Gun control debate (merged)

[McDad]

I have had two cases where I could have used a gun for self protection. My car gotten broken into this year, and a couple years ago someone tried to rob me. My car getting broken into I couldn't stop. The guy trying to rob me was stopped by someone else, who had a gun.

I searched for data on guns and crimes prevented yesterday. It is a hard dynamic to tabulate. I couldn't find any resource which seemed accurate.

Have you ever come across any data on the subject?

 

[LouderVol]

False. The problem is the gun. I just want to do what I can to not be a sitting duck. It's always the ****ing guns. Guns do not make us safer. Lunatic.

what do you think happens when the civilian guns go away? There will be no more deaths?
heck even once the criminal go away, there will be no more deaths?
You going with the popular disband the police so they don't kill any more civilians. I guess those lives don't matter because of the badge that killed them.
what happens when those same cops and government entities realize they have all the power and the people are all now sitting ducks.

how many more Bundy Standoffs where the federal government unjustly kills a civilian because they won't give up something they have a right to?

There aren't supposed to be any unlawful searches or seizures, but we have a government who does it on the daily almost.

 

[LouderVol]

Oh boy.

“199 ‘mass shootings’ so far this year!!!”
That is 4 people simply shot (not including the shooter), no fatalities required.

Deliberate, mass attack events (Vegas, Buffalo, Aurora, Uvalde) - those are the ones I was counting up for Luther.

A father killing his entire family with a shotgun is horrible. Not a mass attack like those others.
Two gangs shooting it out. Not a mass attack.
Police mowing down protesters. Nope.
A guy enters a store, robs it, then kills everyone. Not the same.

actually the shooter is included in those 4. so if he wounds 3 people, and then is shot himself, that counts as a mass shooting. or even if 4 bad guys get shot, thats a mass shooting. there is no distinction made.

 

[McDad]

I am sorry, McDad. I read your reply and assumed I understood what you were communicating. I am a bad poster who assumes too much and asks too little in my reflex to agitate. I hope you will forgive me as I try to be a better contributor.
Also, I agree with your statement on personal responsibility now that I have been called out on my jackassery and understand things more clearly.

FYP.

 

[luthervol]

Shaky Knees went just fine. Allowed to carry there. I would say there were close to 150k people there, including many of Turbo's "urban blacks". no shooting. There was even a performer there named "Killer Mike".

https://www.wabe.org/shaky-knees-updates-policy-to-prohibit-guns-but-can-it-be-enforced/
Shaky Knees, the 3-day music festival scheduled to take place in Atlanta’s Central Park this weekend, recently updated its policy to reflect that weapons of any kind would be prohibited.

Because of Georgia law, that rule won’t be entirely enforceable legally.

A 2019 Georgia Supreme Court ruling on Georgia’s Safe Carry Protection Act prevents most events like Shaky Knees from banning guns on public or state-owned land.

 

[luthervol]

I apologize for being so thinned skin.

FYP
Forgiven.....but not forgotten.

 

[LouderVol]

So, it's your stance that if someone as identified as a likely mass shooter, nothing should be done?

That kind of goes against everyone's immediate reaction of "how were the warning signs missed", "he should have been stopped before it happened", "he was showing obvious signs of mental illness."

turbo described everyone with a gun as a potential mass shooter. even if you limit to people with a rifle, that is still many tens of millions of people.

4th Amendment, No unlawful search or seizure. get a warrant. but yes I do stubbornly stick to the notion that we are innocent until proven guilty, 5th amendment.

if some agency thinks its worthwhile to go after someone surely they must have some type of proof to get A judge to sign A warrant. making it easier for the government to jail people and take away their rights, we are up to 3 amendments in this one post you want to get rid of, is not a solution to the gun problem. just like the lock downs weren't a solution to Covid. they are knee jerk reactions based on fear and a lack of understanding, and typically make things worse rather than better.

I see the fallout from your measures being far far worse than what we deal with now.

 

[hog88]

I agree with applying some subjectivity. Whether that be innocent/criminal, domestic/public, or gang/individual(s) is fine by me.

I also think arguing about guns without quantifying how many crimes are prevented, thwarted, or brought to swift conclusion by the use or display of guns is disingenuous. To assess a tool's impact on society both the pros and cons should be evaluated.

