quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuckingcurious

Oh and staleek,
If Americans hadn't been armed we would of never kicked your ass in the revolutionary war. Here again come the English to try and tell us what to do. How about you go eat one of your nasty fucking meat pies and leave the security of America to Americans? I don't try to tell you what you should do with your Queen...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cuckingcurious
For those that want some real statistics generated by the FBI.
It's funny to see the states with the strictest gunlaws / gun ownership ratio are also the states with the most gun related homicides. On another note in 2013 there were 41000 suicides vs 16000 homicides. Only about a third or so we're committed by use of a fire arm. Also most gun homicides and suicides are committed by a hand gun not a rifle. Hand guns are easier for criminals to conceal...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

The thing, though, is which came first? Were the laws put in place as a response to the homicide rates? I'm going guess they did. If so, it implies the laws aren't effective enough to reduce the rates down to the "normal" rate in other areas. But, it does not prove they have no effect at all, which would be impossible to actually discern.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
The idea that more gun control laws are going to end gun violence is also beyond ridiculous. It isn't legal to shoot someone (in general). It isn't legal to kill someone (in general). Yet, both things still happen.

No, but gun control laws might remove many of the guns out there. Try this out for a thought experiment;
Part 1:
Simply ban guns altogether, have a 60 hour amnesty and allow people to dispose of their weapons at police stations. Then, after that, imprison anyone caught with a firearm for a minimum of 5 years, whether or not they had any intention of using the weapon in the commission of a crime.
Imprison people who refuse to reliquish their firearms, and if they refuse to be arrested, shoot them dead.
You might not like that idea, but it would solve gun crime, almost completely wouldn't it?

quote:

Part 2:
At the other end of the scale allow anyone to have a gun. Give them out to kids in schools. In fact, have AK-47s at kindergartens and make it illegal to be a convicted felon but not have a magnum 44 in your pocket. Have special "gun fountains" in public places. Essentially just buckets with loaded ammo in them anyone can wander over to and pick up.
Would gun crime and gun related fatalities go up or down if you did this?
Ergo some level of control of guns would help bring fatalities down.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If all the guns in the world suddenly disappeared, I guarantee there will be someone murdered in the US within 24 hours. Probably not with a gun, but the violence won't disappear. But, apparently, 10k stabbing deaths is somehow better than 10k gun deaths. I don't see it, but, that's just me.

Firstly the objective isn't to stop murder. The objective is to stop gun crime. If all the people driving cars had to be sober and have no alcohol in their blood before driving, I guarantee that dozens of people will die in road accidents within 24 hours. Does that mean drink driving is ok? Don't you think there should be some sort of... oh I don't know... driving control? Where people are only eligible to drive after taking lessons and passing a test? And then, if they are caught drinking and driving, they have that license revoked?
Wouldn't that sort of regulation be a good idea for something as dangerous as a car?

1. Do people who have lost their licenses due to drunk driving still get caught driving (illegally)?
2. Do people who have lost their licenses due to drunk driving still get caught driving drunk?
3. Do we have any laws that limit someone's legal ability to own/possess a firearm after conviction of a prior firearm offense?

quote:

No guns for felons. Most of us are familiar with the rule that a convicted felon cannot possess a gun. The federal rule is found in one of the main firearm statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).
Note that even the lowest level felony in North Carolina, a Class I, is punishable by imprisonment for more than twelve months. It does not matter that your client's prior record level may be at the low end of North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Act, yielding a maximum sentence of less than 12 months' imprisonment in his particular case. All that matters is that at the highest end of the state sentencing chart (Level VI), it is possible for a Class I felon to receive a sentence of imprisonment in the aggravated range of punishment that is greater than twelve months.

quote:

The argument conservatives are using on this issue is completely wrong. Guns do kill people, and banning them/restricting them would make the nation safer. Statistics are clear on that. The argument you should be using is that the world is a dangerous place, people will do what they do, but it is more important to have a measure of freedom than it is to try to make everything totally safe for everyone.
Unfortunately the Conservative brand is very fear motivated and has to keep pushing this "guns make the place safer" argument even though it's empirically nuts.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Staleek
Honestly, the notion that gun violence (which is a serious public health issue in the USA) can be solved with more guns is beyond ridiculous.

