
...rather than have somebody in the same room be armed and take a chance of stopping the bad guy?
Yes, history ... and YOU.. have shown that guns rarely hit their mark. More shots don't make me safer.
Once again, whom do I believe? Facts, or your opinion?
You wouldn't accept two shootings in a non-gun-free-zone as a rebuttal, so I assume you'll believe the morons you listen to on the radio.
If I can prove what you say is false with 10 seconds of Googling, you aren't doing it right.
Not only am I doing it right, but it's really dumb of you to have such a strong opinion on something if you won't even bother to educate yourself on it. Armed ignorance... lovely.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. You are reaching....
From that link that YOU posted:
So, yeah, that was how the policy was SUPPOSED to work.
Now, let's see ANOTHER quote from the SAME article:
So, yeah. AFTER THE FACT, the college clarified that they legally could not do anything about concealed permits, even though they wanted to.
But, what about the students and faculty actually there at the time? Just reading the handbook, the intent is clear that the intent is to be a gun-free zone. A lawyer who is an expert in the field might be able to know better, but the average law person would think that guns are now allowed.
So, if YOU were a student there and without the benefit of hindsight, what would YOU think about the policy there. Apparently it was so confusing even the president of the college was confused. Simply stated, the matter is FAR from clear, and a student there could hardly be blamed for THINKING that it was a gun free zone, which was the INTENT of the policy. So, yeah, the school was dishonest in this regard.
Also, some of those shootings that you listed were apparently WERE gun free zones. According to this site, the Hartford and Accent Signage ones were gun free zones.
http://sund.org/gun-free-zone-...
The Modesto shooting was at a PARTY with ALCOHOL. Responsible gun owners do not carry guns while drinking, so that was also winds up in the "fuzzy" category.
Wow, you are reaching again. How have I shown that? All of those mass shooting, the criminal manages to hit his target, but you assume that a person fighting for their life will miss? That is called "wishful thinking."
Yeah, morons like Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? I would not trust them on gun policy.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
So, yeah. AFTER THE FACT, the college clarified that they legally could not do anything about concealed permits, even though they wanted to.
After the fact, being 3 years before the shooting.
So, if YOU were a student there and without the benefit of hindsight, what would YOU think about the policy there.
If I were the shooter at that college with the same interest in guns that he had who felt that an actual enforced gun policy is all that's standing in the way of me killing anybody, even though in those circumstances I'd be willing to die myself so it really doesn't matter, I'd full well be aware that there were armed students on campus. At best I would have followed it as it happened in 2012-2013, at worst I would have looked it up and found it rather easily. I'd also probably have my fellow gun-loving friends to trade notes with on the topic.
Also, some of those shootings that you listed were apparently WERE gun free zones. According to this site, the Hartford and Accent Signage ones were gun free zones.
I looked up Accent Signage to find out if it's gun-free or not and I could not verify whether or not it was actually gun-free. The only claim I could find to it is a site that describes these zones as "Victim Rich Zones", clearly demonstrating their biases. Amusingly I could only find 14 entries on that site and the Oregon College is not among them! I'm not a fan of the source, not sure why you are.
The Modesto shooting was at a PARTY with ALCOHOL. Responsible gun owners do not carry guns while drinking...
HAHAHA, right. Do you really think that shooter would describe himself as responsible? "Me? Nah, I drink while shooting!" In any event, it doesn't matter. An irresponsible gun owner is still a gun owner, and that person is ruining your rights for you.
Wow, you are reaching again. How have I shown that?
It's in one of your early posts in this thread. If you're retracting that statement I'll accept it.
All of those mass shooting, the criminal manages to hit his target...
Umm, no, they don't. In fact this is in direct conflict with your assertion that these shooters go after weak targets. If they're attacking places solely based on lack of resistance, then they don't have 'targets', they have a count. Certainly they're not reaching the count they intend to.
Yeah, morons like Justin Timberlake and Beyonce? I would not trust them on gun policy.
Nah, instead you're trusting a moron that convinced you that the signs came before the shootings and gave you the impression that you have any idea what motivates these shooters.
Anyway, here's a few more:
Ten people killed in Geneva County in 2009. Five killed at Atlantis Plastics in Kentucky, 2008. Eight killed at Westroads Mall in Nebraska, 2007. Five killed at a Salt Lake City Mall in 2007. Six killed at a rave in Seattle 2006. Four killed at a Damage Plan concert in 2004. (Admittedly I'm not sure if concerts are 'gun-free', some have metal detectors out front.) Six killed at Lockheed Martin in Mississippi, 2003.
This is depressing.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)