-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
‘Never again!’ Students demand action against gun violence in nation’s capital
- Thread starter TheLaughingStock
- Start date
infinitys_7th
Member
Because they want one?
When was the last time a murder was committed in an APV using a gun turret in the US?
And I will admit I did not see the gun turret in the original post. The sign is covering most of it.
uhhh the context and understanding of chicago being in a state surrounded by other states with gun laws that are much more lax is exactly the kind of context that's missing from ben 'piss comes from the balls' shapiro's tweet.
infinitys_7th
Member
The point is that those areas are safer, proportionately, than Chicago.
LegendOfKage
Member
Well, we're talking about it on an internet forum, and posting pictures of their business logo and web address. From "look at this awesome vehicle with this cool gun" to "look at these awful people who I'm sure meant to intimidate school shooting survivors" they're getting a lot of attention.
If they wanted an effective way to promote their business, I'd say the plan worked.
J Bro
Banned
B-but the CONTEXT!
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
Lax gun laws wouldn't change that, since guns flow freely across municipal borders. Besides, speaking on a more macro scale, the most dangerous states are almost universally red states with lax gun laws. Finally, Chicago's gun homicide rate is still lower than top 10 most dangerous gun crime states (depending on the year you're looking at), all of whom have lax gun laws.
It's a stupid point that always gets brought up in this discussion. Anyone with an inkling of knowledge into the subject doesn't take it seriously.
Last edited:
infinitys_7th
Member
I don't care about the cooked homicide number that includes suicides and accidents and police shootings. What is the actual murder rate by gun?
The statistic you are citing was cooked by Vox:
https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5
There is some excellent statistical analysis and decoupling of extraneous data (suicides and accidents) regarding gun crime in that article.
No one takes it seriously that one of the most violent cities in the country is actually less violent than the bulk of the population.
Last edited:
LegendOfKage
Member
I love how that article:
1) explains exactly how they got the data.
2) explains how you can arrive at the same data by using sources used in anti-gun articles.
3) explains that there's no pro-gun or anti-gun link to gun ownership. Most of a population owning guns doesn't make an area statistically safer or more dangerous when it comes to homicide rate.
Thanks for posting that. It was interesting to see an article on gun statistics that wasn't trying to support a pre-determined "guns make us safer" or "guns put us in danger" narrative. It also goes back to something that I suggested earlier in the thread:
gioGAF
Member
Thanks for posting this, very interesting read. Most of my issues with the so-called "sensible gun control" laws are covered (ie. not using actual data to arrive at a conclusion). I am tired of seeing politicians pass "feel good" laws just so they can gain the support of all the clueless people who don't know anything about the subject (the "fully semi-automatic" ban zealots).
From the article:
So what sort of shape would a plan to reduce gun homicide take? First off, the magic gun evaporation fairy referenced in the second article is not on the table. Secondly, the plan needs to treat the actual problem, instead of the public’s clearly flawed perception of the problem. Third, it’s clear that a plan to fix this will not come from our predominant media sources, which are fundamentally failing to convey the true nature of the problem properly.
Last edited:
dropkick!
Member
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/03/27/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment/amp/
Can't make a thread yet but darn pretty important.
Our lefties ain't hiding it anymore.
Can't make a thread yet but darn pretty important.
Our lefties ain't hiding it anymore.
TheShadowLord
Member
he might want it repealed but I doubt it could happen as much as trump wants to repeal the media's 1st amendment right
dropkick!
Member
It's important since it ain't some paranoid conspiracy that some of the left says about gun owners. Many people now DEFINITELY KNOW that the end game is gun confiscation.
Can't the democrats just let go of 2nd Amendment so we can just go on with our lives?
TheShadowLord
Member
I guess I can't see the endgame like you can. But even with all the mass shooting there has been, the 2nd amendment is still standing. . Our politics is so partisan that the repeal of the 2nd would be taken away is very far-fetched as neither side see eye to eye with the other side for it to even happen.
Spheyr
Banned
Mass shootings are literally, in the grand scheme of things, so infrequent and so rare compared to literally any other kind of violence that the only way I can see them being such a focus is they generally involve white people, versus the majority of gun crime being black on black, and liberals could not give a piss about that.
Last edited:
Vicetrailia
Member
These school shootings are uniquely American. The tiniest risk to children are unacceptably high.
dropkick!