The idea that more gun control laws are going to end gun violence is also beyond ridiculous. It isn't legal to shoot someone (in general). It isn't legal to kill someone (in general). Yet, both things still happen.
If all the guns in the world suddenly disappeared, I guarantee there will be someone murdered in the US within 24 hours. Probably not with a gun, but the violence won't disappear. But, apparently, 10k stabbing deaths is somehow better than 10k gun deaths. I don't see it, but, that's just me.

Of course no one is gonna take all the guns, DERP...

quote:

BUT with better gun laws, or even enforcing ones already on the books

quote:

maybe toddlers wont kill other toddlers or their parents with guns, maybe 7 year olds wont shot 8 year olds, maybe people will be able to know that when someone walking down the road carrying a firearm and its reported to police, it wont be ignored and end up having four people killed. Maybe some jerkoff wont be able to buy guns for his friends that kill 22. Maybe if they didnt have guns, people would get thru a period of suicidal thoughts and get thru to find the help they need. Guns now kill as many people as cars(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/17/guns-are-now-killing-as-many-people-as-cars-in-the-u-s/?regulation&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link)
Maybe more will be done to help people who have suicidal thoughts, maybe the death rate would plummet.

I read something today that said more toddlers had shot people than isis had . Now I presume that was before san bernadino...

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
What protection do you have against the flu? Since your many more times likely to get that nasty biological problem then confronted by one or more individuals hell bent on fucking with you.

While true, the comparison is beyond ridiculous. There has been no evidence of a flu virus making choices, or even being sentient. Adaptations are nothing more than survival of those viruses with a mutation that allows them to survive where other viruses don't. Viruses, too, have never been shown to choose to not attack a person based on "defenses" of that person.

Just because we have no evidence that God exists, does that mean he doesn't exist?
Just because we have not found sentience in the flu, does that mean it is mindless? Maybe. When you use words like 'sentient' in science, it means something much more than in layman's terms. A flu 'big' is a entity that thrives on other organisms that are usually bigger then it. As observed, the interaction between the flu and the human body holds negative results (feeling uncomfortable, sick, very ill, and death).
All the flu buy wants to do is eat, grow and exist. Sounds like Republicans :P

quote:

Your wrong again on whether a human defenses. That we have not proven the flu attacks or doesn't has not been shown (i.e. evidence). Maybe it does? Granted the chance it does with the evidence known so far would place it in the same category as God: "not very likely to exist at best".

quote:

A better analogy would be a bullet and the flu. Both enter the person and cause damage. After all, have we found sentience in bullets? Its sounds silly, but then, people think statues on walls of long dead people hold special powers.....
The bullet does not make a choice on whether or not to cut through the human body's defenses. Just as your thought process above. The difference between the bullet and the flu, is that we as humans, can control bullets far better than the flu. In order for bullets to cause the damage they do, means (usually) the presence of a firearm. So if the firearm were heavily regulated and only a smaller few allowed access; less bullets would be entering people's body, much like the flu.
How about you go ask the CDC how many in that organization would like the flu ban from being in use in America. Then ask whether bullets should be ban in as many reckless uses as we see today. I think they would agree that greatly toning down the level of reckless bullets being used is a good thing for Americas!
A very good point you made there DS. You get a cookie!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Fucking move to Detroit or Chicago and see how you like it.

Detroit and Chicago have some very nice people. A shame what is happening at the government level in Detroit. A good city with a lot of good history. But like all cities, they have their good times and bad. Right now, its a bad time for old Detroit.
But this has NOTHING to do with the topic....

1. Detroit is already out of bankruptcy, and is rebuilding. So, your veiled snipe at Republican governmental leadership is baseless.

