and you don't have to worry that the person carrying has a hot round in the chamber
Because people always obey the law, 100% of the time, which is why gun control works. Right?
Of the three counties you mentiond, Contra Costa seems to have the highest violent crime rate, per 1,000 citizens
We're discussing guns, not violence; unless you're finally seeing my point that, absent guns, the violence would still occur. Try restricting your search to gun violence and see what that does to the results. I'll grant you may need to exclude Oakland (which has its own gun laws which are a fair bit more restrictive than the rest of the county) to see my point. In fact, ignore the other counties entirely and contrast Oakland against the rest of Contra Costa County.
How many of the CC dumbasses you know have shot themselves? Here's an interesting anecdote (well, a set of three and the plural of anecdote is data): I personally know three people who've accidentally discharged firearms and shot themselves; all three were cops. If there's anyone we want having guns, it's law enforcement; yet, despite knowing a handful more non-LEO CCW holders who carry daily than I know cops, every incident I know of (again personally, not just reading from some other source or hearing from so-and-so like you're doing right now as you read this, so I expect this to be taken with the requisite grain of salt -- especially as you've already made it clear you can't take me at my word) has involved a cop.
I can't speak for why that is; I can only be thankful that all three only shot themselves, and only in the leg, so they're all still with us today.
Getting back to Switzerland, though, have you considered that the controls on ammunition might play a larger role in that than the lack of concealed carry? After all, again, a criminal is going to carry regardless of the law and, well, if it's concealed, nobody is going to see it until they pull it out to use it.
If nobody around them is armed (and then seconds matter, the police are just minutes away), who the fuck is gonna stop them?
The ammunition restrictions, by the way, are the same as the gun restrictions and, honestly, I think they're fairly reasonable. Ammunition purchases are cataloged, just the same as gun purchases, and you can only buy ammunition for guns you own. That, right there, cuts down on illegal gun use; even if you manage to obtain a gun illegally, if you can't provide proof of legal ownership, you can't buy ammo. Maybe you own a.22 for plinking and illegally obtain a.45? Yeah, you can still go buy.22 ammo, but good luck getting your hands on any.45.
But we've been discussing gun control this whole time and well, it' is quite frankly too easy to illegally obtain a gun for gun control laws to work. If we controlled ammo the same way... well, once I'm done with this bullet, I can't resell it, it's done, it's used up, it's worthless; unlike a gun, that I can sell on the black market. That's why ammo control works and gun control does not. I'm all for ammo control, if that's what you want to argue for.
Besides, there are a number of guns I want to eventually buy just to hang on the wall, they'll never be fired, so I don't care if I can get ammo for them. Hell, as a precaution I'd likely remove the firing pins from any display pieces, anyway.
As for concealed carry in Switzerland, you're right, they don't have it. They do, however, have open carry, and with a number of legitimate purposes not even requiring a permit. You think open carry makes guns more or less visible? I mean, your argument is that the problem is carrying guns being seen as normal; open carry makes them more visible and, thus, more normal to be seen with.
I'd also like to point out, just as a single datapoint, that Solano County, a "may issue" county with an unusually high bar for obtaining a CCW permit, has a higher gun crime rate than its neighboring "shall issue" counties which only deny a permit if there are legal grounds for doing so. I'm sure if I looked at other counties in California, I'd see the same pattern; but I only care about Solano (where I live), Contra Costa (where I lived previously), and Napa (where I shoot most often). You're welcome to do your own study, if you'd like; the data is readily available.
> asking for the news, the news, the news, stream music
Nonsense, I "stream" my music files all the time.
I suppose you make up your own news, weather, and sports scores, as well? And already know everything, of course, so there's no need to connect to the internet to look stuff up?
If a gun carrier stands out, they will self police.
I'm not a big guy by any means and I can conceal a full-size 1911 without imprinting. I don't stand out in any way when I carry.
California seems to be doing a pretty good job with their gun laws.
Indeed, we are; except for the bullshit that started in 2017, which your link really doesn't represent. I'd also like to point out that California also currently accounts for 10% of the 30 cities with the highest murder rates in the US (#9, #17, and #18) and that those are the cities with the most restrictive local gun laws in the state. Statistically, California should have a 60% chance of having even one city on that list; less, if weighted by per-capita incidence of gun violence, yet here we are making up 10% of that list.
Hell, in 2015, Oakland had the 5th highest murder rate in the US and placed #3 for gun crimes. Hell, Stockton was #14 for murder rate, to Indianapolis' #19 in 2015; Indianapolis was also #19 in gun crime that year.
An I'm not sure gun control should be a priority when, even in Indiana (where gun deaths per capita are nearly double California), the flu killed more people than guns in 2014 and 2015, the two years for which your source has that data. In fact, that seems to hold true everywhere in the US, Alaska being the exception. Maybe we should prioritize that?
Mandating background checks for private sales would probably help, but I don't like it.
You're not too familiar with gun laws, are you?
It's not illegal to sell someone a gun from your trunk in a dark alley.
Actually, in a lot of places, it is. Come to California and perform such a sale in front of a cop. If you're lucky, the cop will step in and let you know you have to go through an FFL dealer for the transfer; if you're not, he'll watch the transaction go down and arrest everyone involved.
Here's a reference, so you can educate yourself. Many states require private transfers to be done through an FFL dealer (with a background check), many more require a specific type of ID (for which a background check is done); only 27 states allow private sales with no background check and, IMO, that number is too high.
Realistically, owning guns is not the problem, carrying them everywhere is the problem.
Sure, if you're a criminal looking for unarmed victims.
A criminal who can't take his gun anywhere is not going to have a gun when he wants to threaten you.
Criminals don't care about CCW permits, they'll damned well carry without one. Have you ever looked into how many CCW holders commit gun crimes? The number is damn near 0, while the number of gun crimes in this country is much higher. CCW holders are, by and far, not criminals -- think about it for just a second, you shouldn't meed much longer, only a complete and total idiot would register the fact that they're carrying before going and using that gun to commit a crime; and a complete and total idiot wouldn't be able to meet the requirements for a CCW permit in the first place.
