«

»

A parallel to ponder – watch the video in the update

I have been paying attention at the odious political attempt by the left to, like ghouls, use the tragedy of Newtown to do what “Fast & Furious” failed to provide them with: an opportunity to shit all over the second amendment. The left’s idiotic and totally emotional and hypocritical argument, repeated ad nauseum, is that if guns, especially any firearm that the left likes to lump into the totally misunderstood category of automatic weapon, are really hard to get, then crazy or evil people will have less of chance to kill. Arguments that show even a total fire arm ban could do no such thing – a midnight special bought off the streets, a dozen cans of gasoline, and a lighter, and any determined crazy or evil bastard could kill half of that school off – fall on deaf ears.

The left has a crisis they plan to take advantage of, and no amount of logic will dissuade them to let go of the emotionally laden narrative they plan to use to disarm the sheep. In the mean time they keep their weapons while they disarm us.

Look, the best example I can think of how we should address the left’s emotional tirade, is our legal system. Our legal system is supposedly structured in order to protect the innocent above all. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights are replete with enumerated limitations on the power of government to violate the presumption of innocence and our basic right to freedom. We accept, and are even proud of the fact, the system has a motto that says it is better to let 1000 guilty people walk than it is to convict one innocent man! It is a risk we accept to honor the rights of the innocent. And yet, when it comes to our second amendment rights, these same idiots that pretend to be the most proud about the legal system, take the exact opposite tact. They want to punish the tens of millions of good, law abiding, and responsible American firearm owners in order to keep the illusion of safety your occasional evil and/or crazy fucker violates.

It is not accidental that this Lanza kid picked a gun free zone to do his killing. Just like I am certain there was nothing that could have been done to prevent him from doing it. Oh, in hind sight there will be all these people saying that we should have noticed this or that, but it will all be after the fact nonsense. Lanza, unfortunately for the left, which is probably why the media has not pushed the narrative, came from a well to do home – his mother got $250K a year in alimony! – did great in school, and did nothing that would come of as a red flag before he committed this senseless act. We have heard that he was bright and did well in school, even if he was a bit of a loner. There are thousands of kids with high school issues that never do what Lanza did. His mental health issues are still up for debate, but I have a feeling we will find out event these were exaggerated by the media ghouls feeding on this tragedy.

As I pointed out, repeatedly too, no laws, not even a total firearms ban, could have prevented a determined killer from doing evil. Connecticut has some of the most draconian firearms laws in the union already, and they did not stop the massacre. The left’s idiotic narrative that more restrictive rules or even firearms bans would have prevented or deterred a determined mass murder, is bullshit. Would the tragedy be any less of a tragedy had he killed fewer kids with something other than a firearm? What if he had stolen a gas tanker and drove the thing into the school then blown it up? Would we be discussing the banning of gasoline delivery trucks?

The good things is that some people are getting it. Our aristocracy, the same fucking leftist twits telling us right now that we need to be further disarmed, send their kids to schools with armed security. Practically every one of them also have private guards that are armed to the teeth. But for the regulars shlob, their answer is to disarm us more and leave our kids and our own security to their approved government agents. The same ones that where twenty minutes late to the Newtown massacre when seconds counted.

If we have a legal system willing to let criminals walk to protect innocents, why do we have so many of that system’s big defenders ready to attack and undermine the second amendment, under the pretense that they are doing good, while the end result is punishment of the innocent to prevent the guilty from doing wrong? There is something else at work here. And we forget that at our own risk. I remind everyone again that it is not an accident that violence is the highest in the very places where the left disarmed the law abiding people with the laws they now are pushing for.

UPDATE:

58 comments

No ping yet

  1. stogy says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

      
  2. Iconoclast says:

    Shorter Alex: Everyone armed all of the time = a safe and secure society

    Yes, because history shows us that nobody armed ever (except government and criminals, which could mean the same thing) works so much better at keeping people safe, and free. Examples include the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s agrarian paradise, and so forth.

    Freedom has its price, and I doubt that anyone is arguing otherwise. After all, those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for (imagined) safety deserve neither and will lose both, according to Ben Franklin.

    But then, he was just an old, white racist….

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

      
  3. stogy says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 9

      
  4. AlexInCT says:

    History shows us no such thing. A few cherry-picked examples. Yemen, Somalia and Sierra Leone are awash with guns.

    And they are also awash with many other things that lead to the decrepit state of affair you leftists tell us we should never judge them for, because to do so is racist/evil/prejudicial/ ect. ect. Just so I am clear and the point can’t be missed: these places are not shitholes because some people have guns. Notice that emphasis. The guns are practically always in the hands of a select few that serve one warlord/cause or another. I wonder why you didn’t bring up Israel however. Those people are amred to the teeth, and with so few exceptions that it comes out as statistical noise, the only time people get killed by violence over there is when the fucking worshippers of death do it.

    These places you mention, and so many others you leave unmentioned, are shit holes because their people are backwards, believe in stupid shit, have no respect for laws of freedom or ownership, have been oppressed by governments that are plain evil, and most important of all, because they believe the propaganda most of these third world shitholes where sold by the KGB during the cold war – about how their problem was colonialism instead of the fact that they are backwards and their own worst enemy – that currently passes for enlightened knowledge in our academia.

    Somalia, Yemen, and Sierra Leone, like so many others, are shitholes because the place has been run by corrupt and evil fucks that abused their populations for personal gain. This is a common occurrence in the third world. And all flirted heavily with collectivism. Both Somalia and Yemen where staunch Soviet satellite states, and their disintegration can be traced right back to that criminal and evil collectivist philosophy the Soviets brought with them. Sierra Leone turned into a shit hole right after they declared their independence from their colonial masters, and they have stayed a shit hole since then.

    There is also the problem with Islam in most of these places that we try really hard to pretend isn’t a problem, so we can keep saying Islam is a peaceful religion.

    And there are plenty of countries with tight gun ownership laws that are far from oppressed. And they have much lower homicide rates. What the heck am I saying… pretty much all the countries with lower gun ownership rates have lower homicide rates.

    And less freedom too Stogy. Don’t forget that part. I hear that in many of these countries you so admire they can jail you for saying the wrong things that the government doesn’t agree with. In some they can kill you. And let me stress that I give a flying fuck about homicide rates – funny you and your ilk stay stuck only on homicide rates and conveniently ignore the boom in crime, in general, in countries where the people are disarmed – when I am forced to give my freedom and rights up to fucking collectivists in return for an illusion of security.

    I also doubt that children threatened at home by drunken fathers with weapons, or victims of domestic killings with weapons see gun ownership as central to their freedom. “Who’s freedom, and at what price”, would be a better question to ask here.

    Oh what a great appeal at emotion! For the chilrun! You mean to tell me we have no laws to prevent this stuff and the ONLY way we can save the poor children is by taking away everyone’s firearms, huh? You will need to take away knives, baseball bats, and big fists too. After all drunken daddy doesn’t much need a gun to put the kid in the grave.

    BTW, I think that since kids are at a higher risk of dying in a car accident, by orders of magnitude, than they are of dying at home in any of these emotionally charged scenarios you have to utilize to force people to be driven by emotion rather than logic, I prefer you focus on banning cars or kids in cars.

    Alex asked: “Would the tragedy be any less of a tragedy had he killed fewer kids with something other than a firearm?”. Well yes and no. No, for the parents whose children died, but if fewer parents were mourning lost children this christmas, then yes, it would have been less of a tragedy.

    Oh, what a fucking pile of bullshit.

    Obviously not. If it happened once. If it happened over and over (like…. um…. let me see…. gun violence!) then we would have to start thinking about restricting delivery routes, driver testing, altering the trucks, or alternative means of delivery. Unless you have evidence of repeated use of gasoline trucks being used as weapons against children’s schools, then it’s a pretty weak analogy.

