High gun ownership does equal high gun violence -UN Report

[bankside]

I don't think the numbers are to be trusted in actuality. The UN is notorious for creative math.

Those who do not want to carry or own a weapon are perfectly fine with me. I don't care if they don't want to have that option to protect themselves or their property. I am not going to relinquish my rights to carry a weapon. I don't have to according to the Constitution. No elected official is above the Constitution. None.

The thing that is surprising to me is it is never pointed out that criminals do not comply routinely with gun laws. If guns are removed from the hands of law abiding citizens it will not affect the removal of guns from the hands of criminals. In fact many studies show that the removal of guns from law abiding citizens actually facilitates criminals in their activities.

It then is a question as to whom would benefit from laws abridging the rights of law abiding citizens having a weapon. Keeping in mind the criminal will always have access to a weapon. The answer is quite clear. One party is the party of criminals. They even registered prison inmates to vote in the last election. The OWS protests which were lauded by one particular party was rife with criminality. The one particular party is opposed to closed borders and supports foreign nations entering this country without complying with the established law. Hmm. I wonder which political party has the criminal constituency.

Durango, reality is above the US Constitution. Reason is above the US Constitution. The remaining children of Sandy Hook are above the US Constitution. The Second Amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

 

[Durango95]

And what is the mechanism through which that is achieved? Democrats in city level office put something in the water?

Officials of a particular party are elected to office. (Let's dispense with whether or not elections were legitimate.) Those officials make appointments. Usually it is those of the same party but definitely of the same ideology. That would include law enforcement personnel. When said personnel have an mercurial view of laws and subsequent enforcement, which becomes highly selective, crime abounds. It has nothing to do with water consumption.

 

[Benvolio]

I was drawing a corollary to the amount of criminality in a certain area with the fact the area is controlled by the party that routinely fosters criminality.

And gun homicide in the US occurs primarily eithin two demographic groups which overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Officials of a particular party are elected to office. (Let's dispense with whether or not elections were legitimate.) Those officials make appointments. Usually it is those of the same party but definitely of the same ideology. That would include law enforcement personnel. When said personnel have an mercurial view of laws and subsequent enforcement, which becomes highly selective, crime abounds. It has nothing to do with water consumption.

Or by Occlam's razor perhaps bigger cities with bigger populations, more urban poverty and therefore higher crime rates tend to elect Democrats rather than Republicans, a trend we see across the country with big cities irrespective of red state or blue state.

If it's something more than that you'll have to substantiate it with more than right wing conspiracy theories about how Democrats en masse purportedly intentionally appoint inept people to law enforcement so that crime will go up (for some bizarre motivation.)

 

[mightbe]

In other words:

Urban=more Democrats
Urban=more crime
Urban=more ethnic diversity/minorities (mostly African Americans and Hispanics)
more crime=mostly African Americans and Hispanics
minorities=Democrats

It's not like in math class where you can set them any two of them equal to each other. They're correlations, not causations. Each statement stands on its own. Substituting doesn't necessarily yield fact.

 

[Durango95]

Durango, reality is above the US Constitution. Reason is above the US Constitution. The remaining children of Sandy Hook are above the US Constitution. The Second Amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

You are completely wrong on all accounts. Including the "children of Sandy Hook" is an emotional allusion to incite and not explain or verify. I understand why you chose it. It is a common tactic of those who cannot make a logical assessment of data.

Let's look at the facts. According to the reports to date, Adam Peter Lanza, the shooter in Sandy Hook Elementary School multiple homicide murdered the owner of a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle, which was his birth mother. She was a gun enthusiast and had obtained all weapons legally pursuant to the laws of her state. The shooter then stole the rifle and two handguns, a 10mm Glock and a Sig Sauer P226. Murder and theft are criminal acts in that particular jurisdiction. He then entered the premises of the Sandy Hook Elementary School. He did so without complying with the state law, 8.2-10 Possession of a Weapon on School Grounds -- § 53a-217b. He then proceeded to murder several individuals within those premises. He then fled and was subsequently killed by a self inflicted GSW to the head made with one of the handguns. Murder, homicide, is defined as a crime in this jurisdiction.

Now was it wise to have guns around this guy? I think not but that is up for debate. Was it legal to have guns around this guy? Yes, according to CT state law existing today, it is.