Wait a minute... is there maybe a reason you think a criminal would apply for a permit to carry? I mean, given that only an idiot criminal would do that... that speaks volumes about you.
If fewer guns does mean less violent crime, then what you're saying is that there are outliers.
That's a big assumption you're making, there. Fewer guns means less gun crime, but violent crime rates have been shown, in study after study, to have no connection to gun crime. I mean, saying you can end gun crime if you get rid of guns is logically equivalent to saying you can end fistfights by getting rid of fists. Sure, it's technically true, but it's disingenuous at best. The overall crime rate (and the CDC did study on this, linked elsewhre in the discussion, this isn't just being pulled from my nether regions) isn't affected when guns are removed, so it's no longer gun crime, but it is still violent crime; similarly, people would still fight if they couldn't make fists, it just wouldn't be able to be called a fistfight.
Guns provide a quick and easy-to-use way to maim and kill.
So do knives. And spoons.
Also, having a handy, easy-to-use, relatively painless method of suicide increases the number of suicides.
You've spouted this in the past and, well, the CDC disagrees. They found that, in areas where guns were less prevalent, suicides involving guns were, as you would expect, less common, but that other methods increased in popularity to fill the void; the overall rate was not affected. See the study linked earlier in the discussion.
Wasn't the CDC forbidden to study gun violence?
Yes and no. They were forbidden to study gun violence directly, but they're allowed to dassess situations as they arise and, if one of the contributing factors may or may not be guns, they can explore that. That's a moot point, though; whether or not they were allowed to study the subject, they did and the report exists.
Do they use trucks like people in the US use guns, or was there just one or two high-profile cases?
There were 12 last year, though not all in France. While there were over 300 mass shootings in the US alone last year, keep in mind that a mass shooting is defined as 4 or more people being shot in a single incident; a raid on a drug house where shots are fired is likely to be deemed a mass shooting. We also don't count mass stabbings, but are you genuinely going to say there's no way you can reasonably stab 4 people in one incident?
Perhaps you'll point out that it's much easier to shoot 10, 20, or 50 people than it is to stab that many. Perhaps it is, let's see a study; and, if that's the case, perhaps we should raise the bar for what we consider a mass shooting to a number greater than (or, hell, even equal to) what someone with a knife or other weapon might be able to do.
I mean, if we're going to approach this with genuine interest in actually getting it right.
Not with the studies I've seen. It's hard to know what to trust
Read the CDC study; it's based on a large number of other studies, likely including all of the ones you've seen.
We need gun laws that raise the bar, just like locks on doors do.
On this, we agree. I think, at least. The bar on criminals getting guns does need to be raised. Care to propose a way to do that? Because none of the current laws, and no law that has been proposed to date, can prevent a dark alley, out of some guy's trunk, gun sale. Those are already extremely illegal and, guess what: the criminals don't give a shit.
Your wrong about mass shootings.
Thanks for that article, definitely an interesting piece. Did you read the linked study? It's a bit hard to find (the link tin the article has been broken since 2014) and paywalled when you do find it, but here's a direct, non-paywalled link. It really does seem to agree with me re: gun control laws. If you haven't read it, you probably should. Also, regarding the "debunking" of the "myth" that right to carry laws deter mass shootings, note that they cite two studies: one that finds that they, in fact, do and one that finds no effect. That, of course, means that -- at worst -- the right to carry doesn't increase incidence of mass shootings and -- at best -- might, as I've said, have a positive effect. And, remember, you entered this study into the debate by referencing an article solely based on it.
Criminals already aren't allowed to buy guns legally; they buy stolen guns (illegal) or illegally imported guns (also illegal) instead of buying from an FFL dealer, so piling more laws onto FFL purchases won't help. In sane states, private party transfers must be done through an FFL dealer, as well, so that's not a legal loophole; that's certainly how it works in my state. The problem with background checks is that anyone who doesn't pass it is gonna go to a black market seller anyway and anyone who is buying a gun to commit a crime or commit suicide, but doesn't currently have a record or any history of mental illness, will pass that background check with no issues whatsoever. In other words, it doesn't catch soon-to-be first offenders and the people it does catch have other ways to get guns if they really want them. It also doesn't help that most states don't properly catalog the incidents that would trigger a NICS failure, so even many people who should be denied aren't.
For reference, I live in California, one of the most (if not the most) restrictive states when it comes to guns. Here's an interesting statistic for you: counties with a "shall issue" policy on concealed carry permits have lower gun violence rates than counties with a "may issue" policy in this state. I don't know how true that holds nationally, but it does seem to support my claim that criminals will go where they know their victims are less likely to be able to shoot back.
I'd much rather have someone walking around with a rifle on their back vs a handgun tucked in their pocket.
So would the criminal with the handgun tucked in his pocket. Or knife, for that matter. They'll know they can safely mug you once the guy with the rifle walks away. Of course, they could probably do it right in front of him, too, since most people who carry aren't going to risk liability to protect some stranger; which, of course, is why most people carry a gun more suited for self defense at a shorter range.
Those things aren't pointless, though, and it's disingenuous of you to imply that from what I said. Locking your doors raises the bar for committing the crime of breaking and entering; a whole class of potential criminal is, in fact, deterred by a locked door, while a whole other class will, in fact, break in anyway. There is no legitimate purpose for murder, so of course it is legal; guns have a legitimate (leisure) purpose and should be legal to purchase and use for those lawful purposes. Hell, the same actually does apply to killing someone (self defense against the threat of deadly force) but murder remains illegal because most jurisdictions don't call that specific type of killing "murder".
The same arguments apply across the board, you just have to consider all the facts when applying them. You seem to fail pretty hard at that.
For the record, most of the gun laws people have a problem with relate to the long guns you seem to think (by your own admission) should be readily available, because those are the guns most often used in mass shootings. If you think the police are gonna have your back against an armed gunman, remember that the security guard who ran off when he saw the Pulse shooter walking through the parking lot with a rifle was an off-duty cop and the cops stayed outside for hours until the shooting stopped before rushing in.