    I can categorically state that you would never demand we ban fuel trucks or gasoline, even if more than a dozen fucking evil bastards drove one into kindergarten after kindergarten and killed hundreds or thousands. We have thousands of kids dying every year in car accidents and we have not banned them. You and leftists like you don’t care about kids at all. You see an opening to grab guns and you are playing it for all it is worth. You disgust me.

    With fewer and fewer Americans owning more and more guns, I think it highly likely that the second amendment will be called into question more often, and may eventually be significantly altered or all fall altogether. I think the writing’s on the wall… maybe not now. But sure, in the future.

    The left is beside itself that it will finally be able to disarm the sheep. Then it can turn the rest of the country into Washington D.C. The serfs better know whose ass to kiss or they will be left alone to get it. And they call people like me paranoid for actually believing the left means to disarm us all and subject us to its rule when people like stogy clearly point out that’s the agenda.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  5. Section8 says:

    With fewer and fewer Americans owning more and more guns, I think it highly likely that the second amendment will be called into question more often, and may eventually be significantly altered or all fall altogether. I think the writing’s on the wall… maybe not now. But sure, in the future.

    That’s right, and throw out the first amendment too. Freedom is for suckers and those who love to hear about dead children, or just like to beat their kids in general.

    There is a reason for our gun culture, there is a reason it was written into the Bill of Rights. There is a history behind it. It’s something once again that seems completely wacky to our foreign friends but who gives a fuck. THEY AREN’T US, NEVER WILL BE. And if any of my foreign friends want to say, good we don’t want to be like you, well great, but you all seem to spend a hell of a lot of time obsessing over our domestic affairs.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  6. stogy says:

    These places you mention, and so many others you leave unmentioned, are shit holes because their people are backwards, believe in stupid shit, have no respect for laws of freedom or ownership, have been oppressed by governments that are plain evil, and most important of all, because they believe the propaganda most of these third world shitholes where sold by the KGB during the cold war – about how their problem was colonialism instead of the fact that they are backwards and their own worst enemy – that currently passes for enlightened knowledge in our academia.

    You do realize that you just completely negated your original point don’t you?

    funny you and your ilk stay stuck only on homicide rates and conveniently ignore the boom in crime, in general, in countries where the people are disarmed

    So let me see… when crime rates are high in countries where there are strict gun laws it’s because of the no one has guns. When crime rates are high in countries where there are lax gun laws, it’s because of something – anything else! – other than guns. That makes complete sense…er… not. You keep building these contradictory and utterly vapid arguments.

    Oh what a great appeal at emotion! For the chilrun! You mean to tell me we have no laws to prevent this stuff and the ONLY way we can save the poor children is by taking away everyone’s firearms, huh? You will need to take away knives, baseball bats, and big fists too. After all drunken daddy doesn’t much need a gun to put the kid in the grave.

    So the fact that having one or more guns in the home making it 3 times more likely your will be murdered by a family member doesn’t tempt you to change your mind? How about that more than five times as many women were murdered by an intimate acquaintance (605) than by a stranger (113) in the year 2000. Additionally, while firearm homicides involving male victims were mostly intra-gender, 95 percent of female firearm homicide victims were murdered by a male? That family and intimate assaults with firearms are 12 times more likely to result in death than non-firearm assaults. No?

    Again, I ask “Who’s freedom, and at what price” Alex seems happy to sacrifice a great many children and spouses (based on – you know – actual data) in seeking to defend himself from a hypothetical dystopian future. Forgot your paranoia meds again, didn’t you?

    I can categorically state that you would never demand we ban fuel trucks or gasoline, even if more than a dozen fucking evil bastards drove one into kindergarten after kindergarten and killed hundreds or thousands. We have thousands of kids dying every year in car accidents and we have not banned them. You and leftists like you don’t care about kids at all. You see an opening to grab guns and you are playing it for all it is worth. You disgust me.

    Ah. The old switcheroo. Your original argument was dead in the water, so you reframe it to something else. And hope no-one will notice. Laws about trucks have been implemented, better roads constructed, speed limits, speed limiters, driver logs, rules on drunk driving. So yes, if there were more incidences of trucks being driven into schools, I can CATEGORICALLY state that laws would be changed to limit access to fuel trucks and to protect schools. It may not be a complete ban on fuel trucks, but then, I don’t see anyone arguing for a complete ban on weapons either. This is really a non argument Alex. You are failing badly here. Almost as badly as you did when you lost on DDT last week.

    The serfs better know whose ass to kiss or they will be left alone to get it. And they call people like me paranoid for actually believing the left means to disarm us all and subject us to its rule when people like stogy clearly point out that’s the agenda.

    If the American people decide to overturn the 2nd Amendment – democratically – what will you do? Will you accept it? Or run for the hills in a pickup truck all loaded up with the latest and greatest weapons blown to man? An insurgency designed to bring down the government so you can keep your right to own a firearm…

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      
  7. InsipiD says:

    With fewer and fewer Americans owning more and more guns, I think it highly likely that the second amendment will be called into question more often, and may eventually be significantly altered or all fall altogether. I think the writing’s on the wall… maybe not now. But sure, in the future.

    That’s disgusting. Protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority is one of the greatest things about the Bill of Rights.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  8. stogy says:

    That’s disgusting. Protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority is one of the greatest things about the Bill of Rights.

    You could just as well argue that the opposite is true – that the evidence shows that the significant and growing majority is subject to the whims (and disproportionate violence) of a gun-owning minority.

    If a majority believe that higher domestic violence and homicide rates outweigh the benefits of defending the family, then why shouldn’t they decide that laws and constitutional amendments should be changed to protect themselves from a tyranny of the minority?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  9. InsipiD says:

    You could just as well argue that the opposite is true – that the evidence shows that the significant and growing majority is subject to the whims (and disproportionate violence) of a gun-owning minority.

    No, the evidence shows that an increasing number of criminals who are violating gun laws that are already in place are being used by people like you to justify laws that would forbid people like me from owning guns. Ignorant gun grabbers, who don’t seem to believe that there’s any situation where a private individual might need to own a gun are willing to guarantee that criminals are able to find places full of defenseless soft targets to shoot up. I’m not interested in giving up my rights.

    If guns are so bad, take them away from the cops.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

      
  10. stogy says:

    who don’t seem to believe that there’s any situation where a private individual might need to own a gun are willing to guarantee that criminals are able to find places full of defenseless soft targets to shoot up.

    In no developed country where stricter gun laws have been introduced has that happened. Generally the reverse is true. So the evidence is really against you.

    I want to ask you whether you argue for the right to bear arms because you like firearms?

    I think most Americans argue for the right to own guns simply because they like them – like the feelings of power they give, the feeling of cold steel in the hand, and the feelings of security and invulnerability they provide. They tap into the American national myth (and by this, I don’t mean something that is untrue) of the self-sufficient, pioneering frontiersman fighting for survival, to get what is rightfully theirs, and to hold onto it against all threats. This is the main reason why the number of guns in the US is still increasing, while the overall number of gun owners is in decline. Many gun lovers own more than one gun. But increasing the numbers of guns a person has in their possession has a decreasing benefit in terms of safety: having 3 guns doesn’t triple your personal security. They own more than one gun because they like guns.

    So again, is it because you like guns that you argue for the right to bear arms? What are you going to do if the second amendment is repealed? Will you accept it? Or run for the hills in a pickup truck all loaded up with the latest and greatest weapons known to man? An insurgency designed to bring down the government so you can keep your right to own a firearm…

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  11. InsipiD says:

    In no developed country where stricter gun laws have been introduced has that happened. Generally the reverse is true. So the evidence is really against you.

    Wrong again. The Telegraph’s article on school shootings (hint: not all in US) even says: Schools have often found themselves to be soft targets for gunmen with a grievance. What about a mass shooting in the UK, where it’s nearly impossible to own a pistol?