Now the supposition is if the mother had not had these guns this incident would not have occurred. That is pure speculation. It cannot be proven by any means currently available to mankind. If this individual was intent on committing criminal acts, there is nothing to suggest that he would not have obtained the weapons elsewhere. That too is pure speculation and not provable by any means currently available to mankind.

Since removing all guns from ownership of Americans is impossible without very invasive government action, guns will be present in this country. There is no definitive proof of the reduction of criminal activity and the impingement of the rights of Americans to own and operate firearms. There are corollaries in both directions as to violent crime and the saturation of gun ownership, both locally and worldwide.

 

[xbuzzerx]

You are completely wrong on all accounts. Including the "children of Sandy Hook" is an emotional allusion to incite and not explain or verify. I understand why you chose it. It is a common tactic of those who cannot make a logical assessment of data.

Let's look at the facts. According to the reports to date, Adam Peter Lanza, the shooter in Sandy Hook Elementary School multiple homicide murdered the owner of a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle, which was his birth mother. She was a gun enthusiast and had obtained all weapons legally pursuant to the laws of her state. The shooter then stole the rifle and two handguns, a 10mm Glock and a Sig Sauer P226. Murder and theft are criminal acts in that particular jurisdiction. He then entered the premises of the Sandy Hook Elementary School. He did so without complying with the state law, 8.2-10 Possession of a Weapon on School Grounds -- § 53a-217b. He then proceeded to murder several individuals within those premises. He then fled and was subsequently killed by a self inflicted GSW to the head made with one of the handguns. Murder, homicide, is defined as a crime in this jurisdiction.

Now was it wise to have guns around this guy? I think not but that is up for debate. Was it legal to have guns around this guy? Yes, according to CT state law existing today, it is.

Now the supposition is if the mother had not had these guns this incident would not have occurred. That is pure speculation. It cannot be proven by any means currently available to mankind. If this individual was intent on committing criminal acts, there is nothing to suggest that he would not have obtained the weapons elsewhere. That too is pure speculation and not provable by any means currently available to mankind.

Since removing all guns from ownership of Americans is impossible without very invasive government action, guns will be present in this country. There is no definitive proof of the reduction of criminal activity and the impingement of the rights of Americans to own and operate firearms. There are corollaries in both directions as to violent crime and the saturation of gun ownership, both locally and worldwide.

What Bankside was saying is that you cannot work backwords from "too bad, the constitution says so" to rewrite reality to fit an image where the current NRA interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is actually reasonable, logical, or makes sense from a practical point of view in terms of the cost to society in terms of the threat of random and senseless gun slaughter at any time.

And he's absolutely right. It's not pro gun control people who elicit emotion and no logic. It's people who say guns must remain as unregulated and unrestricted as humanly possible, including not even doing sensible checks on the severely mentally ill from getting weapons, out of some gut belief that without your guns the government or the blacks are going to come and get you.

 

[Benvolio]

Experience shows that you cannot compromise with liberals; it just becomes a step toward their goal and not a solution to a problem. They will not be satisfied until all guns are out of private hands. Any compromise on the Constitutional issue will ultimately destroy the right altogether. I have suggested that any compromise be on the condition that it it be in the form of a Constitutional amendment to end the issue.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Experience shows that you cannot compromise with liberals; it just becomes a step toward their goal and not a solution to a problem. They will not be satisfied until all guns are out of private hands. Any compromise on the Constitutional issue will ultimately destroy the right altogether. I have suggested that any compromise be on the condition that it it be in the form of a Constitutional amendment to end the issue.

Why is every single position a right wing extremists make a reactive kneejerk against a fearmongered slippery slope?

 

[bankside]

You are completely wrong on all accounts.

I never said I was a good bookkeeper.

Including the "children of Sandy Hook" is an emotional allusion to incite and not explain or verify. I understand why you chose it. It is a common tactic of those who cannot make a logical assessment of data.

Including a reference to "because the constitution says so" is an emotional allusion to what is really just a piece of paper with some ideas written on it, and it does not explain or verify anything for the children who watched their classmates get killed. I understand why you chose it. It is a common tactic of those who cannot make a logical assessment of data. Even the kindergarten children nursing their wounds could figure out, however, that "getting tough on crime" as the NRA proposes, will do sweet fuck all to stop someone who is dead at the end of his attack. A more proactive measure, like stopping him from getting guns in the first place, is warranted.