Agree. More restrictions are not going to stop or even slow murders/shootings over drug turf or other "for profit crimes", they might have a small impact on crimes of passion. When it comes to the rando crazy person or political nutjob wanting to commit mass murder, they will find a way regardless of restrictions on guns.

 

[McDad]

Agree. More restrictions are not going to stop or even slow murders/shootings over drug turf or other "for profit crimes", they might have a small impact on crimes of passion. When it comes to the rando crazy person or political nutjob wanting to commit mass murder, they will find a way regardless of restrictions on guns.

You've used the "for profit crimes" a couple of times. What gun crimes does that include for you?

 

[hog88]

You've used the "for profit crimes" a couple of times. What gun crimes does that include for you?

It's the best term I can come up with for gang shootings over turf, drug deals gone bad, the mafia, robberies resulting in murder/shooting. Shootings/murder motivated by money. I'm not married to it if you can think of a better term to use.

 

[LouderVol]

I love the Chicago example because Chicago is a great example of why the laws need to be federalized.
Chicago's gun problems are largely the result of the lax laws of surrounding states.

no. they are largely a result of failed economics, and then failed political movements that have for one reason or another kept the people of Chicago at a disadvantage.

limiting people's options and ability to financially support themselves leaves people no option but to turn to crime.

there is a reason you see the most violence in the poor areas, either the very rural or the very urban, those places trend to be poor. even getting people to a place of self reliance, farms or small family businesses, is better than being on the government's dime in terms of limiting violence.

 

[hndog609]

It's the best term I can come up with for gang shootings over turf, drug deals gone bad, the mafia, robberies resulting in murder/shooting. Shootings/murder motivated by money. I'm not married to it if you can think of a better term to use.

Incentivized homicide?

 

[NorthDallas40]

No one is claiming the rate hasn't increased. I'm just refuting the ridiculous claim that it was never a problem before.
Someone was commenting on how Japan is now dealing with high levels of mass casualty events. But the US had 3 times as many gun related mass casualty events in the 70s and 80s than Japan had in the past 20 years of any type.

So that’s exactly what you jumped on clown boy. And you aren’t refuting anything you’re floundering around in your idiotic points. As usual.

 

[NorthDallas40]

First, people are going to have their individual rights infringed upon for the good of society. It simply must be that way. Just as society will make sacrifices for the sake of individual rights. It's a balancing act.

Second, there is no way of identifying would be shooters without miss-identifying even more. But that may be a price we simply must be willing to pay. I do believe their should be certain online content that is immediately flagged. Just like many people are legally mandatory reporters, companies offering online content should be mandatory reporters.

Good luck with that. Run along now and get working on it.

 

[hog88]

Incentivized homicide?

Works for me.

 

[LouderVol]

I searched for data on guns and crimes prevented yesterday. It is a hard dynamic to tabulate. I couldn't find any resource which seemed accurate.

Have you ever come across any data on the subject?

same as you. no hard, compiled data. Cops aren't required to report/store that data unless a charge is pressed, so that removes the most common method. the only other real source is the media, and that doesn't sell many clicks that something bad *didn't* happen.

There a couple sources that do regional information, but even then its based on word of mouth more than anything substantial.

the issue is, its frankly not a piece of data that anybody that collects data is interested in. The government, media, and the anti-2A group don't care about the truth, they only want demonize guns. ANY positive use of gun will be avoided, even though they should cheer it. Local law enforcement its just another thing to track that doesn't impact them. Any victim advocacy group or university is only going to look for direct correlations, and non-victims tend to fall outside of that. Even the pro-2A groups don't tend to think in direct positives, as their reliance has been on the Constitution. Which should be all that is needed, but we may get to a point where that isn't enough, but by then it isn't enough. Even if they did push for that info, who do they have to collect it? Both normal sources are dedicated to removal of guns, any 2A group collecting that info will be just as likely to have a bias the other way.

it seems like the only way is extrapolation, but as always those are based on assumptions. like seat belts, we don't ACTUALLY know how many people they save a year. and no one ever looks into if they caused deaths, people being trapped in a fire, or sometimes being thrown from a car is better than being crushed inside it. the best they can do is compare rates between times when seat belts weren't required, vs when they were. the issue is over that time frame many other things have changed that could impact the numbers any way that get associated with seat belts.