    How about Japan’s Yakuza problems, despite incredibly restrictive gun laws? It’s continued to get worse since that 2007 article, BTW. The evidence is with me. Gun laws do not necessarily prevent gun crime. Your argument is unworthy. Your attempt to make it personal by asking about my guns doesn’t make you less full of shit. Criminals find a way to get a gun if they want one (they don’t care about gun laws). If they only want to kill people and don’t feel the need to use a gun, they just use something else.

    What are you going to do if the second amendment is repealed?

    I don’t think you understand what that would involve. It won’t happen. That doesn’t make me in favor of a slow squeeze. Nothing like having a meddling foreigner judging me and making broad and false statements about legal gun ownership to make my argument for me. Not every gun owner wants bodies stacked like cordwood. Since owning guns, I’ve been let go from two jobs, had my home broken into (ha ha, they didn’t find the guns!), and had someone attempt to steal my identity. My body count is still 0.

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      
  12. Xetrov says:
    who don’t seem to believe that there’s any situation where a private individual might need to own a gun are willing to guarantee that criminals are able to find places full of defenseless soft targets to shoot up.

    In no developed country where stricter gun laws have been introduced has that happened. Generally the reverse is true. So the evidence is really against you.

    You consider the UK as not “developed”?

    the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

    The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

    And Long-term effects.

    The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year – a rise of 89 per cent.

    Australia not “developed”?

    •In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
    •Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
    •Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

    “But wait, their homicide rate went down!”, you say.

    •Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.

    Undeveloped Canada has a similar story.

    Now is where you try to claim that you were only talking about mass shootings, and not crime in general in regard to gun control. Because 20 people killed over a week is so much better than 20 being killed in a mass shooting.

    On the “gun ownership is decreasing in the US” front, I don’t trust the statistics for one very big reason – My gun, purchased legally, is not on any record anywhere with me as the owner. Private sales are not tracked in many states.

    As far as the second amendment, it can’t be ‘repealed’, The Constitution can only be ‘amended’.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  13. stogy says:

    Where to start?

    As far as the second amendment, it can’t be ‘repealed’, The Constitution can only be ‘amended’.

    From your link:

    Amendment XXI

    Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

    Section 1.
    The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    I apologize if I am reading this wrong. But that looks like a repeal to me.

    On the “gun ownership is decreasing in the US” front, I don’t trust the statistics for one very big reason – My gun, purchased legally, is not on any record anywhere with me as the owner. Private sales are not tracked in many states.

    So there would be no data on the number of guns destroyed either? Obviously your anecdotal personal testimonial trumps any evidence whatsoever.

    Now is where you try to claim that you were only talking about mass shootings, and not crime in general in regard to gun control.

    I was primarily talking about the homicide rate, not mass killings specifically.

    Australia not “developed”?

    The Australian Attourney General has asked people – particularly the NRA who ran an advertising campaign a while back – to stop fabricating data about Australia’s crime statistics in support of arguments against gun control. Violent crimes in almost every category have been falling across Australia for many decades. The homicide rate is a miniscule 1.2 per 100,000. The number of victims of robbery in 2010 is the lowest on record since 1996, with 14,582 victims. Robbery victim numbers peaked in 2001 with 26,591 victims.

    I liked the site you linked to though. Absolutely no chance of partisanship there. Same as for the UK one:

    The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting

    They’re a dead cert for coming up with a completely defective study. I would bet they wrote the conclusions first and then matched the data up later, eh?

    And as for Japan, I lived there for 15 years. I used to cycle past the Yamaguchi gumi headquarters all the time. Your story is a complete fantasy beatup. Every Japanese person I ever talked to about guns was supportive of tight laws (and I know that the data would overwhelmingly support this). Many were absolutely terrified of visiting the US after incidents like this one.

    Your data is dodgy. I accept that homicide rates are falling across most OECD countries, but I don’t actually see how this helps your argument – if guns have nothing to do with lower homicide rates, then there is no problem in tightening laws on controlling them. The self-defense argument becomes quite weak.

    Again, go back to the data I posted earlier and ask the question: “Who’s freedom, and at what price”. This is the point from which a discussion on gun control should begin. Are the costs of gun ownership worth the price you have to pay?

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      
  14. stogy says:

    Sorry Insipid, I did mean to deal with your points separately, but some of them ended up in my previous comment. I don’t think that stricter firearms laws will prevent all massacres just as it won’t stop all murders or suicides. What it may help to do is remove some of the mystique around weapons and help to give people a better chance of disarming or escaping a violent offender.

    I don’t think you understand what that would involve. It won’t happen. That doesn’t make me in favor of a slow squeeze. Nothing like having a meddling foreigner judging me and making broad and false statements about legal gun ownership to make my argument for me.

    Half my family are US citizens and I myself have a very complicated background in terms of citizenship (something that I am not willing to disclose for various reasons). I am involved.

    Since owning guns, I’ve been let go from two jobs, had my home broken into (ha ha, they didn’t find the guns!), and had someone attempt to steal my identity. My body count is still 0.

    I am sorry to hear about your job situation and the crime committed against you. Although not sure now how I can be sure I am talking to the real InsipiD? But there is statistically about a 20% chance that you will suffer some kind of mental illness in your life. Can you really guarantee that you won’t suddenly snap at some point in the future? How do you know?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5

      
  15. AlexInCT says:

    Again, I ask “Who’s freedom, and at what price” Alex seems happy to sacrifice a great many children and spouses (based on – you know – actual data) in seeking to defend himself from a hypothetical dystopian future. Forgot your paranoia meds again, didn’t you?

    Fuck, you should have added that I don’t care because I like to eat babies, while twirling my moustache and affecting an evil laugh, Stogy? More dramatic and makes me the bigger villain so you can better pretend to be the noble savior. What, you don’t want to give up your second amendment rights and let government & criminals be the only ones with frearms? WELL, THEN YOU HATE KIDZ & WOMENZ AND WANT TO SEE THEM DEAD! YOU ARE EVILZ! Only people that want to ban guns care!

    I do feel compelled Stogy to again point out that you seem to be willing to sacrifice orders of magnitude more innocent children than I do. I showed you that far more kids get killed and hurt in car accidents or by other means than by guns, and yet, you seem to remain solely and exclusively focused on depriving people of their second amendment rights while completely ignoring these other problems that take far more lives. Do the kids have to die in large groups, all at once, for you to feel it is worthy of your time? Hypocrisy much?

    The fact of the matter is a very simple one: kids die, in greater numbers, from many other things that I see none of the gun grabbers like Stogy, whom are constantly pretending to care about the poor chilrun and evil and pervasive firearms, ever be bothered much about. When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it is practically always a duck. Do not be fooled by the faux concern of the gun grabbers for these kids. Remember that these are the people that want us to disarm and trust the government that staged “Fast & Furious” and hoped for big body counts to push this very same gun grabbing agenda. These are the same people that high five right after these sorts of tragedies because now they have a crisis they can use to take away the firearms of the people they would just as likely send to a reeducation camp, if they could get away with it.

    Fuck them all. Watch that Penn & Teller clip I added to this post. It is absolutely instructive what we are really dealing with here.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  16. InsipiD says:

    But there is statistically about a 20% chance that you will suffer some kind of mental illness in your life. Can you really guarantee that you won’t suddenly snap at some point in the future? How do you know?

    You’re basically suggesting that by having guns in my house that there’s a 1 in 5 chance that I”m going to snap and start shooting? You’re crazy.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  17. Section8 says:

    Although not sure now how I can be sure I am talking to the real InsipiD? But there is statistically about a 20% chance that you will suffer some kind of mental illness in your life. Can you really guarantee that you won’t suddenly snap at some point in the future? How do you know?