Even something as simple as a digital picture, once it's out, it's out. Deleting it does not remove anything from circulation. Destroying one gun, removes it from circulation.
I missed this the first time through. Here's the thing, though; in order to replace the deleted picture, whoever's copy was deleted would have to find someone else with a copy and make another copy; until then, their copy is out of circulation. When you destroy that gun, whoever owned it can just as well go buy another, legally or illegally; so, yes, they have one less gun in their possession until they do that, but that doesn't stop them from getting another. Just like with your digital picture, you have to get rid of all of them (and the means for making more) to remove them from circulation.
And you've clearly never thought "well it's on the internet, it will always be there" only to not be able to find something a year later. Digital content goes out of circulation all the damn time.
You can have 1 bad gun, 100 bad guns, or 1000 bad guns and get very different results.
While this is true, all gun control laws do is prevent the purchase of potentially not-bad guns. They don't curb theft of guns, nor do they do anything for black-market gun sales, and all of those are bad guns. We could make the sale or possession if a firearm illegal tomorrow and id wouldn't make a dent in black market gun sales. What it would do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who might use them to protect themselves against someone who bought a gun illegally.
What you're missing is that someone bent on breaking the law isn't going to obey the law. Somebody robbing a liquor store for crack money doesn't care that they'll get extra time for the illegal gun they used in the robbery, they care about their next hit of crack. The only people who care about (and obey) gun laws are those of us whose intent it is to not break the law; and we really care about those laws when someone who doesn't care about them puts a gun to our head because we couldn't protect ourselves due to those laws.
How many different ends of a gun have you been on? There are two and I've been on both.
So.. I question whether you have read the report.
Given that every study they referenced in their research was hell-bent on proving that gun laws help, that reads more as "people set on proving gun laws work couldn't do it, so it's likely they don't". When you actually consider the logic behind it (law-abiding citizens who follow the rules will end up worse off than criminals who don't) it makes a lot of sense.
I've ended up on the wrong side of a gun twice as a result of not having one with which to defend myself; luckily, I've never been shot. That hasn't happened since I've owned one and been able to represent an equal or greater force. Further, I'm very close to law enforcement, at the local, state, and federal level, with federal agents (ICE) in my family, and good friends who are either retired or active-duty officers in various city, county, and state departments. Universally, they insist that gun crime would be lower if more law-abiding citizens were armed. Not a single one of them says otherwise.
And it makes perfect sense, really, if you put yourselves in a criminal's shoes for a moment. Seriously, put yourself in that mindset and think about it. You just bought a gun out of some guy's trunk in a dark alley for $500, you can intimidate literally anyone without a gun and maybe a handful of people with a gun; who do you target? Why would you take your chances with someone who might be armed when there's a gun free zone right around the corner you can take control of in an instant?
And that's why mass shootings always happen in gun free zones. It's literal real-life proof that gun laws (at least the ones we have today) make the situation worse; one good guy with a gun could have taken out the Pulse shooter in an instant. The cops? Yeah, they got there, heard shots being fired, and waited outside for hours before going in. Many more people died while the cops were there than before they arrived. One good guy with a gun could have ended it before they even showed up and with maybe only one or two dead (plus the perp) instead of 50 (and 58 injuries).
Get off your ass and go actually talk to people who deal with this shit on the front lines of reality sometime. You might learn a thing or two.
But try not to argue with the cop when he tells you you're wrong. I'm sure they'll find something to charge you with if you piss them off enough.
You realize that there are other countries with fewer guns than us and more gun violence, as well, right? The guns aren't the problem; people wanting to kill each other in the first place is the problem. The CDC agrees, it would seem.
In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
Even in France, where private gun ownership is nearly nonexistent, well... sure they have a lot less gun violence. They just use trucks, instead.
But even if that weren't the case -- even if reducing the number of guns in circulation would reduce the rate of violent crime (nice strawman limiting it to gun crime, by the way) or suicide -- good luck disarming the gun nuts in this country.
And why is it that you people always point out the obvious "no guns = no gun violence" as though it actually means anything, while ignoring that "no guns != less violence"? The studies have been done, it is proven, there are just too many ways to harm or kill someone and removing guns doesn't remove the violence, it just results in other tools being used instead.
Solve the social issues that lead to people blowing each other up and driving over each other with trucks -- those are the same problems that cause them to shoot each other. While you're at it, leave me the hell alone if I want to make loud noises while putting holes in paper on my own property or at a licensed range; it's not affecting you in the slightest.
You can't distribute a key to every electronic device, because you don't have one. You could if there was a backdoor or "master" key.
How? How could I distribute a key to every device? Note that I don't mean "distribute a key that will unlock every device" but, rather "distribute to every device a key which I happen to posses". Not only can I not possibly do that; even if I could I could not do so in an instant and you've failed both to understand the question and to show that I'm wrong.
My entire point is this:
master key / backdoor = BAD
gun control = not BAD
Ah there's the disconnect, you're comparing master keys to gun control but talking about master key vs guns. You're also talking in terms of good vs bad where I'm speaking in terms of possible vs impossible. A lot of things that are bad are possible, a point on which I'm certain we both agree, while a lot that would be good are impossible; a completely different point, of course. master keys = bad (and impossible) and gun control = not bad (though also not a solution to the problem of people killing each other -- care to address that point from a few posts back?)
You know, now that you've made your thought patterns a bit more clear, I agree with that point; it just has nothing to do with the point I was making. So, again, all of this is in response to your attack on a point I wasn't even making.
I'm just irritated that your dragging your tired NRA trope in here.
It's neither tired nor an NRA trope. It's actual findings of the CDC, from a study ordered by former Predident Obama when he was seeking a reason to enact tighter gun laws. It didn't get widespread media coverage because it didn't show what Obama had hoped it would. Go ahead, though, disagree with science and statistics; it's what your kind is good at. I linked to the actual report earlier in this thread. Don't be a lazy ignorant fuck, actually go read it.