 

[LouderVol]

Because LEOs often need to be armed at least as heavily as the bad guy.

why do cops need to be armed at least as heavily as the bad guys?

Federal judges have ruled they aren't required to protect the citizens https://mises.org/power-market/poli...shooting at,to provide protection to students.

so its clear they aren't armed to save us. they are armed to protect themselves only. Ugvalde (sp) also comes to mind on this point. I see no reason we shouldn't be able to protect ourselves to same degree cops can protect themselves.

many citizens are required by their jobs to be in equally dangerous circumstances, you literally could not pay me to be a driver/delivery person. Even cushy office jobs will sometimes require people to go out into the real world.

 

[LouderVol]

https://www.wabe.org/shaky-knees-updates-policy-to-prohibit-guns-but-can-it-be-enforced/
Shaky Knees, the 3-day music festival scheduled to take place in Atlanta’s Central Park this weekend, recently updated its policy to reflect that weapons of any kind would be prohibited.

Because of Georgia law, that rule won’t be entirely enforceable legally.

A 2019 Georgia Supreme Court ruling on Georgia’s Safe Carry Protection Act prevents most events like Shaky Knees from banning guns on public or state-owned land.

yes I know. I saw at least two people carrying holstered pistols, and a couple others profiling.

the security was a joke. I set off the metal detectors and they literally just waved me through.

 

[hndog609]

I searched for data on guns and crimes prevented yesterday. It is a hard dynamic to tabulate. I couldn't find any resource which seemed accurate.

Have you ever come across any data on the subject?

It's almost impossible (as touched on in the accompanying link) to get "hard" data on defensive gun uses. Especially when there are distinct sides trying to score points pulling at what data is available. Anyway, here's something to chew on.

There Are Far More Defensive Gun Uses Than Murders. Here's Why You Rarely Hear of Them.

 

[Hunerwadel]

Everyone can't afford nuclear weapons.

Dirty bomb then.

 

[McDad]

It's the best term I can come up with for gang shootings over turf, drug deals gone bad, the mafia, robberies resulting in murder/shooting. Shootings/murder motivated by money. I'm not married to it if you can think of a better term to use.

Now that you've unpacked it, I think the phrase is clear in definition for me.

 

[hog88]

Dirty bomb then.

Sure.

 

[luthervol]

So that’s exactly what you jumped on clown boy. And you aren’t refuting anything you’re floundering around in your idiotic points. As usual.

Clown boy? Floundering? Idiotic points?

Your defense mechanisms when proven wrong speak loudly.

 

[luthervol]

Good luck with that. Run along now and get working on it.

Run along now? Are you two?

 

[jp1]

The self-protection argument is nothing more than an NRA marketing campaign. It's a scheme to sell guns--has been for, what, 30 years? The chances that anyone would actually need a gun for self-protection are incredibly remote--you're more likely to accidentally shoot yourself or some innocent person. The NRA likes to throw out stats showing huge numbers of cases where "good guys with guns" stopped "bad guys with guns"--but their numbers are totally fraudulent. Bad guys with guns ARE shot and killed--as happened with the Texas mall killer, but it usually happens after they've murdered a half dozen or more people.

The "responsible gun owner" notion is a myth. Once someone buys a guy, he has the potential to become a bad guy with a gun. Why do so many young urban black men carry guns? Answer: self protection! They get guns--most of them--for the same reason you do--except they have a more legitimate need than some guy in an American suburb. Now, once they get a gun, some of them do stupid things--decide to use their gun to rob somebody of $40 or a bag of weed---and end up dead or in prison, but a lot of them get guns in the first place because they know other people in their neighborhood or peer group have guns. Look at the white gun crazies: They argue even MORE people should get guns to protect themselves against all the other people with guns. It's insane, stupid--uncivilized.

Life circumstances change constantly. "Good guys" get into divorce and custody battles with their wives/ex-wives, get angry and start shooting. It happens a lot. Sacked employees come back to the office with a gun to take their revenge. Multiple cases. Mental problems develop. Look at the Las Vegas shooter---deadliest mass shooting in American history. No criminal record. No documented mental problems--though he'd clearly developed some at some point before killing 67 people (or whatever the number) and wounding some 200 others. No case better illustrates the problem with easy gun ownership and lax regulations.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-attack-stephen-paddock-trnd/index.html

Care to explain the bold?