Let's look at the facts. According to the reports to date, Adam Peter Lanza, the shooter in Sandy Hook Elementary School multiple homicide murdered the owner of a Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle, which was his birth mother. She was a gun enthusiast and had obtained all weapons legally pursuant to the laws of her state. The shooter then stole the rifle and two handguns, a 10mm Glock and a Sig Sauer P226. Murder and theft are criminal acts in that particular jurisdiction. He then entered the premises of the Sandy Hook Elementary School. He did so without complying with the state law, 8.2-10 Possession of a Weapon on School Grounds -- § 53a-217b. He then proceeded to murder several individuals within those premises. He then fled and was subsequently killed by a self inflicted GSW to the head made with one of the handguns. Murder, homicide, is defined as a crime in this jurisdiction.

Now was it wise to have guns around this guy? I think not but that is up for debate. Was it legal to have guns around this guy? Yes, according to CT state law existing today, it is.

The fact that you'd even see room for a debate on whether Adam Lanza should have had ready access to guns could hardly be more astonishing. And there is an insinuation in your post that if Conneticut has gun laws, and Adam Lanza had a gun, then clearly gun laws are pointless. The NRA and their ilk make a point of showing how weak, trivial gun laws are ineffective. They are hoping that will persuade people that gun laws don't work. But that really isn't the standard of comparison. The standard is very restrictive gun laws with teeth. Those laws actually work. Disarmament works.

Now the supposition is if the mother had not had these guns this incident would not have occurred. That is pure speculation. It cannot be proven by any means currently available to mankind. If this individual was intent on committing criminal acts, there is nothing to suggest that he would not have obtained the weapons elsewhere. That too is pure speculation and not provable by any means currently available to mankind.

It's more than a supposition. If he were intent on committing a criminal act by flying a space shuttle into someone, he would have had a much harder time of it given the rarity of space shuttles. Rare things are, by their rarity, much less available to criminals. Making deadly things rare makes them less available to criminals. It is fairly straightforward math.

Since removing all guns from ownership of Americans is impossible without very invasive government action, guns will be present in this country. There is no definitive proof of the reduction of criminal activity and the impingement of the rights of Americans to own and operate firearms. There are corollaries in both directions as to violent crime and the saturation of gun ownership, both locally and worldwide.

My point is exactly that invasive government action is necessary, and ethical, and long overdue, and that guns should largely not be present in your country. In the past I've said that if the NRA wanted to start another civil war over it, I'd hope there would be enough people of character to oppose them with overwhelming government force. The status quo is not acceptable, it is not civilized, and any high price paid to definitively put your country on a different course is very likely a better bargain than the current idiocy. Nancy Lanza, a supposed law-abiding gun owner, and pathetically held up as a victim, supplied a gun to a murderer because she thought everyone including her idiot son has the right to bear arms. There should have been no weapons in that house for him to have access to, but Nancy in her "Second Amendment Delusion" didn't see it that way, and scores of children are dead as a result.

 

[youfiad]

And current legistlation is to take away people's guns?? I find absolutely not legislation that has proposed anything that will make a dent. If anything, they should make media reportings of these horrific acts illegal to impede copy-cate crimes.

 

[xbuzzerx]

And current legistlation is to take away people's guns?? I find absolutely not legislation that has proposed anything that will make a dent. If anything, they should make media reportings of these horrific acts illegal to impede copy-cate crimes.

That's precisely the reason we can't have a rational discourse about guns while the NRA dictates the pro-gun side of the debate. They oppose everything on the slippery slope that "well we know what you libs REALLY want is to take them all." So it doesn't matter what's proposed, how sensible it is or how limited it is-- they're against it because they "know" the next step is confiscation.

 

[youfiad]

WEll the NRA is just filled with a bunch of conservative, red-neck, inbread, lunatics that want their own constitutional rights but deny it to others. They can go suck a fuck for all I care . I happen to be one of those people who believe that aslippery slope argument is a legitimate stance in most cases, (if applied correctly). Politics has always worked on trying to change things slowly, starting with small steps to ultimately reach a big goal.