Meh, it's working right enough that I don't go around committing felonies, haven't killed anyone, and I manage to keep the bills paid, a roof over my head, and food on the table. Judging by the fact that I get frequent invites to events and people at those events go out of there way to start conversations with me, I'd say I'm generally liked by people who've taken the time to get to know me, rather than judging me based on my disagreeing with them (and agreeing with the CDC and mental health communities) regarding gun control.
I have a somewhat extensive record collection, mind you; I've copied all of them. Not to MP3, but 24-bit 192KHz WAV (later to FLAC), but from there the concept is more or less the same. You quickly learn that, while a digital storage is a lot cheaper than vinyl, it still ain't free. It's also not quite as instantaneous as you seem to imply. Many times faster than the original copy from vinyl, yes, but neither instant nor infinite. That is to say, the constraints are different but they certainly do still exist.
There are a different set of constraints, still, on copying a gun; we'll both agree, I'm sure, that the constraints on copying an encryption key are much more forgiving, but they're really not that different. You still need the original, the raw materials (metal for the gun, storage for the key), the equipment, and the time. You also still need some way to distribute the finished product, don't forget. Yes, many more people have the raw materials and equipment to copy an encryption key; but that ability is still constrained. If it weren't I could distribute a key to every electronic device in the world simultaneously, in the same instant. I can't, though... can I?
Is my brain so broken that I'm missing an obvious way to do that? Or is yours so broken that you don't understand that this is, just as with copying a gun, or a house key, or an MP3, or a record, a constrained operation? If you answer "yes" to the first question, you'll be expected to explain, in great detail, the obvious thing that I have missed, of course.
Where does an independent shop get their hands on Apple's diagnostic tools and software? Where can an independent shop buy Apple parts and batteries? Where can an independent shop get a pre-programmed Apple SMC, or a copy of the SMC firmware to flash onto a virgin chip?
Yes, these things are possible at Apple's authorized repair centers. That doesn't mean they're possible without apple's blessing, though, which is what this law is aiming for.
Ever consider streaming on Twitch? They have an IRL category, where political debate and discourse would be appropriate. Imagine being the candidate funded entirely by Twitch subscriptions and donations.
Okay, now that you've stopped laughing, I'm being half serious -- it's a platform, completely free, where you can interact with voters and spread word of what you'll do for us if elected. I certainly wouldn't use it as my only venue, but you can capture a lot of the younger vote (which includes the 30-something manchildren who watch this guy 8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and actually engage your potential constituents. It would give you a great way to answer peoples' questions about your positions on various topics and immediately gauge community response and possibly adjust your own views to better align with what the people want; that's something that many of us feel is sorely lacking in the current government. It would also make it much easier for your supporters to spread the word, as they could just pass around https://www.twitch.tv/bluefoxl... and give people access to all of your past debates (broadcast on Twitch) and links to whatever resources you choose to place on your profile page.
And yes, I'm being at least semi-serious here. I've seen you campaigning on Slashdot for quite some time and, honestly, Twitch is just a better platform for it IMO.
Once that one is out, it can be copied, or used surreptitiously millions of times.
So you're saying that you can can make multiple copies of the same key, much like you can make multiple of the same model of gun; then, you can put those copies of that key in the hands of multiple people, just like you can do with a gun? And that key can be used many times, just as a gun can fire many bullets? You know, with a CNC lathe, a milling machine, and some basic measurement tools, I actually can copy my 1911. But,really, here's the thing about guns: they don't kill people. People do. Absent guns, they use trucks and bombs; hell, they'll use knives, spoons, feet, fists, water, pills, and basically anything else they can find to kill each other. Controlling guns doesn't solve that, but solving the larger underlying societal issues that actually make people want to kill each other en masse would actually be an improvement.
We don't need guns to be replicated instantly, we already have an insane number of guns, they can certainly be hidden easily (find the gun in my home; it's there, I promise), and I transport it right alongside my encrypted data (and the keys to decrypt it) with it making nary a sound. Tools to look for encryption keys do, in fact, exist; they're fully automated and work just as fast as a disk or datastream can be read. How do you hide your keys in that world? Behind more encryption. How do you hide those keys? Well, quite often, those ultimately end up hidden by a password (which itself becomes part of a key) and your average password is less than 32 characters (that's only 256 bits, and from a smaller pool of bytes -- effectively, it's closer to 101 bits, give or take a handful, when you account for that) and can be cracked in minutes on a modern system. Even systems like the iPhone, which limit the number of attempts before the keystore is cleared, can be worked around by making a copy of the keystore -- we've even seen this done, it's not just theoretical. Guns and keys (physical keys, that is) aren't really all that different from each other, excepting that one can fire bullets and the other, typically, cannot; acknowledging the fact that you can reproduce encryption keys without using a tiny sliver of metal, physical keys and encryption keys really aren't that much different form each other, either. They can both be copied, hidden, and transported (both quickly and silently), just like a gun. That you think there's a whole world of difference tells me you're quite ignorant of guns, or that you hold them up as some mystic object that only a holy few can create or wield. No, they're an everyday common, easily replicated object, just like your house keys, car keys, and encryption keys.
I'm not exactly what you'd call a pro-gun advocate, I just happen to also not be anti-gun. I agree that certain people shouldn't be allowed to have guns; those people also shouldn't have swords, knives, trucks, bombs, rope, chemistry sets, or (if we're being realistic about the things you can actually kill someone with) spoons. In fact, we have a place for those people, it's called prison, and if we can't trust someone not to harm others that's where they belong. Truth is, we need to lock up violent offenders until they're reformed (which not all people can be), but we need to overhaul our prison system, first, to actually serve that purpose. If we can trust someone to walk among us without wanting to kill us, we can trust them with a gun; if we can't, we shouldn't let them do either.
But, again, all of this is in response to your attack on a point I wasn't even making.
Slashdot Mirror
having a law gives you recourse, no law means no recourse
While I agree with the sentiment, you have to catch them, first, or course.
and you don't have to worry that the person carrying has a hot round in the chamber
Because people always obey the law, 100% of the time, which is why gun control works. Right?
