You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Teague: Gotcha. I thought you were implying I was reinterpreting the conversation to fit my "argument". Which made no sense to me.
Dave: I thought the trend is "anything" happens in the states and gun sales go up drastically? They voted Obama in and gun sales went up.
If you want to correlate it with other data, white ford broncos sold like hotcakes after OJ went driving around in one and pit bull adoption rates went up after Micheal Vick was arrested.
Dave: I thought the trend is "anything" happens in the states and gun sales go up drastically? They voted Obama in and gun sales went up.
I work in a sporting goods retailer in the United States, in Idaho, which is known for its hunters. When Obama was elected, gun sales went up as people feared increase gun regulation and prices going up.
Guess what? Prices have gone up and the rules for buying guns have changed. Not changed a lot, but there was still a change.
Not trying to politicize the tragedy that Aurora obviously is. It just frustrates me that something goes wrong people run and buy guns. Um, people run to lots of things when something goes wrong. I think alcohol sales went up when Obama was elected too.
In other news, this is an interesting article:
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstos … page/full/
Oy, I love guns, but John Stossel is a total hack.
re: More Guns, Less Crime... If you take out the author's own supporting papers, there are just as many papers that refute his findings as support them.
Violent crime is way down all over the US. You can't propose specific causes without really careful controls.
Oy, I love guns, but John Stossel is a total hack.
re: More Guns, Less Crime... If you take out the author's own supporting papers, there are just as many papers that refute his findings as support them.
Violent crime is way down all over the US. You can't propose specific causes without really careful controls.
I understand your point, Zarban, but I was more providing fuel for discussion, regardless of my personal opinion of the author. My frustrations stem from the fact that people tend to run to extremes with guns, either for or against. But, the idea that regulating guns somehow decreases gun related crimes is quite fallacious, given the fact that, as Stossel points out, both Britain and Canada have stricter gun laws and have similar crime rates to the United States. The criminals still get guns because they have no regard for the laws.
Again, I will relate to my own experience. I had a customer come in and wanted to purchase a gun. I informed him that he would have to do the paperwork and then I would run the background check. He told me I didn't need to run the background check (Jedi mind trick?). When I insisted that I did, he informed me he would acquire a gun through other means. My point? There are other means for someone intending to use guns for bad reasons to get them.
But, the idea that regulating guns somehow decreases gun related crimes is quite fallacious, given the fact that, as Stossel points out, both Britain and Canada have stricter gun laws and have similar crime rates to the United States.
No, it's not fallacious. Britons and Canadians largely commit their crimes WITHOUT guns. And that's why their murder rates are extremely low despite the fact that their overall crime rates and ours have met in the middle. Taking guns out of a population largely stops them from murdering people because it is really hard to stab someone to death unless you've been trained.
HOWEVER, Switzerland demonstrates that a well-armed population does not NECESSARILY commit murder at American rates. This is because they do not have urban free-fire zones filled with angry, unemployed gangbangers with no prospects in life.
If you want to keep guns and have a kinder, gentler society, you have to argue that we need to improve our social conditions to reduce the population of people living lives of desperation. People who are members of the NRA do not give a shit about that.
fireproof78 wrote:But, the idea that regulating guns somehow decreases gun related crimes is quite fallacious, given the fact that, as Stossel points out, both Britain and Canada have stricter gun laws and have similar crime rates to the United States.
No, it's not fallacious. Britons and Canadians largely commit their crimes WITHOUT guns. And that's why their murder rates are extremely low despite the fact that their overall crime rates and ours have met in the middle. Taking guns out of a population largely stops them from murdering people because it is really hard to stab someone to death unless you've been trained.
HOWEVER, Switzerland demonstrates that a well-armed population does not NECESSARILY commit murder at American rates. This is because they do not have urban free-fire zones filled with angry, unemployed gangbangers with no prospects in life.
If you want to keep guns and have a kinder, gentler society, you have to argue that we need to improve our social conditions to reduce the population of people living lives of desperation. People who are members of the NRA do not give a shit about that.
Well written, sir, but I must ask that if your logic is that all NRA members don't care about improving social conditions, then would it stand that nonmembers care?
I agree that a kinder and more gentle society with guns requires a societal change, but I don't think the apathy towards such a change rests solely with one group in American society, anymore than I think that the attitude of Americans towards guns, gun laws or lack thereof, caused the Aurora, or any other, shooting.
So until America discovers Swiss levels of social equity and welfare, perhaps reducing the number of firearms is not such a terrible idea? Obviously if the British invade, you can go hell-for-leather again.
but I must ask that if your logic is that all NRA members don't care about improving social conditions, then would it stand that nonmembers care?
No. His point was just that the NRA are the most vocal group, and a central location for everyone to point at when it comes to gun control...or lack there of. And they don't give a shit about societal change.
I'm sure there are plenty of people outside the NRA that don't care either.
So until America discovers Swiss levels of social equity and welfare, perhaps reducing the number of firearms is not such a terrible idea? Obviously if the British invade, you can go hell-for-leather again.
I must be ready for the next British invasion. The Beatles were bad enough 
Again, my point though is that to reduce the guns available to legal owners will do nothing for black markets, and other illegal means. It will not make the US safer.
Again, my point though is that to reduce the guns available to legal owners will do nothing for black markets, and other illegal means. It will not make the US safer.
While it likely wouldn't reduce the intentional homicide rate because the US is chockablock with firearms, reducing legal ownership of guns would certainly reduce accidental deaths. But this is a poor constitutional line of reasoning because it's also true of lawn mowers.
If you want to argue against gun control, you have to stay away from statistics. Statistics are not your friend. Principle is your friend. The 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that the People have the ability to assist in defense against invasion but also the ability to launch a revolution should they so desire.
fireproof78 wrote:Again, my point though is that to reduce the guns available to legal owners will do nothing for black markets, and other illegal means. It will not make the US safer.
While it likely wouldn't reduce the intentional homicide rate because the US is chockablock with firearms, reducing legal ownership of guns would certainly reduce accidental deaths. But this is a poor constitutional line of reasoning because it's also true of lawn mowers.
At least lawnmowers can do something other than kill.
fireproof78 wrote:Again, my point though is that to reduce the guns available to legal owners will do nothing for black markets, and other illegal means. It will not make the US safer.
While it likely wouldn't reduce the intentional homicide rate because the US is chockablock with firearms, reducing legal ownership of guns would certainly reduce accidental deaths.
While I agree that the number of firearms currently in the US makes gun control difficult, if tighter restrictions were implemented now how would the 10 year forecast look? With a new generation of people who haven't been brought up around weapons in the home, is your long game is likely to look substantially different?
America just needs more cuckoo clocks.
I thought we wanted to reduce violence. 
I'm going to leave the gun debate alone.
My wife and I have both noticed there are situations where people seem to purposely try to make themselves emotional, especially when comes to catastrophes that people have no connection. Things like 9/11, the Columbine Massacre, the recent shootings at the Sikh Temple in my state, people will do things like draw Batman weeping, watch the same news coverage of the tragedy over and over, go to memorials, all to purposely drum up sad, painful emotions. All these events are tragic, sad, and scary, but if a person does not know anyone involved why would they try to make themselves depressed or feel heavyhearted. My wife came up with a term for this, Emotional Masturbation. Instead of offering to help in anyway, they do things to cause themselves to put a fist on their chest, raise up their other hand with a kleenex in it, and cry. I'm not trying to belittle any of those who have suffered actual loss of a friend or loved one; they deserve their tears. But, for example, when my Governor tries show his sympathies to the victims of the temple shooting by wearing a scarf on his head, its just pointless, and stupid.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
