You know why reliable gun stats are difficult to come by? The Republicans, under lobbying by the NRA, banned government funded research into gun crime. That is indefensible.
In 2011 there were 323 murders committed with all types of rifles....Yet there is an insane push to outlaw the firearm which is statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of crime.
You're trying to write off 323 murders as statistically insignificant?
And imposed a complete ban on firearms and other weapons ownership by Jewish citizens.
Lets be clear here, because there's an awful lot of misinformation on this topic.
Germany lost the First World War. And as a result, In 1919 and 1920 legislation was passed to disarm the Germans, both the military and the civilans. Civilian gun ownership was forbidden.
The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition once again allowed private gun ownership.
From 1933, the German government started oppressing Jews. The first concentration camps were opened, and the first specifically antisemitic laws were passed.
The 1938 German Weapons Act further relaxed gun control.
On Nov 7th 1938, Kristallnacht happened. An early notable mass extermination and incarceration of the Jews.
On Nov 11th 1938, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. was created to stop the Jews fighting back.
So no, they didn't disarm them first. They oppressed them first.
And Germany isn't a parallel for current day gun control in the USA, as they were actually rearming the general populace at the time, not disarming them.
It's the right that guarantees all the others. Rights belong only to those who can defend them. Sheeple who have disarmed themselves and use violence (the State) to force others to do the same have no rights.
A sentiment shared by Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Anders Behring Breivik and Randy Weaver and David Koresh.
I suspect that there was significantly less looting of the Korean owned stores than there was of the London stores.
I suspect more of them died, thinking that they could protect their stores with guns. I suspect more of them killed innocent people, thinking they were protecting their stores with guns.
"Edward Song Lee TIME: 9:50 p.m. LOCATION: Near corner of Third Street and Hobart Boulevard, Wilshire District Lee, 18, a Korean-American living with his mom in the Wilshire District, was out with three friends when they got into a fight with another group of Koreans. Police responded to the gunfight and exchanged fire with both groups. Lee suffered two fatal hits to the chest as he sat in the front seat of a car. Someone in the rival group shot him. Detectives later learned the gun battle was a tragic mistake. Each group had been protecting Korean-owned stores and mistook the other for looters. Police made an arrest; no charges filed." http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/AfricanAmericans/LA%20Riot%201992%20Deaths.htm
I don't understand how having a 7 round magazine will change that. Will having a 7 round magazine help anything? Maybe. But if you had passed a law requiring gun owners to use approved gun storage containers, and you made people accessories to crimes if their guns were stolen and not properly stored, I think it would do more to solve the school shootings issue than any real legislation that has been brought up.
Well the 7 round magazine will slow the spree killers up a bit. Without inconveniencing any legitimate use. Which is a good thing.
I think banning private ownership of guns would do a lot more.
No, the question is, how overbearing do you want the State to become? How many laws is it going to take before we are 100% safe in our daily lives? What is that country going to look like?
With strong gun control? The country is going to look a lot better.
Ah yes, Randy Weaver is typical of the type who hold weapons to fight against the US government. An insane white supremacist. A conspiracy theorist with a fetish for guns.
If he didn't have guns, there wouldn't have been an armed stand-off in the first place, and two people wouldn't have died.
It's worth noting that most of those gun deaths are due either to suicide, which is impractical to perform with a car or serious crime, where the gun user has little incentive to respect gun control laws.
1) Suicide isn't to be encouraged. Yet there's a correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates.
2) Virtually all of the road deaths are accidents. Most of the gun deaths are deliberate.
And let's not forget self defense, the use of a gun, perhaps to kill, in order to prevent someone from deliberately inflicting bodily harm on you. That makes it worth it.
`Tell that to all the innocent people that are killed each year by people who believe they are using their guns in self-defense, but are mistaken.
I think the real problem is that there's a huge population of passive-aggressive jerks
No, the real problem is there are a lot of aggressive and insecure jerks who feel they need guns to assert their masculinity.
More people are killed every year with normal every day tools instead of weapons designed to kill.
No, it's not even tools. "Blunt instruments" includes plenty of things that aren't tools. And again, if you include all guns (as you would with "weapons designed to kill", then that figure is 35 times larger than the blunt instruments figure.
Suicides are included in both sides of the comparison.
I'm going to believe the majority of them would have just done it another way if they didn't have a gun in their possession.