Of the three counties you mentiond, Contra Costa seems to have the highest violent crime rate, per 1,000 citizens
We're discussing guns, not violence; unless you're finally seeing my point that, absent guns, the violence would still occur. Try restricting your search to gun violence and see what that does to the results. I'll grant you may need to exclude Oakland (which has its own gun laws which are a fair bit more restrictive than the rest of the county) to see my point. In fact, ignore the other counties entirely and contrast Oakland against the rest of Contra Costa County.
ugh... I meant to link to this piece, regarding open carry in Switzerland but, apparently, flubbed the HTML.
How many of the CC dumbasses you know have shot themselves? Here's an interesting anecdote (well, a set of three and the plural of anecdote is data): I personally know three people who've accidentally discharged firearms and shot themselves; all three were cops. If there's anyone we want having guns, it's law enforcement; yet, despite knowing a handful more non-LEO CCW holders who carry daily than I know cops, every incident I know of (again personally, not just reading from some other source or hearing from so-and-so like you're doing right now as you read this, so I expect this to be taken with the requisite grain of salt -- especially as you've already made it clear you can't take me at my word) has involved a cop.
.22 for plinking and illegally obtain a .45? Yeah, you can still go buy .22 ammo, but good luck getting your hands on any .45.
I can't speak for why that is; I can only be thankful that all three only shot themselves, and only in the leg, so they're all still with us today.
Getting back to Switzerland, though, have you considered that the controls on ammunition might play a larger role in that than the lack of concealed carry? After all, again, a criminal is going to carry regardless of the law and, well, if it's concealed, nobody is going to see it until they pull it out to use it.
If nobody around them is armed (and then seconds matter, the police are just minutes away), who the fuck is gonna stop them?
The ammunition restrictions, by the way, are the same as the gun restrictions and, honestly, I think they're fairly reasonable. Ammunition purchases are cataloged, just the same as gun purchases, and you can only buy ammunition for guns you own. That, right there, cuts down on illegal gun use; even if you manage to obtain a gun illegally, if you can't provide proof of legal ownership, you can't buy ammo. Maybe you own a
But we've been discussing gun control this whole time and well, it' is quite frankly too easy to illegally obtain a gun for gun control laws to work. If we controlled ammo the same way... well, once I'm done with this bullet, I can't resell it, it's done, it's used up, it's worthless; unlike a gun, that I can sell on the black market. That's why ammo control works and gun control does not. I'm all for ammo control, if that's what you want to argue for.
Besides, there are a number of guns I want to eventually buy just to hang on the wall, they'll never be fired, so I don't care if I can get ammo for them. Hell, as a precaution I'd likely remove the firing pins from any display pieces, anyway.
As for concealed carry in Switzerland, you're right, they don't have it. They do, however, have open carry, and with a number of legitimate purposes not even requiring a permit. You think open carry makes guns more or less visible? I mean, your argument is that the problem is carrying guns being seen as normal; open carry makes them more visible and, thus, more normal to be seen with.
I'd also like to point out, just as a single datapoint, that Solano County, a "may issue" county with an unusually high bar for obtaining a CCW permit, has a higher gun crime rate than its neighboring "shall issue" counties which only deny a permit if there are legal grounds for doing so. I'm sure if I looked at other counties in California, I'd see the same pattern; but I only care about Solano (where I live), Contra Costa (where I lived previously), and Napa (where I shoot most often). You're welcome to do your own study, if you'd like; the data is readily available.
You can see that in other countries and jurisdictions with tight gun control.
Care to cite any examples?
> asking for the news, the news, the news, stream music
Nonsense, I "stream" my music files all the time.
I suppose you make up your own news, weather, and sports scores, as well? And already know everything, of course, so there's no need to connect to the internet to look stuff up?
If a gun carrier stands out, they will self police.
I'm not a big guy by any means and I can conceal a full-size 1911 without imprinting. I don't stand out in any way when I carry.
California seems to be doing a pretty good job with their gun laws.
Indeed, we are; except for the bullshit that started in 2017, which your link really doesn't represent. I'd also like to point out that California also currently accounts for 10% of the 30 cities with the highest murder rates in the US (#9, #17, and #18) and that those are the cities with the most restrictive local gun laws in the state. Statistically, California should have a 60% chance of having even one city on that list; less, if weighted by per-capita incidence of gun violence, yet here we are making up 10% of that list.
Hell, in 2015, Oakland had the 5th highest murder rate in the US and placed #3 for gun crimes. Hell, Stockton was #14 for murder rate, to Indianapolis' #19 in 2015; Indianapolis was also #19 in gun crime that year.
An I'm not sure gun control should be a priority when, even in Indiana (where gun deaths per capita are nearly double California), the flu killed more people than guns in 2014 and 2015, the two years for which your source has that data. In fact, that seems to hold true everywhere in the US, Alaska being the exception. Maybe we should prioritize that?
Mandating background checks for private sales would probably help, but I don't like it.
You're not too familiar with gun laws, are you?
It's not illegal to sell someone a gun from your trunk in a dark alley.
Actually, in a lot of places, it is. Come to California and perform such a sale in front of a cop. If you're lucky, the cop will step in and let you know you have to go through an FFL dealer for the transfer; if you're not, he'll watch the transaction go down and arrest everyone involved.
Here's a reference, so you can educate yourself. Many states require private transfers to be done through an FFL dealer (with a background check), many more require a specific type of ID (for which a background check is done); only 27 states allow private sales with no background check and, IMO, that number is too high.
Realistically, owning guns is not the problem, carrying them everywhere is the problem.
Sure, if you're a criminal looking for unarmed victims.
A criminal who can't take his gun anywhere is not going to have a gun when he wants to threaten you.
Criminals don't care about CCW permits, they'll damned well carry without one. Have you ever looked into how many CCW holders commit gun crimes? The number is damn near 0, while the number of gun crimes in this country is much higher. CCW holders are, by and far, not criminals -- think about it for just a second, you shouldn't meed much longer, only a complete and total idiot would register the fact that they're carrying before going and using that gun to commit a crime; and a complete and total idiot wouldn't be able to meet the requirements for a CCW permit in the first place.