    Wow just wow. Stogy, that’s just fucking lame. Contrary to my earlier comment, I think it was better when you stopped posting. Oh by the way, please avoid children until you can guarantee you won’t be molesting them, you just never know, stay away from women until you can guarantee you won’t rape them. Stay away from cars until you can guarantee you’ll never cause an accident or deliberately run into someone. The list can go on and on. Remember, always assume guilt before innocence. Of course here in backwards America we have that all fucked up too. Luckily for big statists we’re starting to change though. Eventually we’ll need permission to do or say anything. Good times ahead! Jesus.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  18. InsipiD says:

    Wow just wow. Stogy, that’s just fucking lame.

    The worst part is, he thinks he won that argument.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  19. AlexInCT says:

    It is obvious that the draconian fireamrs bans of Chicago need to be even more draconian. DOUBLE BAN FIREARMS! With a cherry on top….

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  20. Section8 says:

    The worst part is, he thinks he won that argument.

    What’s worse is that it would seem much of the planet would think he did. Don’t get me wrong, freedom, self determination, these aren’t something that much of the world values, and in fact they disdain. For us, however, its been our way of thought since the birth of this nation while much of the rest of the “civilized” world was still marveling over sucking King or Emperor dick (those who didn’t moved here), and then that transitioned over to dictator, and now mostly bureaucrat. So of course we’re the odd man out, and for me I take that as a compliment. Are we perfect? Hell no. Have we always been? Hell no, but we had the right idea. Our failing is that it wasn’t truly applied to everyone from the beginning. Of course, you have the left now that are more content in removing rights equally (with the exception of power brokers) for everyone. Sad solution.

    It’s funny, I’m willing to bet 100% of the population on this blog would state what happened at that school was inexcusable. I wonder what the percentage would be if it was some suicide bomber who blew up a bunch a kids somewhere. I’m wiling to bet the % of inexcusably would remain the same for some of us, but would alter for others, like the number of JOOOS in the class, under what religious name did they do it in, the color of the bomber, etc. So this whole nonsense of for the children is just that. There’s not a shred of honesty about it. It’s just manipulate with emotion.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  21. stogy says:

    You’re basically suggesting that by having guns in my house that there’s a 1 in 5 chance that I”m going to snap and start shooting? You’re crazy.

    Oh come on! Jeez, you lot. Think for yourselves. I didn’t say that at all. Not every person who has a mental illness starts shooting up the neighborhood. Most don’t. But some do. And no, having guns in your house does not predispose you to mental illness.

    Now on this thread, there you lot are running about four different, completely contradictory arguments, few of which are backed by non-partisan evidence, but so far, you haven’t the whit to work out what they are. But ultimately, your positions are undermined by something you won’t admit, or haven’t yet admitted, that first and foremost you argue for the 2nd Amendment because you like guns, and what they represent. Last week, Hist_ed described himself as a “gun nut” (and I am not criticizing this), but this it shows that the debate is governed by emotion rather than logic and facts. To the point that Alex has now started frothing at the mouth and declaring that I am willing to sacrifice children in the name of gun laws. He has just posted a link to more shootings in Chicago, and I am at a loss to know how less strict gun laws would have prevented these shootings either.

    So this whole nonsense of for the children is just that. There’s not a shred of honesty about it. It’s just manipulate with emotion.

    Why is it dishonest to consider how best to raise children in a safe and secure environment? And to discuss the best social policies toward that end?

    So again: What are the costs and benefits to society of the second amendment? Are the costs in terms of higher domestic homicides that come with firearms ownership worth the benefits in terms of household defence and perceived need to defend yourselves against a potential fascist government?

    Start actually assembling some intelligent arguments rather than following the talking points (like Ed Chenel). And let’s actually talk about gun policy – no name calling, derision or resorting to fallacies.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

      
  22. AlexInCT says:

    And let’s actually talk about gun policy – no name calling, derision or resorting to fallacies.

    We already pointed out that CT has some of the most draconian laws in the union, the school was a gun free zone, and that there is no way this kid could have been stopped from killing when thus determined (not even your fantasies about all guns being magically taken away could stop that). We pointed out that punishing law abiding citizens for the crimes of others is insane. We mentioned the purpose of the 2nd amendment. We even recommended that schools have armed guards, just like the one Obama’s kids go to, to help make it harder to do what this monster did. You on the other hand have told us to bend over and take if from a government that selectively enforces its laws and is hell bent on disarming the people so it can get away with even more of this horrible stuff.

    What kind of discussion do you think anyone wants to have with someone that refuses to offer any other solution than the fallacy that “you will have to give up your rights and guns so e can be safe, because that’s what we want”? Watch the Penn & Teller segment I added to this post. You might learn something about the facts of the argument. And do not be surprised that all you keep getting when you pretend more gun grabbing is a viable solution is derision and name calling.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

      
  23. stogy says:

    We already pointed out that CT has some of the most draconian laws in the union, the school was a gun free zone, and that there is no way this kid could have been stopped from killing when thus determined (not even your fantasies about all guns being magically taken away could stop that).

    I agree that no gun laws are going to stop every mass killing. You said the other day that legislation on gun safes is ineffective in stopping guns from falling into the hands of criminals and nutjobs. So your solution is then that everyone who is willing is armed all the time? With more guns around all the time, how do you keep the guns out of the hands of the nutjobs (remembering that gun safes are ineffective)? And what if the teachers at the school didn’t want to be armed? Or didn’t want the presence of armed guards on the school grounds? You talk about choice, but people have a right not to be armed as well. Are you suggesting legislating that all schools must have armed guards on the premises? Why can’t people choose to live in the kind of society they want to live in? You’ve made that decision for them, by force.

    What kind of discussion do you think anyone wants to have with someone that refuses to offer any other solution than the fallacy that “you will have to give up your rights and guns so e can be safe, because that’s what we want”?

    Is that what I said? No guns or all guns, that’s the only choice? That is a clear example of a straw man.

    We pointed out that punishing law abiding citizens for the crimes of others is insane.

    I thought this was an interesting statement. Restrictions on guns are a kind of punishment? Where does it stop? What’s the line between what you would consider to be an acceptable form of self-defence? Would you allow for any (sane) American to possess scud rockets for example? Rocket propelled grenades? Chemical or biological weapons? So taking away someone’s scud missiles is punishment? Where do you draw the line? Doesn’t society have the right to define the line – democratically – on what constitutes a legitimate form of self-defence and what doesn’t?

    We even recommended that schools have armed guards, just like the one Obama’s kids go to, to help make it harder to do what this monster did.

    Have you costed that? Most schools will need more than one. I doubt it could be done for less than 20 billion a year considering that there are 100,000 publicly funded schools in the US.

    Watch the Penn & Teller segment I added to this post.

    I’ll watch it. Need to reload the page first.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  24. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Now on this thread, there you lot are running about four different, completely contradictory arguments, few of which are backed by non-partisan evidence, but so far, you haven’t the whit to work out what they are. But ultimately, your positions are undermined by something you won’t admit, or haven’t yet admitted,…

    Hey waterhead,
    Fuck you! You condescending cunt!

    THERE, I feel better and you have your ‘name calling’ knuckle dragging demon to point out. Elitist jerk!

    If the American people decide to overturn the 2nd Amendment – democratically – what will you do?

    And if my memory is still enact ,you fool, are NOT an American citizen. And although the details are fuzzy I can still remember bits of a rant of yours from a few years ago.
    But my point is that IF congress was ever to draw up a repeal of the 2nd amendment the gun-grabbers in this country, citizens btw, will never find the two thirds majority of states needed to pass this knee-jerk repeal. Ain’t gonna happen, legally. And a Sleeping Giant may be awoken if it’s tried thru fiat. (it’s an American thang, you wouldn’t understand)

    Therefore everything you’ve said here, imHo, has mostly been to feed your own ego. You’ve offered nothing but a curtailing of AMERICAN liberty and noticeably ran away from the fact that violet “gun crime” is prevalent in cities and states with severe gun laws. Gun laws that are stricter than the assault weapons ban during the Clinton regime.