Personally, I don't care if every gun were taken out every American's hand. I know that may be unconstituational of me to say, but I think the constitution is a crap document

 

[xbuzzerx]

WEll the NRA is just filled with a bunch of conservative, red-neck, inbread, lunatics that want their own constitutional rights but deny it to others. They can go suck a fuck for all I care . I happen to be one of those people who believe that aslippery slope argument is a legitimate stance in most cases, (if applied correctly). Politics has always worked on trying to change things slowly, starting with small steps to ultimately reach a big goal.

Personally, I don't care if every gun were taken out every American's hand. I know that may be unconstituational of me to say, but I think the constitution is a crap document

It's never valid to form a hard position based on a slippery slope.

"No, you can't have a raise even though you've been here 5 years and earned it, because next you'll be expecting me to pay you a million dollars."

Adults trying to earnestly participate in government should be examining the merit of the particular issue in question, and not digging in to oppose even something reasonable "because of what might come after it." If something unreasonable follows something reasonable, oppose or filibuster that instead.

 

[youfiad]

"No, you can't have a raise even though you've been here 5 years and earned it, because next you'll be expecting me to pay you a million dollars."

Lol, that's hardly what I meant as a proper usage. What I was talking about was when we speculate on certain figure heads, such as Kim Jong Un and use what he's currently doing to try to decipher what he will do. Sort of a speculative approach to things. Know what I'm saying? Using slippery slope arguments to pin down potential genocides (genocides have 8 stages -- if I remember correctly), so if you can nail down current legistlation before it gets to murder, you could save thousands or millions of lives by using slippery slope logic.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Lol, that's hardly what I meant as a proper usage. What I was talking about was when we speculate on certain figure heads, such as Kim Jong Un and use what he's currently doing to try to decipher what he will do. Sort of a speculative approach to things. Know what I'm saying? Using slippery slope arguments to pin down potential genocides (genocides have 8 stages -- if I remember correctly), so if you can nail down current legistlation before it gets to murder, you could save thousands or millions of lives by using slippery slope logic.

If you have reasonable causes it's not a slippery slope. A slippery slope is by definition a logical fallacy.

For example, saying that reasonable restrictions or background checks on handguns is going to lead to Obama knocking on your door to take every last gun out of every last law-abiding hand, when the proposal in question isn't remotely capable of doing that.

 

[youfiad]

I find "reasonable" to be a subjective term.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It's also a fallacy to think that since there was a gas leak in your house and that house exploded, that the gas caused the house to explode. (I actually read that example in my logic book).

You have to realize that the proposal itself isn't capable of doing that, but that's not what I've even heard from the NRA. They're saying that this is just a stepping stone. I'm not sayingthat I agree with them, but I can in weird way, see their point? I think?

But as I've said, I don't take these issues, propositions, legislations, etc serious at all because they haven't even addressed any of the problems, IMHO.

 

[xbuzzerx]

I find "reasonable" to be a subjective term.

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It's also a fallacy to think that since there was a gas leak in your house and that house exploded, that the gas caused the house to explode. (I actually read that example in my logic book).

You have to realize that the proposal itself isn't capable of doing that, but that's not what I've even heard from the NRA. They're saying that this is just a stepping stone. I'm not sayingthat I agree with them, but I can in weird way, see their point? I think?

But as I've said, I don't take these issues, propositions, legislations, etc serious at all because they haven't even addressed any of the problems, IMHO.

Saying that a check that might stop severely mentally ill people from getting a firearm hasn't proven to do anything isn't much of a statement when we have never had, and have greatly difficulty passing, any such a check because the NRA throws its huge lobby weight into drowning it in fearmongering and confiscation slippery slopes.

 

[youfiad]

Well the NRA isn't filled with brainiacs. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's going to prevent anything even if it's passed. I guess time will tell. I just feel that these regulations are just dancing around the problem, sweeping dirt under the rug and calling the house clean. If you want any serious change at any time, you have to change people. That's not done by writing on a peice of paper.

 

[xbuzzerx]

Well the NRA isn't filled with brainiacs. Nevertheless, I don't believe it's going to prevent anything even if it's passed. I guess time will tell. I just feel that these regulations are just dancing around the problem, sweeping dirt under the rug and calling the house clean. If you want any serious change at any time, you have to change people. That's not done by writing on a peice of paper.

I don't understand how you can say that when so many of these spree shootings have been severely mentally disturbed people, who were known to be such, and got access to weapons. The VA Tech shooter bought his while he was on anti-psychotic medications.