Wait a minute... is there maybe a reason you think a criminal would apply for a permit to carry? I mean, given that only an idiot criminal would do that... that speaks volumes about you.
Except on Slashdot, where pnutjam's idiocy and logical fallacy will live on indefinitely. Mine, as well; but not in this thread.
If fewer guns does mean less violent crime, then what you're saying is that there are outliers.
That's a big assumption you're making, there. Fewer guns means less gun crime, but violent crime rates have been shown, in study after study, to have no connection to gun crime. I mean, saying you can end gun crime if you get rid of guns is logically equivalent to saying you can end fistfights by getting rid of fists. Sure, it's technically true, but it's disingenuous at best. The overall crime rate (and the CDC did study on this, linked elsewhre in the discussion, this isn't just being pulled from my nether regions) isn't affected when guns are removed, so it's no longer gun crime, but it is still violent crime; similarly, people would still fight if they couldn't make fists, it just wouldn't be able to be called a fistfight.
Guns provide a quick and easy-to-use way to maim and kill.
So do knives. And spoons.
Also, having a handy, easy-to-use, relatively painless method of suicide increases the number of suicides.
You've spouted this in the past and, well, the CDC disagrees. They found that, in areas where guns were less prevalent, suicides involving guns were, as you would expect, less common, but that other methods increased in popularity to fill the void; the overall rate was not affected. See the study linked earlier in the discussion.
Wasn't the CDC forbidden to study gun violence?
Yes and no. They were forbidden to study gun violence directly, but they're allowed to dassess situations as they arise and, if one of the contributing factors may or may not be guns, they can explore that. That's a moot point, though; whether or not they were allowed to study the subject, they did and the report exists.
Do they use trucks like people in the US use guns, or was there just one or two high-profile cases?
There were 12 last year, though not all in France. While there were over 300 mass shootings in the US alone last year, keep in mind that a mass shooting is defined as 4 or more people being shot in a single incident; a raid on a drug house where shots are fired is likely to be deemed a mass shooting. We also don't count mass stabbings, but are you genuinely going to say there's no way you can reasonably stab 4 people in one incident?
Perhaps you'll point out that it's much easier to shoot 10, 20, or 50 people than it is to stab that many. Perhaps it is, let's see a study; and, if that's the case, perhaps we should raise the bar for what we consider a mass shooting to a number greater than (or, hell, even equal to) what someone with a knife or other weapon might be able to do.
I mean, if we're going to approach this with genuine interest in actually getting it right.
Not with the studies I've seen. It's hard to know what to trust
Read the CDC study; it's based on a large number of other studies, likely including all of the ones you've seen.
We need gun laws that raise the bar, just like locks on doors do.
On this, we agree. I think, at least. The bar on criminals getting guns does need to be raised. Care to propose a way to do that? Because none of the current laws, and no law that has been proposed to date, can prevent a dark alley, out of some guy's trunk, gun sale. Those are already extremely illegal and, guess what: the criminals don't give a shit.
Your wrong about mass shootings.
Thanks for that article, definitely an interesting piece. Did you read the linked study? It's a bit hard to find (the link tin the article has been broken since 2014) and paywalled when you do find it, but here's a direct, non-paywalled link. It really does seem to agree with me re: gun control laws. If you haven't read it, you probably should. Also, regarding the "debunking" of the "myth" that right to carry laws deter mass shootings, note that they cite two studies: one that finds that they, in fact, do and one that finds no effect. That, of course, means that -- at worst -- the right to carry doesn't increase incidence of mass shootings and -- at best -- might, as I've said, have a positive effect. And, remember, you entered this study into the debate by referencing an article solely based on it.
Criminals already aren't allowed to buy guns legally; they buy stolen guns (illegal) or illegally imported guns (also illegal) instead of buying from an FFL dealer, so piling more laws onto FFL purchases won't help. In sane states, private party transfers must be done through an FFL dealer, as well, so that's not a legal loophole; that's certainly how it works in my state. The problem with background checks is that anyone who doesn't pass it is gonna go to a black market seller anyway and anyone who is buying a gun to commit a crime or commit suicide, but doesn't currently have a record or any history of mental illness, will pass that background check with no issues whatsoever. In other words, it doesn't catch soon-to-be first offenders and the people it does catch have other ways to get guns if they really want them. It also doesn't help that most states don't properly catalog the incidents that would trigger a NICS failure, so even many people who should be denied aren't.
For reference, I live in California, one of the most (if not the most) restrictive states when it comes to guns. Here's an interesting statistic for you: counties with a "shall issue" policy on concealed carry permits have lower gun violence rates than counties with a "may issue" policy in this state. I don't know how true that holds nationally, but it does seem to support my claim that criminals will go where they know their victims are less likely to be able to shoot back.
I'd much rather have someone walking around with a rifle on their back vs a handgun tucked in their pocket.
So would the criminal with the handgun tucked in his pocket. Or knife, for that matter. They'll know they can safely mug you once the guy with the rifle walks away. Of course, they could probably do it right in front of him, too, since most people who carry aren't going to risk liability to protect some stranger; which, of course, is why most people carry a gun more suited for self defense at a shorter range.
I don't have a being obtuse; but, what about it if I did?
Those things aren't pointless, though, and it's disingenuous of you to imply that from what I said. Locking your doors raises the bar for committing the crime of breaking and entering; a whole class of potential criminal is, in fact, deterred by a locked door, while a whole other class will, in fact, break in anyway. There is no legitimate purpose for murder, so of course it is legal; guns have a legitimate (leisure) purpose and should be legal to purchase and use for those lawful purposes. Hell, the same actually does apply to killing someone (self defense against the threat of deadly force) but murder remains illegal because most jurisdictions don't call that specific type of killing "murder".
The same arguments apply across the board, you just have to consider all the facts when applying them. You seem to fail pretty hard at that.
For the record, most of the gun laws people have a problem with relate to the long guns you seem to think (by your own admission) should be readily available, because those are the guns most often used in mass shootings. If you think the police are gonna have your back against an armed gunman, remember that the security guard who ran off when he saw the Pulse shooter walking through the parking lot with a rifle was an off-duty cop and the cops stayed outside for hours until the shooting stopped before rushing in.