1. Detroit's financial matters have....WHAT....to do with the topic? NOTHING!
Thanks to Republican 'economic policies' that and many other cities slipped down into bad financial shape. Or did you not observe/study the financial/economic issues of the Bush administration of 2000-2008? The recession took place due both to the Republican's tampering with laws (i.e. removing regulations), and not property managing a national economy. Once 'greed' was released into the economy, things went south in a hurry. The administration did an excellent job with keeping the nation's attention on places like Iraq and Afghanistan rather than on the local economy. Examine 2006. that is the year that things started to change for the worst; but the administration was able to bullshit circumstances. By 2007, it was apparent that the policies the Republican controlled government had instituted were failing the nation at all levels and in all industries.
Interesting and factual; but yet, no bearing on this discussion. You should have known that!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And to those who want to use the other hoplophobe mantra to get federal laws by saying that the guns used in crimes are bought from surrounding areas and brought in to Chicago, tell me them why those surrounding areas are not crime ridden like Chicago.

They are crime ridden. That you do not wish to look at the facts and figures is your problem. But we should help the CDC research this too....

Please cite your assertion that the surrounding areas of Chicago are crime ridden. The CDC doesn't need to research it. I'm sure there are plenty of universities or think tanks (for example, The Brady Center?) that can research it. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention has no business researching non-disease topics, either.

Cite that the areas around Chicago are crime ridden? What is your definition to 'crime ridden'? What characteristics are you defining as 'crime ridden'? Since each of those locations do have a crime rate. Each of them allow a much easier time in obtaining firearms. Each of them as of less economic value. You focus on the criminal going into Chicago for crime with the gun; yet do not stop an ask the most basic question: How did that criminal get the gun in the first place? Some got their gun through legal channels and others through shady means. How did the ones whom sold the gun by shady means, get the gun in the first place? Through either legal means (there are unscrupulous gun owners) or illegal ones (i.e. stealing from a gun owner's house).

quote:

Recently the neighbor of the San Bernardino shooters was arrested for purchasing the firearms that would later be used in the crime. There is your unscrupulous gun owner example right there!

quote:

As far as the CDC is concern, perhaps you should inform yourself of Their Mission Statement:
"CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.
CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise."
Its all there, blue and white for you!
Is gun violence and mass shootings a "...health, safety, and security threat..." to America? Go right ahead and spin the conservative bullshit....

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
BECAUSE PEOPLE THERE HAVE GUNS.

People in Chicago have guns too. Why does law enforcement find guns that originated more often from from states with very loose firearm laws, then tight ones? When we keep track of arms and whom is selling what to whom, things do not fall between the cracks to the criminal underworld as much. Or maybe you could point out to me all those atomic bombs in the hands of various gangs?
Its been interesting Termyn8or. Just like old times....

Please cite your proof.

That residents of Chicago have guns, legally? Or that when crimes found at a scene of a crime were traced to a point of origin to determine how they arrived in the lawbreaker's hands? That in a tiny number of such attacks, the firearm originated from within Chicago. Meanwhile the overwhelming number traced come from outside of Chicago; in places with very loose defined laws.
But you need something more concrete, right? Here is your cite: Tracing the Guns: The Impact of Illegal Guns On Violence In Chicago, May 27th, 2014. An its just 14 pages long. So that allows most conservatives the chance to read the document. Cus you all have problems for unknown reasons on the Iran Treaty that was 159 pages long!

quote:

Yes, the CDC should investigate the obvious threats and dangers to America on the firearm culture in America! Making recommendations to government on exactly how to minimize and/or neutralize the threat. They are given more funding to handle these studies and allowed freedom to operate. The only people who would be against this are either: ! ) Those making a profit off the suffering of others, or 2 ) Those to scared to have all their myths destroyed by scientific study and evidence. Which is basically the majority of conservatives in the nation!

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I wonder what the NRA are going to make of this...
http://gunlawscorecard.org/

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
I think 'rap' should be spelled with a capital 'C'!

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Lol, nah.most people assume banning guns is all thats wanted.... well dumb people assume it at least.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
I wonder what the NRA are going to make of this...
http://gunlawscorecard.org/

If I were the NRA, I'd expose it as partisan propaganda. That's all it is.