    Don’t you have some gun-toting islamist that need watering? You are claiming to be in the ME still right?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  25. Section8 says:

    So again: What are the costs and benefits to society of the second amendment? Are the costs in terms of higher domestic homicides that come with firearms ownership worth the benefits in terms of household defence and perceived need to defend yourselves against a potential fascist government?

    What makes you think firearms cause domestic violence in the first place? That’s the issue that needs resolution, not the weapons used when someone after likely repeated abuse finally takes out their family. I didn’t catch the other thread. When did the American dad gets drunk and shoots his kids meme pop in? Was it this thread or prior? Maybe tomorrow there will be some new meme jabbing the American culture? My guess is there will. Personally, I think this whole debate has been dishonest from the beginning, locking in the debate to a choice between children or guns, or you could end up being mental and unless you can prove you’ll always be perfect then we should assume guilt, etc. Just deliberate inflammatory nonsense. Then the clever back out of I didn’t mean that, let’s just debate facts, and no insults ok? Reminds me of the tactics used by someone else here. Can’t remember who. Anyone? Anyone?

    Here’s the deal. Yes much of the reason for gun ownership is protection against hostilities from outside invasion as well as internal seizure of rights. You might find it silly, we don’t, but then again as I’ve mentioned earlier, much of the planet has been and is fine with government entities taking away their rights time and time again. For us not so much. Others are used to being invaded, we aren’t. So there is a culture difference there. For us it’s insurance. If you find it odd or stupid, who cares? It’s really not your issue. For us it’s insurance, and no more strange than buying health insurance. I guess the argument could be made if you’re going to piss away money on health insurance when it could be spent on better things at the moment then it must make one a hypochondriac.

    For me, I have one gun. Bought it about 2 years ago. Never been fired, may never be. Lock it in a safe. It’s not about the manly feel of steel and that macho power and a means to get what’s mine. To me it is about protection. It is some form of insurance. It’s not as your general assumption dictates that it must be because I love guns and boy oh boy let’s stockpile. Just fucking nonsense.

    Fact is crime rates have gone down over the last couple of decades without gun control. Where crime is highest here gun control tends to be highest. There are also many other factors involved with crime such as jobs, economy, etc. Fact is all kinds of things could be banned and would save lives, but then there’s the cost of the banning. Like cars for example. We could try banning alcohol again. I suppose it could be argued there is no real health benefit, and it’s causing all the dads out there to beat their kids apparently. That is until they finally shoot them. What freedom is that? Ban everything I say.

    Anyhow, off the stupidity trail and back to reasoning. For guns, the risk of invasion or a direct government take over of rights might be low today, just as I likely won’t be sick tomorrow so why bother with insurance, but over time there is risk, and it’s not a risk many here are willing to take. As for other countries well dictators, free periods, they come and go, and if people don’t care the tyranny period might come back, well that’s their issue. For many of us though, it’s just not an acceptable risk, where as for folks like you it might be acceptable.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  26. stogy says:

    THERE, I feel better and you have your ‘name calling’ knuckle dragging demon to point out. Elitist jerk!

    Ah.. MY! Can always rely on you to raise the tone.

    It’s so much easier to label someone as smug and elitist rather than actually arguing against the points they are trying to make. I have just been watching the Penn and Taylor and they did it too. Alex, is there any reason I am watching it? They make the same points you do and I am well aware of the arguments they’re making.

    Half my family live in the US and are US citizens. The other half are elsewhere. I am not saying where I am from or where I am now. I have spent a fair amount of time in South Central and I know what it’s like there. So don’t lecture me about elitism or Islam.

    Therefore everything you’ve said here, imHo, has mostly been to feed your own ego. You’ve offered nothing but a curtailing of AMERICAN liberty and noticeably ran away from the fact that violet “gun crime” is prevalent in cities and states with severe gun laws.

    Actually no. I haven’t run away from that at all. There are multiple factors (including guns) that make cities safer or more violent. But reducing it to soundbytes is a fairly useless exercise. Particularly when I end up arguing against dumb things like this.

    And none of you have actually attempted to answer my questions (Penn and Taylor haven’t either so far):

    What are the costs and benefits to society of the second amendment? We know that domestic violence is worse in homes with firearms. Are the costs in terms of higher domestic homicides that come with firearms ownership worth the benefits in terms of household defence and perceived need to defend yourselves against a potential fascist government?

    And why can’t society define what is an acceptable means of self defence, and what constitutes a greater risk to others?

    But my point is that IF congress was ever to draw up a repeal of the 2nd amendment the gun-grabbers in this country, citizens btw, will never find the two thirds majority of states needed to pass this knee-jerk repeal. Ain’t gonna happen, legally. And a Sleeping Giant may be awoken if it’s tried thru fiat. (it’s an American thang, you wouldn’t understand)

    I wouldn’t be so sure. The demographics may be working against you – particularly if you continue to argue (as you seem to be doing) that any limitation on weapons is an assault on freedom.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  27. stogy says:

    Personally, I think this whole debate has been dishonest from the beginning, locking in the debate to a choice between children or guns, or you could end up being mental and unless you can prove you’ll always be perfect then we should assume guilt, etc

    See, this is where it gets difficult. It’s impossible to evaluate the effects of guns on society without looking at the bigger picture. Penn and Taylor pushed the self defence, the need for a militia, and the freedoms argument, while ignoring the other social effects (some of which were mentioned by the gun control advocates at the beginning of the video).

    What I am arguing for is a balance sheet approach: arguments for guns, benefits, defence, freedoms against domestic homicide rates, successful suicides, accidental gun deaths, responsibilities, giving criminals and nut jobs easier and cheaper access to guns.

    Use this to start working out what a sensible gun policy should be – can we use this as a way of making sure that people and society are as safe as possible? What is the best possible social good from a firearms law? Should there be restrictions on the kinds of people who can access weapons? Should there be restrictions on the kinds of weapons people can own? Should there be restrictions on where and how people can carry?

    You can’t look at one side of the balance sheet without the other (which is ultimately what Penn and Talyor have done – even though they claimed to have looked at both sides). That’s why domestic violence is here in the debate. And again, the causes of it are not simple, as you point out.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  28. Xetrov says:

    We know that domestic violence is worse in homes with firearms

    We do?

    What I am arguing for is a balance sheet approach

    Go ahead and give us your idea of what the balance sheet should look like since you’re the one wanting it as the basis for “sensible gun policy”.

    Use this to start working out what a sensible gun policy should be

    The Founding Fathers already worked out what a sensible gun policy in this country should be -

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Xetrov says:

    Around 11,000 people in the US were murdered by guns in 2005 (FBI). More than 43,000 people were needlessly killed by cars that same year. If you really are concerned for our protection, shouldn’t you have been arguing this statement -

    What I am arguing for is a balance sheet approach: arguments for cars, benefits, defence, freedoms against domestic accident rates, successful suicides, drunk driving deaths, responsibilities, giving criminals and nut jobs easier and cheaper access to cars.

    Use this to start working out what a sensible car policy should be – can we use this as a way of making sure that people and society are as safe as possible? What is the best possible social good from a driving law? Should there be restrictions on the kinds of people who can access cars? Should there be restrictions on the kinds of cars people can own? Should there be restrictions on where and how people can drive?

    Why should people be able to drive around at 75 MPH when anything over 20 MPH puts them at risk? In order to protect everyone from unnecessary motor vehicle deaths, 20 MPH should be the new federal speed limit. In fact, why do we need cars? The government should be the only organization with cars, everyone else should be forced to use mass transit to eliminate even the risk of crashing at 20 MPH, not to mention the benefits to the environment.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

      
  30. stogy says:

    Why should people be able to drive around at 75 MPH when anything over 20 MPH puts them at risk? In order to protect everyone from unnecessary motor vehicle deaths, 20 MPH should be the new federal speed limit.