Yes and more guns get made, as well. You seem to not understand this.
Even something as simple as a digital picture, once it's out, it's out. Deleting it does not remove anything from circulation. Destroying one gun, removes it from circulation.
I missed this the first time through. Here's the thing, though; in order to replace the deleted picture, whoever's copy was deleted would have to find someone else with a copy and make another copy; until then, their copy is out of circulation. When you destroy that gun, whoever owned it can just as well go buy another, legally or illegally; so, yes, they have one less gun in their possession until they do that, but that doesn't stop them from getting another. Just like with your digital picture, you have to get rid of all of them (and the means for making more) to remove them from circulation.
And you've clearly never thought "well it's on the internet, it will always be there" only to not be able to find something a year later. Digital content goes out of circulation all the damn time.
You can have 1 bad gun, 100 bad guns, or 1000 bad guns and get very different results.
While this is true, all gun control laws do is prevent the purchase of potentially not-bad guns. They don't curb theft of guns, nor do they do anything for black-market gun sales, and all of those are bad guns. We could make the sale or possession if a firearm illegal tomorrow and id wouldn't make a dent in black market gun sales. What it would do is keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens who might use them to protect themselves against someone who bought a gun illegally.
What you're missing is that someone bent on breaking the law isn't going to obey the law. Somebody robbing a liquor store for crack money doesn't care that they'll get extra time for the illegal gun they used in the robbery, they care about their next hit of crack. The only people who care about (and obey) gun laws are those of us whose intent it is to not break the law; and we really care about those laws when someone who doesn't care about them puts a gun to our head because we couldn't protect ourselves due to those laws.
How many different ends of a gun have you been on? There are two and I've been on both.
So.. I question whether you have read the report.
Given that every study they referenced in their research was hell-bent on proving that gun laws help, that reads more as "people set on proving gun laws work couldn't do it, so it's likely they don't". When you actually consider the logic behind it (law-abiding citizens who follow the rules will end up worse off than criminals who don't) it makes a lot of sense.
I've ended up on the wrong side of a gun twice as a result of not having one with which to defend myself; luckily, I've never been shot. That hasn't happened since I've owned one and been able to represent an equal or greater force. Further, I'm very close to law enforcement, at the local, state, and federal level, with federal agents (ICE) in my family, and good friends who are either retired or active-duty officers in various city, county, and state departments. Universally, they insist that gun crime would be lower if more law-abiding citizens were armed. Not a single one of them says otherwise.
And it makes perfect sense, really, if you put yourselves in a criminal's shoes for a moment. Seriously, put yourself in that mindset and think about it. You just bought a gun out of some guy's trunk in a dark alley for $500, you can intimidate literally anyone without a gun and maybe a handful of people with a gun; who do you target? Why would you take your chances with someone who might be armed when there's a gun free zone right around the corner you can take control of in an instant?
And that's why mass shootings always happen in gun free zones. It's literal real-life proof that gun laws (at least the ones we have today) make the situation worse; one good guy with a gun could have taken out the Pulse shooter in an instant. The cops? Yeah, they got there, heard shots being fired, and waited outside for hours before going in. Many more people died while the cops were there than before they arrived. One good guy with a gun could have ended it before they even showed up and with maybe only one or two dead (plus the perp) instead of 50 (and 58 injuries).
Get off your ass and go actually talk to people who deal with this shit on the front lines of reality sometime. You might learn a thing or two.
But try not to argue with the cop when he tells you you're wrong. I'm sure they'll find something to charge you with if you piss them off enough.
You can download tools, parts, and batteries from fileservers now? I thought you could only find pr0n, w4r3z, h4x, and scene releases there.
In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.
Even in France, where private gun ownership is nearly nonexistent, well... sure they have a lot less gun violence. They just use trucks, instead.
But even if that weren't the case -- even if reducing the number of guns in circulation would reduce the rate of violent crime (nice strawman limiting it to gun crime, by the way) or suicide -- good luck disarming the gun nuts in this country.
And why is it that you people always point out the obvious "no guns = no gun violence" as though it actually means anything, while ignoring that "no guns != less violence"? The studies have been done, it is proven, there are just too many ways to harm or kill someone and removing guns doesn't remove the violence, it just results in other tools being used instead.
Solve the social issues that lead to people blowing each other up and driving over each other with trucks -- those are the same problems that cause them to shoot each other. While you're at it, leave me the hell alone if I want to make loud noises while putting holes in paper on my own property or at a licensed range; it's not affecting you in the slightest.
You can't distribute a key to every electronic device, because you don't have one. You could if there was a backdoor or "master" key.
How? How could I distribute a key to every device? Note that I don't mean "distribute a key that will unlock every device" but, rather "distribute to every device a key which I happen to posses". Not only can I not possibly do that; even if I could I could not do so in an instant and you've failed both to understand the question and to show that I'm wrong.
My entire point is this:
master key / backdoor = BAD
gun control = not BAD
Ah there's the disconnect, you're comparing master keys to gun control but talking about master key vs guns. You're also talking in terms of good vs bad where I'm speaking in terms of possible vs impossible. A lot of things that are bad are possible, a point on which I'm certain we both agree, while a lot that would be good are impossible; a completely different point, of course. master keys = bad (and impossible) and gun control = not bad (though also not a solution to the problem of people killing each other -- care to address that point from a few posts back?)
You know, now that you've made your thought patterns a bit more clear, I agree with that point; it just has nothing to do with the point I was making. So, again, all of this is in response to your attack on a point I wasn't even making.
I'm just irritated that your dragging your tired NRA trope in here.
It's neither tired nor an NRA trope. It's actual findings of the CDC, from a study ordered by former Predident Obama when he was seeking a reason to enact tighter gun laws. It didn't get widespread media coverage because it didn't show what Obama had hoped it would. Go ahead, though, disagree with science and statistics; it's what your kind is good at. I linked to the actual report earlier in this thread. Don't be a lazy ignorant fuck, actually go read it.
