|
EX250 Type R posted:I would be interested in hearing about how access to firearms causes violent crime http://chamspage.blogspot.com/2014/12/2015-baltimore-city-homicidesmurders.html ctrl-f "shot" or "shoot" and ctrl-f "stab" and there's a pretty interesting correlation where you will be able to hit ctrl-f and see many more for one type of death than the other
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
EX250 Type R posted:I would be interested in hearing about how access to firearms causes violent crime Some subset of people will commit crimes if they have a gun who would not otherwise commit crimes. This ranges from everything from being too chicken to commit bank robbery without a gun or too logistically difficult to safely commit a gang assassination with a knife, to escalating a situation they otherwise would have otherwise chosen to de-escalate if they did not have a gun. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Some subset of people will commit crimes if they have private transportation who would not otherwise commit crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Imagine a modern society without private transportation, now imagine a modern society without guns.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Actually, given the issues we have based around the oil business and the effects of emissions on the environment, you could make a much better case for the social benefits of limiting private transportation as having a good return on investment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
would save more lives too
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
also go after smoking first k thx
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:would save more lives too http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/ Car crashes killed 33,561 people in 2012, the most recent year for which data is available, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Firearms killed 32,251 people in the United States in 2011, the most recent year for which the Centers for Disease Control has data. But this year gun deaths are expected to surpass car deaths. That's according to a Center for American Progress report, which cites CDC data that shows guns will kill more Americans under 25 than cars in 2015. Already more than a quarter of the teenagers—15 years old and up—who die of injuries in the United States are killed in gun-related incidents, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
It seems intuitive to me that if you have more guns, you'll have more gun-murders. But it also seems pretty likely (looking at Latin America) that guns will flow to where the murdering is happening, and what kind of murdering is going on will influence whether gun control will work. If you have strict gun laws, it won't matter if the enforcement is weak or corrupted. If you're going up against drug cartels (as in Mexico) it won't have much of an effect at all. But if you're in a country like Colombia that did a lot to reform its criminal justice system, and you have a lot of petty youth criminals with guns, then you can lower the homicide rate by cracking down. quote:A 2011 World Bank study found something similar: in Central America, as of 2007, there was little correlation between the estimated number of civilian-owned guns and homicide rates. The countries with the highest homicide rates -- Honduras and El Salvador -- had under half the estimated guns per capita as Guatemala, while Panama, with the second-lowest homicide rate, had the second-highest number of guns. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/americas-top-killing-machine/384440/ Well, we also know from the FBI homicide numbers that of those 32,251 firearm-related deaths, 8653 were homicides. So now that we've established using governmental sources that the vast majority (3:1 ratio) of firearms deaths are either suicides or accidents, why is there such opposition to improving mental health care access and training people in how to safely handle firearms?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Well, we also know from the FBI homicide numbers that of those 32,251 firearm-related deaths, 8653 were homicides. So now that we've established using governmental sources that the vast majority (3:1 ratio) of firearms deaths are either suicides or accidents, why is there such opposition to improving mental health care access and training people in how to safely handle firearms? Do you mean in the abstract sense, or do you think people in this thread have opposed improved mental health care access? Edit: Actually, I should take that back... people have actually advocated that mentally ill people should be able to maximize their capabilities of offing themselves with firearms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Do you mean in the abstract sense, or do you think people in this thread have opposed improved mental health care access? Given that we have a finite amount of money and political capital available to push for any particular set of issues, and people both in this thread and in the real-world Democratic Party keep spending both on pushing for gun control legislation that is both poorly thought out and a non-starter as far as the voting public is concerned, yes. We've already had several people come out in this thread alone and state that they are just interested in banning guns because they are afraid of them, and don't actually care about actually fixing the social problems in question so long as they can eliminate their fetishistic fear totems.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Given that we have a finite amount of money and political capital available to push for any particular set of issues, and people both in this thread and in the real-world Democratic Party keep spending both on pushing for gun control legislation that is both poorly thought out and a non-starter as far as the voting public is concerned, yes. We've already had several people come out in this thread alone and state that they are just interested in banning guns because they are afraid of them, and don't actually care about actually fixing the social problems in question so long as they can eliminate their fetishistic fear totems. This is a cop out excuse that could be used to poo poo any issue that a person values less than another issue. I could substitute literally anything for X and Y in the statement "We can't focus on X because it will diminish the political capital for Y." What proof do you have that support for gun control in politics has a cause and effect relationship with lack of support for mental health awareness? Can you point me to the political affiliation that has strong anti-gun control stance while supporting strong mental health awareness campaigns that is being actively suppressed? I could support your statement if you actually showed something that proved gun control efforts have harmed mental health initiatives.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
