balladofwindfishes
Member
Why bother making Bengal Tigers illegal to own as pets. It's easy to go to the thriving black market for exotic large cats and just get one. Those that want to own a tiger will just go and get one anyway
Would increased gun regulation have prevented Connecticut?
- Thread starter Deified Data
- Start date
- Status
CyclopsRock
Member
Surely you appreciate, though, that whatever your views on actual possession of firearms, you can't just ignore the bits of the constitution you don't like. It stops having any meaning when bits can be ignored. Constitutional ammendments are very difficult and very lengthy precisely for this reason. I think that if there is to be any universal gun limitation, it needs to be after a constitutional amendment removing the right to bear arms - and I don't think you need to be a small minded gun nut to believe that.
I'm sorry to quote my own post, but I can barely articulate how much that chart, and the quote on it, piss me off. If anyone sees this posted on their Facebook or whatever, please call them out on this bullshit.
You want to know how legit it is?
Those numbers aren't even fucking accurate from the source they claim to use.
Look at where they are getting those numbers:
GUESS WHAT? "All" homicides include firearm homicides. These are the 2009 numbers. Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
FUCK that chart. Fuck anyone who posts it thinking they are making a legitimate point. Fuck the quote on it and anyone trying to draw a parallel between guns and baseball bats. Fuck anyone who implies that gun violence isn't a problem because there are other types of violence (like, oh I don't know, KNIFE attacks).
Yes.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
This type of thinking is absolutely insane. My wife currently teaches grade 1 kids. If she ever ever ever had to even consider carrying a concealed weapon while teaching, she would quit in a heartbeat. Not only is this idea patently absurd, but it would surely lead to a mass exodus of quality teachers from the system.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
No you're not.
You make it sound like it's super easy and that accessibility's just as good.
If say a gun ban was enacted, what do you think would happen to the gun supply?
Guns confiscated, then destroyed.
Supply dwindles.
It therefore becomes even harder for a crazy to obtain a gun. This would happen in the US as surely as it has in any other country.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Maybe if we made it easier to obtain Bengal Tigers they wouldn't be endangered
outunderthestars
Banned
I did, it mentioned a 10,000 sample size from a population of 8.3 million people who self selected to participate in a survey. It did not mention margins of error.
You keep posting as if every single potential shooter who legally buys a gun now would buy one off the black market if that were their only option. You don't know that. You can't. You may be 100% right. You may be 90% right. You may be 10% right. But if you're wrong about even one of them, it means fewer people dead.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
From what - murdering people or owning guns? They aren't the same thing. I'm only concerned about the former. I can't say support support enacting some law if it doesn't have an appreciable impact on the former - at that point its just an arbitrary reaction. Before we start banning guns, I think we need to get better, cheaper access to mental health care and mental health screening.
Crime always wins. All things being equal, criminals don't have to play by the same rules, so they have the advantage. People seem to have some John Wayne fantasy where this ^^^ reasoning makes sense. It doesn't.
Reduce the tools of crime, and reduce the root cause of crime. AKA gun regulation/banning and alleviating poverty. Unfortunately both of these things, while being good for society at large, are unpalatable to people who have a myopic, self-serving worldview...AKA most of the American public.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Like how it says guns are for well regulated militias?
There's nothing there saying guns need to be in everyone's hands and they need immediate, easy access to them.
In fact it says the opposite, that it should be regulated and part of an organized militia.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
I think that's because some people here posts as if every single gun owner is a potential criminal waiting to happen. Is the potential there to commit a crime? Yes. But, that doesn't turn out to be the case in the majority of gun purchases.
Deified Data
Banned
This is what it ultimately comes down to, in my view. Stringent screening and licensing policies are going to stop some people. Not all, but some. That alone makes it all worth it if it's saving lives.
My wife is a teacher. So now she needs military training to do her job?
Better arm the Wal-Mart greeters, librarians, accountants, secretaries, waiters, etc.....