Probably not, but this did, over 7 years ago.
Meh, it's working right enough that I don't go around committing felonies, haven't killed anyone, and I manage to keep the bills paid, a roof over my head, and food on the table. Judging by the fact that I get frequent invites to events and people at those events go out of there way to start conversations with me, I'd say I'm generally liked by people who've taken the time to get to know me, rather than judging me based on my disagreeing with them (and agreeing with the CDC and mental health communities) regarding gun control.
I have a somewhat extensive record collection, mind you; I've copied all of them. Not to MP3, but 24-bit 192KHz WAV (later to FLAC), but from there the concept is more or less the same. You quickly learn that, while a digital storage is a lot cheaper than vinyl, it still ain't free. It's also not quite as instantaneous as you seem to imply. Many times faster than the original copy from vinyl, yes, but neither instant nor infinite. That is to say, the constraints are different but they certainly do still exist.
There are a different set of constraints, still, on copying a gun; we'll both agree, I'm sure, that the constraints on copying an encryption key are much more forgiving, but they're really not that different. You still need the original, the raw materials (metal for the gun, storage for the key), the equipment, and the time. You also still need some way to distribute the finished product, don't forget. Yes, many more people have the raw materials and equipment to copy an encryption key; but that ability is still constrained. If it weren't I could distribute a key to every electronic device in the world simultaneously, in the same instant. I can't, though... can I?
Is my brain so broken that I'm missing an obvious way to do that? Or is yours so broken that you don't understand that this is, just as with copying a gun, or a house key, or an MP3, or a record, a constrained operation? If you answer "yes" to the first question, you'll be expected to explain, in great detail, the obvious thing that I have missed, of course.
Where does an independent shop get their hands on Apple's diagnostic tools and software? Where can an independent shop buy Apple parts and batteries? Where can an independent shop get a pre-programmed Apple SMC, or a copy of the SMC firmware to flash onto a virgin chip?
Yes, these things are possible at Apple's authorized repair centers. That doesn't mean they're possible without apple's blessing, though, which is what this law is aiming for.
"This phone has a battery that is deemed not replacable, so we do not have to follow this law."
s/replacable/rechargeable/
Go back and read what you quoted. I don't know how well that phone would sell.
Ever consider streaming on Twitch? They have an IRL category, where political debate and discourse would be appropriate. Imagine being the candidate funded entirely by Twitch subscriptions and donations.
Okay, now that you've stopped laughing, I'm being half serious -- it's a platform, completely free, where you can interact with voters and spread word of what you'll do for us if elected. I certainly wouldn't use it as my only venue, but you can capture a lot of the younger vote (which includes the 30-something manchildren who watch this guy 8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and actually engage your potential constituents. It would give you a great way to answer peoples' questions about your positions on various topics and immediately gauge community response and possibly adjust your own views to better align with what the people want; that's something that many of us feel is sorely lacking in the current government. It would also make it much easier for your supporters to spread the word, as they could just pass around https://www.twitch.tv/bluefoxl... and give people access to all of your past debates (broadcast on Twitch) and links to whatever resources you choose to place on your profile page.
And yes, I'm being at least semi-serious here. I've seen you campaigning on Slashdot for quite some time and, honestly, Twitch is just a better platform for it IMO.
Once that one is out, it can be copied, or used surreptitiously millions of times.
So you're saying that you can can make multiple copies of the same key, much like you can make multiple of the same model of gun; then, you can put those copies of that key in the hands of multiple people, just like you can do with a gun? And that key can be used many times, just as a gun can fire many bullets? You know, with a CNC lathe, a milling machine, and some basic measurement tools, I actually can copy my 1911. But ,really, here's the thing about guns: they don't kill people. People do. Absent guns, they use trucks and bombs; hell, they'll use knives, spoons, feet, fists, water, pills, and basically anything else they can find to kill each other. Controlling guns doesn't solve that, but solving the larger underlying societal issues that actually make people want to kill each other en masse would actually be an improvement.
We don't need guns to be replicated instantly, we already have an insane number of guns, they can certainly be hidden easily (find the gun in my home; it's there, I promise), and I transport it right alongside my encrypted data (and the keys to decrypt it) with it making nary a sound. Tools to look for encryption keys do, in fact, exist; they're fully automated and work just as fast as a disk or datastream can be read. How do you hide your keys in that world? Behind more encryption. How do you hide those keys? Well, quite often, those ultimately end up hidden by a password (which itself becomes part of a key) and your average password is less than 32 characters (that's only 256 bits, and from a smaller pool of bytes -- effectively, it's closer to 101 bits, give or take a handful, when you account for that) and can be cracked in minutes on a modern system. Even systems like the iPhone, which limit the number of attempts before the keystore is cleared, can be worked around by making a copy of the keystore -- we've even seen this done, it's not just theoretical. Guns and keys (physical keys, that is) aren't really all that different from each other, excepting that one can fire bullets and the other, typically, cannot; acknowledging the fact that you can reproduce encryption keys without using a tiny sliver of metal, physical keys and encryption keys really aren't that much different form each other, either. They can both be copied, hidden, and transported (both quickly and silently), just like a gun. That you think there's a whole world of difference tells me you're quite ignorant of guns, or that you hold them up as some mystic object that only a holy few can create or wield. No, they're an everyday common, easily replicated object, just like your house keys, car keys, and encryption keys.
I'm not exactly what you'd call a pro-gun advocate, I just happen to also not be anti-gun. I agree that certain people shouldn't be allowed to have guns; those people also shouldn't have swords, knives, trucks, bombs, rope, chemistry sets, or (if we're being realistic about the things you can actually kill someone with) spoons. In fact, we have a place for those people, it's called prison, and if we can't trust someone not to harm others that's where they belong. Truth is, we need to lock up violent offenders until they're reformed (which not all people can be), but we need to overhaul our prison system, first, to actually serve that purpose. If we can trust someone to walk among us without wanting to kill us, we can trust them with a gun; if we can't, we shouldn't let them do either.
But, again, all of this is in response to your attack on a point I wasn't even making.