That's not a valid belief. Method does make a difference. Plenty of people attempt suicide at a moment of extreme stress and emotion, and after having failed realise it was a mistake, and they didn't really want to die. Other methods like slitting wrists and taking overdoses fail more often, or leave the possibility of someone intervening in time. Gun suicide is easy, with a high degree of success, and is usually instant. None of these are a good thing.
It wasn't a concession. Read the first sentence of that point.
As for your 3rd point, I'd note that automatically lumping "other guns" into the rifle category is not a valid way to interpret the statistics.
It's not "other guns". As I stated it's "Other guns and type not stated". Some of those type not stated will certainly be rifles. That's perfectly valid.
It is the same magnitude of problem based on its measured effect.
No, it's not even that. Because it's grouping an infinite number of different categories together to compare with a single category. "Blunt instruments" is every single thing in the world that's not a sharp object.
People being killed with blunt objects is not a problem?
People taking sentences and ignoring the other sentences around them, and then claiming not to understand is a problem.
You recognize, of course, the absurdity of trying to ban blunt objects, because there is no shortage of such weapons.
But then you indicate that you did understand the point after all. Not just no shortage, but the world is pretty much made of them.
But the availability of blunt instruments does nothing to legitimise the proliferation of guns.
Your attempt to differentiate between guns and other types of weapons is nonsensical.
No it's not. And indeed New York has done just that, as will Obama later today.
The purpose of guns is not "killing people", but to be a weapon.
The purpose of assault weapons is indeed killing people. That's exactly what they were designed for.
Unless you are in favor of disarming the police of guns as well
The UK police are ordinarily without guns. Only specialist forces carry firearms. It works perfectly well, and the people, the police and the politicians are all overwhelmingly in favour of keeping it that way. So that's not such a ridiculous notion as you imagine. If the USA didn't have such an insane attitude to guns, it'd be possible there too.
They can put their phone on silent or buzz, and will do so. If it goes off, it takes just a few moments to head outside to take the call.
Vibrate is not silent. Screens lighting up are also distracting. And people getting up and going out phone in hand is even more so. None of these are answers, and none of these follow the implicit agreement to switch off your mobile phone in a cinema.
Jamming all phones so nobody can get any calls is inexcusable and dangerous.
Nonsense. Mobile phones are recent inventions. There was no problem 20 years ago and earlier when virtually no one had mobile phones. People didn't behave like babies deprived of their mothers tit, just because they weren't next to a phone all the time.
What I didn't understand was that you couldn't recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment when you read one.
But my snarkiness aside, if you systematically remove all the things that cause the highest amount of homicides. You would start with guns clearly. Then, after all the really dangerous things were removed from society, we would eventually track hammer related homicides as that would be one of the only remaining weapons available. Then we would be having this same debate, "Why don't we remove hammers from society as they are the leading cause of homicides?" It's a slippery slope to a nanny state.
My impression that you actually meant it and it wasn't simply "tongue-in-cheek comment" is confirmed by the fact that you've continued to push the argument seriously in this reply.
But my snarkiness aside, if you systematically remove all the things that cause the highest amount of homicides. You would start with guns clearly. Then, after all the really dangerous things were removed from society
Then we'd have saved an awful lot of lives, long before we got to "hammers".
The primary purpose of protecting the right to own firearms is to allow the civilian populace of the United States to maintain the necessary power to resist and possibly violently overthrow an oppressive, out-of-control government.
There is a name for people who try to do that. Here's 3 hints: Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Anders Behring Breivik.
Slashdot Mirror
Most gun owners are quite responsible. Even these so called "assault weapons" constitute less than 5% of all gun related crimes.
And what percentage of guns are "assault weapons".
Ferraris aren't safer than Fords, just because more people die in Fords.
You know why reliable gun stats are difficult to come by? The Republicans, under lobbying by the NRA, banned government funded research into gun crime. That is indefensible.
Obama is proposing to reverse that.
In 2011 there were 323 murders committed with all types of rifles....Yet there is an insane push to outlaw the firearm which is statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of crime.
You're trying to write off 323 murders as statistically insignificant?
Those videos are party tricks, not what happens in real life as a gun nut is slaughtering people.
Magazine restrictions are for making stupid people feel safer.
Even if it were, that would still be worth it. Why shouldn't people feel safer, at a loss of nothing to the legitimate use of firearms.
And imposed a complete ban on firearms and other weapons ownership by Jewish citizens.
Lets be clear here, because there's an awful lot of misinformation on this topic.