That would be quite the trick because someone would be hard pressed to demonstrate gun control initiatives having any effect on violent crime rates let alone being detrimental to mental health services.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:This is a cop out excuse that could be used to poo poo any issue that a person values less than another issue. I could substitute literally anything for X and Y in the statement "We can't focus on X because it will diminish the political capital for Y." What proof do you have that support for gun control in politics has a cause and effect relationship with lack of support for mental health awareness? Can you point me to the political affiliation that has strong anti-gun control stance while supporting strong mental health awareness campaigns that is being actively suppressed? I could support your statement if you actually showed something that proved gun control efforts have harmed mental health initiatives. I'm sorry, do you have some difficulty with the concept that if our goal is to reduce suicides, and we have a limited amount of both money and time to get laws passed, wasting it tilting at windmills hurts the chances of passing useful laws?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm sorry, do you have some difficulty with the concept that if our goal is to reduce suicides, and we have a limited amount of both money and time to get laws passed, wasting it tilting at windmills hurts the chances of passing useful laws? No, but apparently you have difficulty with the concept of falsifiability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Well, we also know from the FBI homicide numbers that of those 32,251 firearm-related deaths, 8653 were homicides. So now that we've established using governmental sources that the vast majority (3:1 ratio) of firearms deaths are either suicides or accidents, why is there such opposition to improving mental health care access and training people in how to safely handle firearms? I'm not opposed to either of those things, but neither do I believe that either would substantially impact firearms crime or that the latter would substantially impact firearms suicides. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Do you mean in the abstract sense, or do you think people in this thread have opposed improved mental health care access? There's pretty much bupkis actual momentum behind substantive "improved mental healthcare access" from any political group in danger of actually doing anything in this country so can we just loving dispense with this "well of course I care about that, if you gave me a free cure all the mentally ill bill with no downsides all ready to go I'd totally not oppose it!" horseshit. It's not anyone's priority, nobody ITT can seemingly even name what it is they want to do about it except furiously deny that it's not something they're exactly as concerned about as how a lifelong bill of rights blacklist for dropping Suboxone stops spree killings, and yet there's legislators from the local to the federal level all over the country who make a big showy point of reintroducing their decades-old failed bills against scary movie guns every election cycle just for the hell of it. Somehow they don't have time or resources to invest in both I guess! A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Success! We have implemented a comprehensive system for screening deranged and potentially dangerous individuals from owning firearms. Question one: Do you feel the need to own multiple deadly weapons in case you ever need to kill your ill-defined political enemies
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Seriously 30 second pop quiz what's your plan for "improved mental healthcare access" without going and looking up some marginal advocacy group you've never heard of until this moment, I do not believe you have one
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:There's pretty much bupkis actual momentum behind substantive "improved mental healthcare access" from any political group in danger of actually doing anything in this country so can we just loving dispense with this "well of course I care about that, if you gave me a free cure all the mentally ill bill with no downsides all ready to go I'd totally not oppose it!" horseshit. It's not anyone's priority, nobody ITT can seemingly even name what it is they want to do about it except furiously deny that it's not something they're exactly as concerned about as how a lifelong bill of rights blacklist for dropping Suboxone stops spree killings, and yet there's legislators from the local to the federal level all over the country who make a big showy point of reintroducing their decades-old failed bills against scary movie guns every election cycle just for the hell of it. Somehow they don't have time or resources to invest in both I guess! You are correct, there is not momentum behind a substantive campaign for the improvement of mental health. But this has nothing to do with gun control.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Success! We have implemented a comprehensive system for screening deranged and potentially dangerous individuals from owning firearms. Question one: Do you feel the need to own multiple deadly weapons in case you ever need to kill your ill-defined political enemies 1 Easy Trick to Screen Out Black Panthers
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:1 Easy Trick to Screen Out Black Panthers Is the trick "live sometime after the fall of the Berlin Wall"
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Success! We have implemented a comprehensive system for screening deranged and potentially dangerous individuals from owning firearms. Question one: Do you feel the need to own multiple deadly weapons in case you ever need to kill your ill-defined political enemies Thanks for the perfect example of why some people are opposed to additional checks on prospective firearm owners - they will be corrupted so only the "right" sort of people will pass.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Yeah I'd say guns are necesarry