    Xetrov, We do have a balance sheet approach to road deaths. Speed limits, drink driving rules etc. Society has basically decided that giving up the freedom to drive at whatever speed one likes and the right to drive while drunk is worth the cost to bring down the road toll to 43,000 people.

    So why not apply the same approach to guns?

    The Founding Fathers already worked out what a sensible gun policy in this country should be -

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    And I am arguing that unless a less extreme position is adopted by the pro-gun lobby – unless some kind of limits are accepted – then the 2nd amendment will eventually fall.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  31. salinger says:

    Why should people be able to drive around at 75 MPH when anything over 20 MPH puts them at risk? In order to protect everyone from unnecessary motor vehicle deaths, 20 MPH should be the new federal speed limit. In fact, why do we need cars? The government should be the only organization with cars, everyone else should be forced to use mass transit to eliminate even the risk of crashing at 20 MPH, not to mention the benefits to the environment.

    Do you guys all subscribe to the same fanzine or something – I’ve heard this argument a couple times already.Beside the fact that you are comparing apples to oranges you are only scratching the surface of the analogy.

    To drive a car you must:
    Have liability insurance based on the risk of the car you are driving – i.e. a sports car costs more than a minivan.
    You must pass a test in order to drive and you must renew your license on time or have to take the test again.
    You must pass an eye exam for each license renewal..
    Each automobile is registered titled, taxed, and thus in most cases traceable.
    Cars have mandatory safety devices (seat belts, airbags etc.) and in many places must pass a safety inspection in order to be re-registered.
    Automobiles must pass certain criteria to be allowed on the road re: tires, body configuration, fuel used etc.

    Automobiles are much more regulated than guns in the United States. As for there being a greater number of deaths with cars even with all these regulations there are a couple different ways to look at this depending on the result you want. Another lens to look a these numbers through would be the number of fatalities per hours of use.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  32. Xetrov says:

    You claim we only care about this topic because ‘we like having guns’, and it makes us feel manly or whatnot. But by the same logic – by continuing to ignore the much larger problem of road deaths, or heart disease, or whatever more deadly subject, you’re just proving that it’s not about pro/con balance sheets. It’s just emotive for you because you dislike guns.

    And I am arguing that unless a less extreme position is adopted by the pro-gun lobby – unless some kind of limits are accepted

    The NRA supports background checks. Fully Automatic weapons are very hard to come by. “Less Extreme” positions have already been accepted by many in the “pro-gun lobby”. We are to the point where we have statistics that show without a doubt that an increase in certain gun control laws do not prevent crimes committed by guns (case in point, why do the two cities where it is almost impossible to legally own a handgun have two of the highest murder rates in the country?). So calls for more gun control do not make sense. Especially ones made by stupid politicians who’ve never owned a gun. How do bayonet clips. a pistol grip, or a collapsible stock which do not change the guns lethality at all qualify it as an ‘assault weapon’ like the AWB did? Sensible controls can be debated. Emotive controls based on how a politician ‘feels’ about something should be ridiculed for the stupidity it represents.

    then the 2nd amendment will eventually fall

    That makes no sense. That’s like saying unless limits on the freedom of religion are accepted, the first amendment will eventually fall.

    BTW, where’s your proposed balance sheet?

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  33. salinger says:

    (case in point, why do the two cities where it is almost impossible to legally own a handgun have two of the highest murder rates in the country?)

    How much do you think the fact that these gun laws are not uniform across states do you think plays into this?

    Do untraceable purchases at gun shows have any culpability in this?

    I was talking with a SWAT team family member in DC over the holidays and he said that if he could end one practice it would be these gun shows – because even though DC may have strict gun laws neighboring Virginia is notorious for their fast and loose gun show sales.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      
  34. AlexInCT says:

    You claim we only care about this topic because ‘we like having guns’, and it makes us feel manly or whatnot. But by the same logic – by continuing to ignore the much larger problem of road deaths, or heart disease, or whatever more deadly subject, you’re just proving that it’s not about pro/con balance sheets. It’s just emotive for you because you dislike guns.

    ^^^^^ THIS!!!!1!!eleventy!!!

    How much do you think the fact that these gun laws are not uniform across states do you think plays into this?

    Yeah, the problem is that government has not taken all guns away from all people, everywhere! Let me again point out that the problem with guns in these cities are not caused by the law abiding citizens, but by those that do not give a hoot about the laws. Did you watch that Penn & Teller clip I added to this post? Check out the interview with the gangbanger. The point there isn’t that he can get guns even when they are banned, but that the ban itself is MEANINGLESS to him. He doesn’t care. He will find a way to get the guns he wants. He will then use them. And when all law abiding citizens are unarmed, and the police is minutes away when seconds count, guess who is screwed? Not to mention what kind of a shithole we would be living in once the fucking fascist leftist government disarms the people and no longer fears any retribution to their abuses of power. Whe they tell us they wish we where more like China, they mean it.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  35. stogy says:

    You claim we only care about this topic because ‘we like having guns’, and it makes us feel manly or whatnot. But by the same logic – by continuing to ignore the much larger problem of road deaths, or heart disease, or whatever more deadly subject, you’re just proving that it’s not about pro/con balance sheets.

    Actually, I have proved that it’s exactly about balance sheets: what freedoms is society prepared to give up to achieve an acceptable road toll? Sally has actually argued this better than I have though. The road deaths argument is not going anywhere, because it’s too easy to show that society has compromised and accepted restrictions on behavior.

    We are to the point where we have statistics that show without a doubt that an increase in certain gun control laws do not prevent crimes committed by guns (case in point, why do the two cities where it is almost impossible to legally own a handgun have two of the highest murder rates in the country?).

    I have been thinking about this argument for much of today. And I have come to realize that comparing the number of deaths due to firearms to the strength of anti-gun laws may not be valid. Even though some states may have stricter gun laws, it’s the number and distribution of guns that really matters. So I did a quick search, and I came across this:

    The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes. As of 2007, 10.2 out of every 100,000 people were killed by firearms across the United States, but that rate varies dramatically from state to state. In Hawaii, at the low end, it was 2.6 per 100,000; in New York and New Jersey it was 5.0 and 5.2 respectively. At the high end, 21.7 out of every 100,000 residents of the District of Columbia were killed by guns, 20.2 in Louisiana, 18.5 in Mississippi, and 17.8 in Alaska. Arizona ranked eighth nationally, with 15.1 deaths per 100,000.

    They then go through a bunch of factors usually associated with gun violence. And then:

    Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

    While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

    You said:

    That makes no sense. That’s like saying unless limits on the freedom of religion are accepted, the first amendment will eventually fall.

    There are limits on the freedom of religion – but these fall under other jurisdictions – mostly related to causing harm to others. You can’t do human sacrifice anywhere in the US, regardless of belief that the fire gods will come get you if you don’t. You can’t imprison people against their will to exorcise the devil out of them. You even can’t sexually abuse children. I don’t really see how these directly threaten the 1st though.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  36. salinger says:

    How do bayonet clips. a pistol grip, or a collapsible stock which do not change the guns lethality at all qualify it as an ‘assault weapon’ like the AWB did?

    I think a person who believes he needs a weapon that looks like an assault weapon (even if it is just window dressing) is starting from a different point than a sportsman who is looking to shoot game. I understand that many of these guns are identical beneath their “costumes” – but the guy or gal who wants a 22 that looks like it is meant to be carried into an urban military conflict picked up at Walmart for under 200 bucks has a different mindset than the outdoors-man with his burled wood gunstock (and more powerful) 30 aught 6 for which he/she paid four times the price.