Germany lost the First World War. And as a result, In 1919 and 1920 legislation was passed to disarm the Germans, both the military and the civilans. Civilian gun ownership was forbidden.
The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition once again allowed private gun ownership.
From 1933, the German government started oppressing Jews. The first concentration camps were opened, and the first specifically antisemitic laws were passed.
The 1938 German Weapons Act further relaxed gun control.
On Nov 7th 1938, Kristallnacht happened. An early notable mass extermination and incarceration of the Jews.
On Nov 11th 1938, Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. was created to stop the Jews fighting back.
So no, they didn't disarm them first. They oppressed them first.
And Germany isn't a parallel for current day gun control in the USA, as they were actually rearming the general populace at the time, not disarming them.
It's the right that guarantees all the others. Rights belong only to those who can defend them. Sheeple who have disarmed themselves and use violence (the State) to force others to do the same have no rights.
A sentiment shared by Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Anders Behring Breivik and Randy Weaver and David Koresh.
I suspect that there was significantly less looting of the Korean owned stores than there was of the London stores.
I suspect more of them died, thinking that they could protect their stores with guns. I suspect more of them killed innocent people, thinking they were protecting their stores with guns.
"Edward Song Lee
TIME: 9:50 p.m. LOCATION: Near corner of Third Street and Hobart Boulevard, Wilshire District
Lee, 18, a Korean-American living with his mom in the Wilshire District, was out with three friends when they got into a fight with another group of Koreans. Police responded to the gunfight and exchanged fire with both groups. Lee suffered two fatal hits to the chest as he sat in the front seat of a car. Someone in the rival group shot him. Detectives later learned the gun battle was a tragic mistake. Each group had been protecting Korean-owned stores and mistook the other for looters. Police made an arrest; no charges filed."
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/soc220/Lectures220/AfricanAmericans/LA%20Riot%201992%20Deaths.htm
Of course what you'd need to do to have a meaningful statistic would be murders per rifle, and compare it with murders per handgun.
I don't understand how having a 7 round magazine will change that. Will having a 7 round magazine help anything? Maybe. But if you had passed a law requiring gun owners to use approved gun storage containers, and you made people accessories to crimes if their guns were stolen and not properly stored, I think it would do more to solve the school shootings issue than any real legislation that has been brought up.
Well the 7 round magazine will slow the spree killers up a bit. Without inconveniencing any legitimate use. Which is a good thing.
I think banning private ownership of guns would do a lot more.
LA Riots. 5 days. Lots of looting. Death toll 53.
London riots. 5 days. Lots of looting. Death toll 5.
No, the question is, how overbearing do you want the State to become? How many laws is it going to take before we are 100% safe in our daily lives? What is that country going to look like?
With strong gun control? The country is going to look a lot better.
The more irrational the arguments made by gun nuts, the easier it is to legislate against guns.
So please, keep it up.
Murders per capita is not arbitrarily chosen. It's the only rational way of comparing murder statistics between different countries.
Ah yes, Randy Weaver is typical of the type who hold weapons to fight against the US government. An insane white supremacist. A conspiracy theorist with a fetish for guns.
If he didn't have guns, there wouldn't have been an armed stand-off in the first place, and two people wouldn't have died.
You come up with a good reason for banning guns.
Duh, you make it look easy on TV.
Next, you'll be saying it's not real.
It's worth noting that most of those gun deaths are due either to suicide, which is impractical to perform with a car or serious crime, where the gun user has little incentive to respect gun control laws.
1) Suicide isn't to be encouraged. Yet there's a correlation between gun ownership rates and suicide rates.
2) Virtually all of the road deaths are accidents. Most of the gun deaths are deliberate.
And let's not forget self defense, the use of a gun, perhaps to kill, in order to prevent someone from deliberately inflicting bodily harm on you. That makes it worth it.
`Tell that to all the innocent people that are killed each year by people who believe they are using their guns in self-defense, but are mistaken.
I think the real problem is that there's a huge population of passive-aggressive jerks
No, the real problem is there are a lot of aggressive and insecure jerks who feel they need guns to assert their masculinity.
More people are killed every year with normal every day tools instead of weapons designed to kill.
No, it's not even tools. "Blunt instruments" includes plenty of things that aren't tools. And again, if you include all guns (as you would with "weapons designed to kill", then that figure is 35 times larger than the blunt instruments figure.
Stop lumping suicides into that number.
Suicides are included in both sides of the comparison.