Member
All these goddamn leftist trying to take away our guns!
oh
So? There are leftists everywhere too that run as R cuz they wont win a district. There are Democrats too that is pretty much conservative/moderate/pro gun as heck.
Stop looking at R and D and start looking at what they stand for.
infinitys_7th
Member
Raise the legal age to acquire a learner's permit to drive to 18. That instantly saves more kids within that age range than any amount of gun control would:
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/index.html
Or are you okay with that specific "tiniest risk to children"?
Last edited:
Manus
Member
Bu bu but the guns!! If the left want to for sure lose in 2020 than they should run on repealing the 2nd amendment. You have a better chance of dying from a dog bite in the US than a mass shooting.
Last edited:
TheWatcher
Banned
Most or all of these mass shootings are in 'gun free zones', obviously the law is doing a great job keeping guns out of potential perps already. Rolls Eyes.
TheWatcher
Banned
I am also weary of leftists using children to push their propaganda. The manipulation of Alan Kurdi was despicable.
Vicetrailia
Member
Guns and cars have completely different utilization, regulations, fears, and perceptions.
We can still make cars safer, but user error is the biggest flaw of daiy automobiles.
The police can access a black box and your phone records to see what you were doing at the time of the crash. Texting is becoming illegal in more and more states. What else do you want, technology that auto blocks texting in cars, or do you prefer for automation to solve this issue?
How about we bring guns up to having the same number of regulations as cars, and then have 1:1 add one, add another for regulatuons.
Does that make sense? No it doesnt. Gun issues are gun issues unless it directly branches out.
Last edited by a moderator:
J Bro
Banned
I like how this is basically an admittance that the amount of gun deaths is actually irrelevant, and is only a talking point. Because it immediately goes out the window when it's pointed out that gun deaths are minuscule compared to other deaths.
If your answer to the amount of deaths something else causes is to dismiss it, then it was never about the amount of gun deaths in the first place.
infinitys_7th
Member
And you could immediately save 3-5 teens between 16-18 by raising the legal age to obtain a permit. Teens who die regardless of regulation against distracted driving much the same as students who die in a mass shooting regardless of extant restrictions.
We know they are "worse users" than the rest of the population, so if user error is the biggest flaw then eliminating an unnecessary privilege granted by society seems like a good solution if your goal is to save lives within a group by restricting unnecessary privileges.
No teen needs to drive a car - it would certainly not impact teens from low-income families, as they are generally unable to afford even a cheap used car. At worst, you are inconveniencing middle and upper class families. Why is that unacceptable based on "fears and perceptions"? Why are the privileges of the wealthy teens worth 3-5 lives a year?
Last edited:
J Bro
Banned
Once you point that out, the issue stops being the amount of deaths and becomes something else. Which proves that the amount of gun deaths was always irrelevant to the leftist.
Vicetrailia
Member
I needed and bought myself a beater car at 16 to drive to work.
You guys have a poor and unconvincing argument saying that pepole don't care about deaths, or that cars are more dangerous. A more effective stall tactic is to say that we shouldn't jump to regulation due to our fears, because doing so nets us that Florida law where they suddenly found 300million for something that doesn't actually stop mass shootings at school.
But that too is a moot point.
Last edited by a moderator:
infinitys_7th
Member
You are the one who claimed the "tiniest risk to children" is worth removing rights from a population of 330,000,000. Now I have given you a situation where removing rights and privileges from a much smaller group (16-18) saves proportionately more lives.
No one said cars are more dangerous - your justification was that "the tiniest risk to children" must be eliminated, and now you are refusing to eliminate risk to children. You can't have your emotional appeal cake and eat it too.
Some people would claim that they need guns as much as you needed to work at 16.
Last edited:
infinitys_7th
Member
Or they live in a rural area with sparse (and corrupt) police protection and frequent break-ins by methheads. Maybe they have a farm, or work at a factory in that are. Their protection is a need as well.
The logistics of the country vary dramatically state-to-state and county-to-county.
infinitys_7th
Member
In that case, I no longer under obligation to provide validation through need, as owning guns is also a right.
appaws
Banned
That's exactly what I am saying. I am on your side I think. Nobody has to justify a "need" for firearms. Ownership of the era's weapons of self-defense is a human right, coming from God and enshrined in our law.
Dubloon7
Banned
do you think this "right" is still necessary in this day and age? imho, NO
Musky_Cheese
Banned
100%. According to the CDC research, guns are used in self defense in the USA a half million times a year (low end).