    Back to the car analogy – I always wonder for what the guys with wide tires, airfoils and hood scoops, Hummers and lift kits are compensating.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  37. stogy says:

    The point there isn’t that he can get guns even when they are banned, but that the ban itself is MEANINGLESS to him. He doesn’t care. He will find a way to get the guns he wants. He will then use them. And when all law abiding citizens are unarmed, and the police is minutes away when seconds count, guess who is screwed?

    Yeah, but fewer guns means the price goes up. More expensive black market guns means that fewer people will be able to afford fewer guns – keeping them out of the hands of minors becomes easier.

    Not to mention what kind of a shithole we would be living in once the fucking fascist leftist government disarms the people and no longer fears any retribution to their abuses of power.

    I did watch all of the Penn & Teller clip (and as I said – there was nothing there you haven’t already said – although their delivery had a bit more panache). Like them, I guess, you seem to want to put all of the weight on one side of the balance sheet, while ignoring the negative effects on the other. For you, the social goods of gun ownership are far more important than the negative impacts.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  38. AlexInCT says:

    Actually, I have proved that it’s exactly about balance sheets: what freedoms is society prepared to give up to achieve an acceptable road toll? Sally has actually argued this better than I have though. The road deaths argument is not going anywhere, because it’s too easy to show that society has compromised and accepted restrictions on behavior.

    The problem is that gun grabbers like you are not really asking for restrictions, which I should point out we already have too many of, with CT, the state where the massacre happened, leading the nation in draconian laws. You are pretending that is what you want. But occasionally you let it slip that what you really want is for all guns to be gone from the public, with only the people government likes getting any. Anyone that missed Sally’s point about how D.C, Chicago, L.A., Detroit, and N.Y.C. with their gun bans have the most gun crime because guns are not banned everywhere, should go back and reread that. The argument that the data shows that cities with the harshest gun bans and laws have the highest crime rate because guns are not banned everywhere, smacks of the idiotic argument that communism really never failed, because we never had real communism or the people that ended up in charge where the wrong ones.

    With all those traffic deaths, why not demand people that are involved in accidents with fatalities never again be allowed to drive, huh? Actually, the real parallel would be for people that have never been involved in accidents that caused fatalities, or for that matter any accidents, to also have their rights to drive removed. That’s what you gun grabbers are doing while trying real hard to pretend otherwise or that what you want is based on any kind of logic.

    Your side is not asking for compromise: you are telling us we need to give up guns because you don’t like them. Fuck you.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

      
  39. Xetrov says:

    Saying it’s about balance sheets doesn’t make it so. This discussion is now going in circles without your proposed balance sheet, or what you would consider increased gun control that makes logical sense.

    Since you haven’t provided either, I’ll finish with this absolutely fantastic article written by a lefty who also happens to think guns are manly.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  40. AlexInCT says:
    How do bayonet clips. a pistol grip, or a collapsible stock which do not change the guns lethality at all qualify it as an ‘assault weapon’ like the AWB did?

    I think a person who believes he needs a weapon that looks like an assault weapon (even if it is just window dressing) is starting from a different point than a sportsman who is looking to shoot game.

    If I buy any of those items, I am not buying them for sport or hunting purposes: I am buying them to make sure that when your fellow leftards in government decide to go full blown fascist, I can fight them. That’s what the 2nd amendment was added to the constitution for. Oh yeah, if you are going to tell me that I am delusional for thinking I can fight the government off, then all you have done is proven the point that your side already eroded the constitution to the point that we are serfs of the state. No wonder we are on a one way trip to hell in a hand basket, and so many people are totally clueless that it is going on.

    Here is another point nobody has made yet about the irrational fear on the left for automatic weapons, BTW: automatic weapons are no more lethal than weapons that are not. Anyone that uses an automatic weapons in spray mode is an amateur and unlikely to do much real damage. A real killer will use a single, accurately aimed shot, to put down the target. Spraying is not just inaccurate, it is a waste and inefficient, relies on luck to score a hit, and is far more likely to get you killed.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  41. salinger says:

    Are there folks who think that all guns need be banned? Sure there are. Are there folks who think everyone over 16 should be armed with fully automatic weapons. Sure there are. Let’s set those as near the extremes for both sides.

    Are more people in the middle of these extremes – yes. But, pretending that there are no reasonable people in the middle makes for such better histrionics and feeds the paranoia of both sets of fanatics so well.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  42. Kimpost says:

    So… requiring background checks at gun shows and for private sales is a no then? Or are there pro 2nd Amendment advocates here who would like to see that? (I’m personally not quite sure why people would be opposed to this one?)

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  43. stogy says:

    The argument that the data shows that cities with the harshest gun bans and laws have the highest crime rate because guns are not banned everywhere

    The data doesn’t show that at all. The data shows that the states with the highest gun ownership have the highest crime rates, and that gun laws have a significant downward effect on crime – the precipitous fall in crime in DC and NY are good examples of this.

    With all those traffic deaths, why not demand people that are involved in accidents with fatalities never again be allowed to drive, huh?

    We do.

    Actually, the real parallel would be for people that have never been involved in accidents that caused fatalities, or for that matter any accidents, to also have their rights to drive removed

    That would be completely opposite to the principles I am advocating here. Really. The road deaths argument is not working for you because it fits exactly within my frame of argument – society has accepted substantial limits on driving behavior.

    Your side is not asking for compromise: you are telling us we need to give up guns because you don’t like them. Fuck you.

    Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I am arguing that American society as a whole has a right to decide what is a reasonable limit to gun ownership – not just the gun owners (and this is the most unfortunate result of the 2nd Amendment). I don’t think a complete ban on guns is practical or doable, and would certainly be unjust.

    But then it has always been your way to straw man your opponents, and misrepresent their real positions so you can appear to win your arguments.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  44. stogy says:

    I am buying them to make sure that when your fellow leftards in government decide to go full blown fascist, I can fight them.

    So the benefits are worth the cost in terms of deaths in domestic violence incidence, are they Alex?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4

      
  45. stogy says:

    Saying it’s about balance sheets doesn’t make it so.

    You’re right, it doesn’t – but it should. I am trying to say that only one side is being examined here, and I am so far failing completely to broaden the picture. It’s all “those fascist lefties are going to take all of our guns that we need to defend our families and fight the fascist lefties when they come for our guns”.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  46. Xetrov says:

    So… requiring background checks at gun shows and for private sales is a no then? Or are there pro 2nd Amendment advocates here who would like to see that? (I’m personally not quite sure why people would be opposed to this one?)

    I support it to a certain extent. There’s a side of me that says I don’t want the government putting me in a national database as a gun owner. One reason for that is this.

    An interactive map showing the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties has infuriated many readers since it was posted Saturday on a newspaper’s website.

    The map, published by The Journal News, allows readers to zoom in on red dots that indicate which residents are licensed to own pistols or revolvers. It had prompted more than 1,700 comments as of Wednesday morning.

    Blue dots indicate permit holders who “have purchased a firearm or updated the information on a permit in the past five years.”

    I am not a criminal for owning a gun. No media outlet (or for that matter most government agencies) should have access to a database showing me as a gun owner.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  47. stogy says:

    One reason for that is this.

    An interactive map showing the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties has infuriated many readers since it was posted Saturday on a newspaper’s website.

    I’m with you on this. It was a stupid and irresponsible thing to have done.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  48. AlexInCT says:

    So… requiring background checks at gun shows and for private sales is a no then?

    Really? Who objected tp this? Not me. What I am objecting to is the bans. BTW, in CT, you have the background checks already.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  49. AlexInCT says:

    The data doesn’t show that at all. The data shows that the states with the highest gun ownership have the highest crime rates, and that gun laws have a significant downward effect on crime – the precipitous fall in crime in DC and NY are good examples of this.