I'm going to believe the majority of them would have just done it another way if they didn't have a gun in their possession.
That's not a valid belief. Method does make a difference. Plenty of people attempt suicide at a moment of extreme stress and emotion, and after having failed realise it was a mistake, and they didn't really want to die. Other methods like slitting wrists and taking overdoses fail more often, or leave the possibility of someone intervening in time. Gun suicide is easy, with a high degree of success, and is usually instant. None of these are a good thing.
Concession on this point accepted.
It wasn't a concession. Read the first sentence of that point.
As for your 3rd point, I'd note that automatically lumping "other guns" into the rifle category is not a valid way to interpret the statistics.
It's not "other guns". As I stated it's "Other guns and type not stated". Some of those type not stated will certainly be rifles. That's perfectly valid.
It is the same magnitude of problem based on its measured effect.
No, it's not even that. Because it's grouping an infinite number of different categories together to compare with a single category. "Blunt instruments" is every single thing in the world that's not a sharp object.
People being killed with blunt objects is not a problem?
People taking sentences and ignoring the other sentences around them, and then claiming not to understand is a problem.
You recognize, of course, the absurdity of trying to ban blunt objects, because there is no shortage of such weapons.
But then you indicate that you did understand the point after all. Not just no shortage, but the world is pretty much made of them.
But the availability of blunt instruments does nothing to legitimise the proliferation of guns.
Your attempt to differentiate between guns and other types of weapons is nonsensical.
No it's not. And indeed New York has done just that, as will Obama later today.
The purpose of guns is not "killing people", but to be a weapon.
The purpose of assault weapons is indeed killing people. That's exactly what they were designed for.
Unless you are in favor of disarming the police of guns as well
The UK police are ordinarily without guns. Only specialist forces carry firearms. It works perfectly well, and the people, the police and the politicians are all overwhelmingly in favour of keeping it that way. So that's not such a ridiculous notion as you imagine. If the USA didn't have such an insane attitude to guns, it'd be possible there too.
Wrong names. They weren't attempting to protect the Rule of Law nor innocent civilians from a government gone bad.
They think they were.
Here. Try these names, instead. Much more accurate to the purpose & intent of the 2nd Amendment, and the reasons for it's existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_signers_of_the_United_States_Constitution
You're stuck in the past. Also blacks aren't slaves any more and indians aren't the object of government sanctioned genocide either.
It's very clear from an unbiased reading of the Federalist Paper
You're not unbiased, and they are things of the distant past.
They can put their phone on silent or buzz, and will do so. If it goes off, it takes just a few moments to head outside to take the call.
Vibrate is not silent. Screens lighting up are also distracting. And people getting up and going out phone in hand is even more so. None of these are answers, and none of these follow the implicit agreement to switch off your mobile phone in a cinema.
Jamming all phones so nobody can get any calls is inexcusable and dangerous.
Nonsense. Mobile phones are recent inventions. There was no problem 20 years ago and earlier when virtually no one had mobile phones. People didn't behave like babies deprived of their mothers tit, just because they weren't next to a phone all the time.
Off topic AND weight loss snake oil. One might almost imagine you were a shill.
What I didn't understand was that you couldn't recognize a tongue-in-cheek comment when you read one.
But my snarkiness aside, if you systematically remove all the things that cause the highest amount of homicides. You would start with guns clearly. Then, after all the really dangerous things were removed from society, we would eventually track hammer related homicides as that would be one of the only remaining weapons available. Then we would be having this same debate, "Why don't we remove hammers from society as they are the leading cause of homicides?" It's a slippery slope to a nanny state.
My impression that you actually meant it and it wasn't simply "tongue-in-cheek comment" is confirmed by the fact that you've continued to push the argument seriously in this reply.
But my snarkiness aside, if you systematically remove all the things that cause the highest amount of homicides. You would start with guns clearly. Then, after all the really dangerous things were removed from society
Then we'd have saved an awful lot of lives, long before we got to "hammers".
But when people Americans are talking about things, there is the silent "domestic" for everything, unless "global" is used.
Indeed they do. But they (any you) make a mistake when you're talking about a company that markets it's products globally.
The primary purpose of protecting the right to own firearms is to allow the civilian populace of the United States to maintain the necessary power to resist and possibly violently overthrow an oppressive, out-of-control government.
There is a name for people who try to do that. Here's 3 hints: Jared Lee Loughner, Lee Harvey Oswald, Anders Behring Breivik.