Just make the country one big Mexican-StandOff.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Here have some more stats (from the entire country) and keep believing it's all bogus and there's no negative down turn to tobacco use because of harsher laws :/
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6131a1.htm
Dude Abides
Banned
You have no idea if that's true or not.
And how do you propose to "change the media"? There's another amendment that comes right before the Second.
As a british person looking at the laws for guns in America I can only shake my head in disbelief. When Dunblaaine happened in the UK a series of already tight gun ownership laws was massively increased. Guns are a huge no no in the UK. If you have a gun that doesn't fall within the laws and you own in illegally then you can look forward to a very very long time in jail.
People here don't like or even want guns in our society, we don't even like the police having them. America doesn't just need to change it's laws on gun ownership it needs to change it's idea behind it. Most Europeans don't think that their governments are out to get them like sections of American society does. It's that sense of paranoia that helps fuel such nightmares as we have seen today.
Of course that doesn't mean we in europe have things perfect, the case in norway is a prime example, but we do tend to have a handle on things. Part of that stems from the fact that guns have always been controlled in europe, we don't have access to the amount that america has and that's the problem. For america the horse has bolted, you have the guns out there and there are hundreds of millions of them.
America needs to make a radical change and sadly it doesn't look like that will happen. It will happen again and again americans will ask why it happens and again you will do nothing.
People here don't like or even want guns in our society, we don't even like the police having them. America doesn't just need to change it's laws on gun ownership it needs to change it's idea behind it. Most Europeans don't think that their governments are out to get them like sections of American society does. It's that sense of paranoia that helps fuel such nightmares as we have seen today.
Of course that doesn't mean we in europe have things perfect, the case in norway is a prime example, but we do tend to have a handle on things. Part of that stems from the fact that guns have always been controlled in europe, we don't have access to the amount that america has and that's the problem. For america the horse has bolted, you have the guns out there and there are hundreds of millions of them.
America needs to make a radical change and sadly it doesn't look like that will happen. It will happen again and again americans will ask why it happens and again you will do nothing.
Please clarify.
They should just play videogames that glorify gun violence, that would also help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y
lol, this. Why make anything that's illegal illegal when there are still people breaking laws!
AWESOME LOGIC.
Nostalgic Nightmare
Member
It was merely speculation, hell he could also drive a car up onto the school bus loading zone to add up a death toll. If someone has a desire to kill a bunch of people, there are other ways, and I tend to think those that do this sort of thing are 1. Mentally Ill, and 2. Going to do what it takes to achieve the goal. We need to figure out why people end up like this, and how to prevent and treat them early on so that they have a fulfilling life where murdering mass amounts of innocents is not something anyone wants to do regardless of the tools of destruction our world has.
There is no way to know, I never said that a non cautionary approach was an answer either. What I did to say is that we need to look at solving many other issues in this country to prevent things like this. Outright banning of guns and the pursuit alone would not prevent why someone would want to waste a bunch of kids. It would be interesting to know why he decided to do this.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The Supreme Court disagrees with that reading and probably never will agree with that assessment. The mere fact that you can theoretically read something into the Constitution doesn't mean that interpretation holds water; for example, the Constitution also says Federal Judges hold their office in good behavior. A regular person could read that as saying term limits on Supreme Court powers is permissible, but that's considered a total non-starter.
Devolution
Member
I'm talking about psych evals and mental health hoops.
Why can't we talk about both? Saying we can only talk about one or the other is like telling a coach he can only teach offense or defense to his team.
That's complete and utter bullshit. Making these murderous little spree killers into unforgettable monsters whose names will be remembered is the reason it keeps happening with more and more frequency. This was not some militia gone wrong, it was a nobody who wanted attention and we're going to immortalize him as a reward.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
If a civilian mass murdering Children can't get laws changed, nothing will.
Dude Abides
Banned
Ban the news!
A good and practical solution.
You have no idea why this person did this, btw.