Dubloon7
Banned
hmm....and why would that be? b/c that "self-defense" defense you claim are being attacked by guns? guns fight guns?
what are the stats on other weapons for defense like baseball bats, knives, swords, jump rope, cars, etc.?
ban guns then this garbage mentality won't be rampant as you see. how does EU/JP/Australia enact these laws? are the murder/attack rates drastically high in those countries? do YOU see a problem with gun owners and their gun "rights"??
Last edited:
infinitys_7th
Member
I was not trying to be antagonistic. My argumentative style is to extrapolate on my opponent's views until I reach an absurdity or something untenable to them. So I borrow their assumptions and contextual arguments in the course of that.
I was arguing with ssolitaire, and brought up need because it is a frequent justification by his side.
Last edited:
Musky_Cheese
Banned
If/When the CDC does research on Baseball Bats post it. They did research on guns. Found that you US citizens use guns in self defense 500,000 times a year. Ban guns and you leave people defenseless. And the said self defense, not self defense against other guns.
And while you can point to countries that have struck gun laws and low gun crime, you can also point to countries with stick gun laws and high gun crime.
Last edited:
infinitys_7th
Member
None of those countries have a crime-ridden narcostate to the south or a war on drugs to generate crime through prohibition. Or nearly as large levels of deep poverty.
In fact, there is no correlation between gun ownership and gun murders anywhere, per the article I posted earlier:
https://medium.com/@bjcampbell/ever...tween-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5
appaws
Banned
Yes, of course it is.
You see, people who are against guns are not actually against guns existing. They are for a concentrated elite and the state to have guns, but the "regular" citizenry" to be disarmed. That is a key distinction to make. The debate should not actually be called "gun control" it should be called the issue of civilian disarmament. Should we give the state a monopoly on deadly force? My answer is NO. The state is a necessary evil, but we need to guard the position of individual liberties versus state power very carefully.
Look at history since the invention of the firearm. Who do you think has murdered the most people with guns? Armed citizens, or the state? Clearly the answer is the state, having committed the brutal mass murders and genocides of the 20th century.
Even if we take the advocates of civilian disarmament at their word that they are concerned about all of these mass shootings by civilians, (Which is of course a big problem) we have to question whether the trade off of leaving deadly force concentrated in the hands of the state is worth it? I think the greatest failing of those on the other side of this debate is the trust they have in mommy government to give them "safety."
TheWatcher
Banned
Good comparison, and I agree. I don't think people need to have assault rifles, but it is their choice to use and operate them responsibly. I think Waco was a defining moment for me in terms of government overreach.
Vicetrailia
Member
In the context of guns, not cars, or swimming pools, or anti-vaccine, or whatever.
I never said remove rights, I said add regulation. I'm not interested in banning all guns. School shootings are the trigger to enact action, but everything else affiliated with gun deaths will also be targeted.
But you already knew that.
cryptoadam
Banned
There is massive backlash against texting and driving. Its illegal. cop catches you you get a ticket and a fine. there are adds all over the place about the dangers of texting and driving. There is no march needed, sensible people decided its dangerous and are doing their best to stop it. Most places you aren't even allowed to have your phone within arms reach when in a car!
every other 1st world nation treats guns like the dangerous weapons they are and value lives over bullets. Except the US which thinks it still the 1800's and that the constitution is an infallible document that can never be changed.
Spheyr
Banned
"banning all guns" isn't the only infringement on the Second Amendment. Every restriction on firearms ownership infringes on it. And we've had enough. Not one more restriction.
Vicetrailia
Member
Under all of your excuses and arguments we already knew that you felt this way. No need for car arguments, it's better to go back to the cost of less restrictions arguments.
Hotel Security
Member
No, every restriction does not infringe on it. It says: "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." The whole point was having a local militia to stop folks from committing crimes. There is no mention on the type of firearms, the steps you need to take to obtain one, or whether people who abuse guns should be allowed to keep them. It's probably a bit of a lesson that 250 year old rule could maybe use some refining to apply to modern times.
Last edited:
J Bro
Banned
A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to a healthy body, the right of the people to keep and eat cereal shall not be infringed.
The whole point must be to only allow a well-balanced breakfast to eat cereal.
bigedole
Member
This was a very informative link, thank you for sharing it.