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 00:25
|
|
Powercrazy posted:The most important thing to realize about "gun control" is that it isn't about guns. Advocates don't actually know what is legally defined as a gun, let alone the current laws concerning them, with Tezzor being this threads Exhibit A. The most important part of gun control is the social "control" aspect. By ensuring that only the "right" people have access to guns (police, etc), for the "right" reasons, (suppressing the other). A de jure ban is untenable in America and most people realize it, but a de facto ban similar to New York City, is what the authoritarians are looking for. I dunno, I just don't think someone should be able to go to walmart, buy a gun and as much ammo for it as they can carry with no questions asked then walk into the bathroom and come out shooting because screening that could prevent this kind of person from getting a license is just way too much a hassle for your average gun owner and even a minor inconvenience for them isn't worth any number of lives. Tezzor posted:Success! We have implemented a comprehensive system for screening deranged and potentially dangerous individuals from owning firearms. Question one: Do you feel the need to own multiple deadly weapons in case you ever need to kill your ill-defined political enemies
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Is the trick "live sometime after the fall of the Berlin Wall" 1 Easy Trick to Screen Out Pink Pistols
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
local gun control advocate discovered to actually just have a pathological fear of anyone different from him, literally nobody surprised
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:You are correct, there is not momentum behind a substantive campaign for the improvement of mental health. But this has nothing to do with gun control. Why do you want to destroy one of the hallmarks of Saint Reagan?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:03
|
|
semper wifi posted:local gun control advocate discovered to actually just have a pathological fear of anyone different from him, literally nobody surprised I am not ashamed to admit that people who collect weapons and fantasize about murdering anyone they don't personally agree with kind of scare me, yes.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:I am not ashamed to admit that people who collect weapons and fantasize about murdering anyone they don't personally agree with kind of scare me, yes. Boy those kinds of people, that you made up, just now, sure are a concern. Paranoia: suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:I am not ashamed to admit that people who collect weapons and fantasize about murdering anyone they don't personally agree with kind of scare me, yes. I legit thought your post previous to this was pretty good satire of someone who didn't know anything about US gun laws, gun use, and violent crime but felt they needed to opine in ways that made it subtly clear how unreasonable their position actually was. Turns out you were sincere? That's probably funnier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
I want to watch a roommate sitcom where a gun-hoarding race warrior redneck out to kill all the libruls who doesn't really neeeeeed any of his stuff and a politically homosexual communist Obama staffer planning the white genocide are forced to shack up together when they both get their houses foreclosed on
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:I am not ashamed to admit that people who collect weapons and fantasize about murdering anyone they don't personally agree with kind of scare me, yes. I collect WWII firearms. I guess that makes me a pre-murdering lunatic. How many examples can you cite of collectors of weapons committing firearm-related crimes? Wouldn't they be more inclined to collect say, body parts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:27
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Boy those kinds of people, that you made up, just now, sure are a concern. Yes these crazies are completely imaginary.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Fog Tripper posted:I collect WWII firearms. I guess that makes me a pre-murdering lunatic. How many examples can you cite of collectors of weapons committing firearm-related crimes? You probably wouldn't classify somebody with more than 3 guns as "a collector," but I might and that makes the answer to your question "a whole lot."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Nuebot posted:Yes these crazies are completely imaginary. Please allow me to retort with links to glen beck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You probably wouldn't classify somebody with more than 3 guns as "a collector," but I might and that makes the answer to your question "a whole lot." My WWII arms aside, if all I had were my CCW, shotgun for small game hunting, my bolt action rifle for big game, my muzzleloader for muzzleloader hunting and my my compound bow for archery season and marksmanship, would that qualify as "collecting"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Like it starts off awkward but then they bond over everyone else hating them and in season 2 they have a thriving business going where for cash they will stand in for the coworker or relative or random internet guy you're actually arguing with to let you win. Expand the core cast to include that one black guy all the news stations hire to go on air and talk about how black folks are just lazy
A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Like it starts off awkward but then they bond over everyone else hating them and in season 2 they have a thriving business going where for cash they will stand in for the coworker or relative or random internet guy you're actually arguing with to let you win How committed are you to them maintaining their original positions throughout the whole run of the show? Like I'm imagining an arc where the right wing guy gets fired and chooses to get gay married for the health benefits so he doesn't need to enroll in the Maybe make this a first season arc and have the title be a pun involving bipartisanship somehow. I know this changes the focus, but I'm just spitballing here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 01:44
|
|