Devolution
Member
It didn't with the Amish girls.
ultrazilla
Gold Member
CPL owner saves people from robbery:
http://www.scoop.it/t/the-billy-pul...florida-internet-cafe-patron-who-shot-robbers
Certainly stopped any further crime/possible death from happening, now didn't it?
Messypandas
Member
The problem is kids being so vulnerable to bullets. We need bullet-proof uniforms yesterday
AbortedWalrusFetus
Member
Actually most psychologists agree that the best course of action to take is to not name the killer on television, as having their name plastered all over the news is one of the motivations for many of the criminals. It's food for thought at least.
Anticitizen One
Banned
We need stronger mental health services + Gun control instead of wasting billions on fucking dumbfuck defense how about investing in helping the people?
Because people in America are batshit insane. We should be allowed to defend ourselves from the batshit insane.
I won't remember who this guy is. He's a crazy person, not a political martyr.
I want massive children's creches to replace schools in every neighborhood. Staffed by handmaidens with special forces training. We will get robots and computers to teach the children, and the women will protect them with assault rifles and bayonets
Not all of us are. But why so many of us are, why so many of us have these insane fantasies about defending ourselves and our loved ones against the bad guys -- rather than working to make fewer of these bad guys -- I couldn't tell you.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Agreed. I think you'll see another assault weapon ban moving up through congress.
Dude Abides
Banned
Do you have a source for that? I would be interested to read it.
It's still not practical.
lawlohwhat
Banned
Substance abuse is a product of the exploitation of the addictive properties of narcotics. Since we are leaving manufactured opiates out of the discussion, this exploitation is specifically directed toward the poor in relation to the drug war. It happens that our healthcare system is not particularly kind to the poor, so treatment options are limited. Abuse of substances often begets other crime, and it can destroy filial relationships, which begets other crime in future generations. Racism is also very real. The drug war is ineffective. Very few people would disagree with that.
However, there is no equivalency here. Guns are not drugs. Guns are not addictive. Gun ownership itself does not have the severe impact upon the mental well-being of owners and their families that drug addiction does. Drugs don't shoot other people in the head.
Nobody is suggesting that police raid every home in America to take away guns. We are, however, suggesting that there is a culture of nationalistic and pseudo-masculine pride regarding the second amendment. This amendment is pragmatically irrelevant and the culture surrounding it stems from a series of ideals that carry with them the potential to change within the public consciousness. Change does not come quickly, and it does not come easily, but it must come from somewhere.
To me, a more frightening society than your 'police state' is one where certain gun owners carry with them such a paranoia about their government infringing upon their right to carry that they are blind to the deleterious effects surrounding such a fixation.
Nostalgic Nightmare
Member
It's multi faceted from the entertainment we watch, the history we have, and the arms race that people find themselves entering because there are so many guns in circulation, you can pretty much assume any criminal/nutjob has one or can get one when they need.
Our media focuses on a ton of negativity, crime, gangs,murder etc, and people do get legitimately scared. Things like this shooting happen and it makes people scared, look how many people died before police could get there, same with the recent movie theater shooting.
It's a viscous cycle.
Devolution
Member
Indoctrination. The power of the NRA. The idea that the government will go rogue and we need our weapons. I can understand home defense but the NRA hasn't been about home defense for quite some time, they've been about throwing hurdles down when it comes to any kinds of regulations.
balladofwindfishes
Member
because we're big fucking pussies.
I don't know if this was supposed to be serious or not.
1. I don't know what the fuck is up with that site but it's unusable for me. I'd like to access a regular news organization's piece on that story if you can locate it- I don't know enough keywords to find it. edit: NM saw the full URL. Here's Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/1...s-during-internet-cafe-robbery-will-not-face/
2. Crime? Did I even use the word "crime?" Or "possible death"? Or even "murder" or "homicide"? I said "massacres."
Seriously?
3. I'm going off the link- it appears you're talking about an interrupted robbery. Is there any evidence at all the robbers intended to kill anyone at all?
I was hoping to determine what the ratio was (prevented/interrupted massacres vs. total massacres). If we can't locate even a single example then we are in deep trouble.
- Status