    Can you provide me with this data correlating gun ownership states with high crime? Because I certainly don’t buy it.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  50. AlexInCT says:

    So the benefits are worth the cost in terms of deaths in domestic violence incidence, are they Alex?

    Right back at you about traffic fatalities. Moron.

    Alex

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

      
  51. stogy says:

    I linked to it earlier, when I said:

    I have been thinking about this argument for much of today. And I have come to realize that comparing the number of deaths due to firearms to the strength of anti-gun laws may not be valid. Even though some states may have stricter gun laws, it’s the number and distribution of guns that really matters. So I did a quick search, and I came across this:

    The map above charts firearm deaths for the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes. As of 2007, 10.2 out of every 100,000 people were killed by firearms across the United States, but that rate varies dramatically from state to state. In Hawaii, at the low end, it was 2.6 per 100,000; in New York and New Jersey it was 5.0 and 5.2 respectively. At the high end, 21.7 out of every 100,000 residents of the District of Columbia were killed by guns, 20.2 in Louisiana, 18.5 in Mississippi, and 17.8 in Alaska. Arizona ranked eighth nationally, with 15.1 deaths per 100,000.

    They then go through a bunch of factors usually associated with gun violence. And then:

    Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).

    While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  52. stogy says:

    Right back at you about traffic fatalities. Moron.

    Alex. I already explained why this argument doesn’t work. Society has already accepted substantial limitations on freedom to speed, drink drive etc with regard to reducing the road toll. Society has found on balance that the freedoms ceded are a sufficient compromise in reducing the road toll from whatever it would be otherwise to 43,000 deaths per year. If and when society decides that the road rules are inadequate, then there will and should be public discussion on raising/reducing speed limits etc. This will be decided through state and federal laws.

    You are arguing that because we don’t accept limitations on car ownership and driving behavior, that we shouldn’t accept limits on gun ownership either. The problem with this argument is that there are quite strict laws and regulations on car ownership.

    The same discussion should take place with regard to firearms ownership, but it cannot primarily because the second amendment gives almost all the rights to gun advocates. And it is almost impossible to get anyone to even talk about how to reduce domestic homicide rates from firearms (a fact that you are proving in spades).

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  53. stogy says:

    Here’s something else I found that looks interesting:

    Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime, according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan. After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42 percent to less than 35 percent. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occur in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership.

    He then examines whether legislation that allowed individuals to carry concealed weapons had an important impact on the crime rate. He shows that this legislation did not lead to a substantial increase in gun ownership, nor did it reduce crime relatively more in counties with high rates of gun ownership. This latter finding suggests, Duggan writes, “either that gun owners did not increase the frequency with which they carried their guns or that criminals were not deterred by the greater likelihood that their victims would be armed.” Taken together, his results suggest that Carrying Concealed Weapons legislation did not have an important effect on the rate of gun ownership or on the crime rate.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      
  54. grady says:

    Alex. I already explained why this argument doesn’t work. Society has already accepted substantial limitations on freedom to speed, drink drive etc with regard to reducing the road toll. Society has found on balance that the freedoms ceded are a sufficient compromise in reducing the road toll from whatever it would be otherwise to 43,000 deaths per year. If and when society decides that the road rules are inadequate, then there will and should be public discussion on raising/reducing speed limits etc. This will be decided through state and federal laws.

    You are arguing that because we don’t accept limitations on car ownership and driving behavior, that we shouldn’t accept limits on gun ownership either. The problem with this argument is that there are quite strict laws and regulations on car ownership

    The point that Alex has made is that you still have 4x the deaths due to cars as firearms. If you take suicides out of the equation (~60% of firearms deaths and ~1% of car deaths – we have stats on firearms suicides but not much on car suicides) it comes closer to 10x the number of deaths due to cars. We have regulations for ownership of firearms and use of cars. The point is that you are still talking about trying to curb a much smaller number of deaths.

    The second point is regulation. Yes we have driving laws. But we also have firearms laws. Now what are you trying to prevent? Obama had stated that other night he wants to see and end to the mass shootings. He didn’t mention the regular shootings that seem to happen in population dense areas every week.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  55. grady says:

    The same discussion should take place with regard to firearms ownership, but it cannot primarily because the second amendment gives almost all the rights to gun advocates.

    Yes this is true. The constitution specifically gave the right to bear arms to the citizens. This is the ammendment that did so. If you want to take away the rights to firearms, you have to address this ammendment. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. I think you should realize that you are facing a large number of people in this country that do not want to see their right to firearms diminished. It’s not just the second amendment, it’s also the people that support it.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

      
  56. Mississippi Yankee says:

    Ah.. MY! Can always rely on you to raise the tone.

    It’s so much easier to label someone as smug and elitist rather than actually arguing against the points they are trying to make.

    And yet every reasonable person here tried the “rational argument” approach with pretty much the same results. You have shown, time and time again, that your mind is permanently closed to any debate. Your collectivist “my way or the highway” style has never swayed a single person on this site yet you continue to employ this tactic over and over again, always with the same results… Albert Einstein commented on this maneuver I believe.

    I have just been watching the Penn and Taylor and they did it too.

    And still managed to get 50% of their names wrong. You have a mind like a steel trap, nothing gets in; nothing gets out.
    But hey, you did manage to get one of the lefty peacocks to come over and fan his tail feathers. so there’s that!

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  57. stogy says:

    Yes this is true. The constitution specifically gave the right to bear arms to the citizens. This is the ammendment that did so. If you want to take away the rights to firearms, you have to address this ammendment. I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.

    The point is that the second amendment prevents any discussion of what a realistic, sensible and evidence-based gun policy should be: trigger locks, weapon categories bans, safe storage lockers. And depsite what you say, the evidence strongly suggests that limiting weapons reduces crime – I have repeatedly shown this.

    Your collectivist “my way or the highway” style has never swayed a single person on this site yet you continue to employ this tactic over and over again, always with the same results

    I am not a collectivist. I am an economic centrist (as in I actively believe in the principles of centrism). I am socially liberal with libertarian leanings. Fan it however you want, what you are saying still stinks of shit.

    But above all, I believe in evidence-based social goods. The arguments here in support of the 2nd amendment are emotionally based, not evidence based (just as many of the arguments against are also emotionally based). Here, this can clearly be seen by a continued failure to examine the social costs of gun ownership.

    There, I’m done :) I’m on the road for a couple of days, so enjoy the peace and quiet.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

      
  58. Iconoclast says:
    Yes, because history shows us that nobody armed ever (except government and criminals, which could mean the same thing) works so much better at keeping people safe, and free.

    History shows us no such thing.

    My point exactly. Thanks for agreeing.

    A few cherry-picked examples.

    Explain how that makes them any less legitimate as examples to illustrate the potential outcome of utterly disarming the populace.

    Yemen, Somalia and Sierra Leone are awash with guns.

    So, it’s apparently okay when you cherry pick. Interesting.

    I also doubt that children threatened at home by drunken fathers with weapons, or victims of domestic killings with weapons see gun ownership as central to their freedom.

    Probably not, but then your hypothetical victims are irrelevant. After all, I can bring up hypothetical victims of criminals and governments who may very well consider gun ownership central to their very survival. What of it?

    “Who’s freedom, and at what price”, would be a better question to ask here.

    Given Alex’ point about criminals getting guns regardless of what the laws allow, that’s a damned good question.

    Feeling threatened are we?

    Nope, so there’s no need for you to flatter yourself.

    But above all, I believe in evidence-based social goods. The arguments here in support of the 2nd amendment are emotionally based, not evidence based…

    We’ll see…

    Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby

    GUNS: Facts & Fallacies

    TEN MYTHS ABOUT GUN CONTROL

    I’m on the road for a couple of days, so enjoy the peace and quiet.

    I’ve been on the road myself, which is why I am so late in responding.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.