We have no need for gun control. Sure we don't!!!

589 posts / 0 new
Last post
Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The point is the escalation of carrying to the point that people presume that a person may be armed so instead of an armed robbery it escalates into a murder and robbery. There is a lot of data to support this. The more who carry the faster the criminals who carry feel they need to resort to using the weapon before they are killed first. Many studies have looked at this over the years. The idea that the public is protected becuase some people feel that they want to carry and can double as a vigilante is absoutely bogus. The more who carry the more violent the society is and the more likely that people will shoot proactively rather than assume that their weapon just being waved around would provide an advantage.

I believe you have seen studies like you say you did but I have a hard time believing them. There are a number of US cities which border Canadian cities that have lower homicide rates.

The Homicide rate is lower in US states with the least restrictions on firearms ownership and carry, lots of stats and studies highlighting that.

Private gun ownership in the US has almost doubledsince 2007 (I think I recall reading it's up to 12 million now?) and violent crimes and homicides have been dropping steadily.

Quote:

As for the idea that crimes get stopped in the US -- exactly what kind of crime? So some people protect their property perhaps but in exchange we have a violent society with way more gun deaths. US have the most guns available and they ahve the most deaths so it stands to reason the extra escalation in weaponry is not turning out well.

See above. The US doesn't have the most deaths.  I believe they were 5th for 2015 but of course that all depends on where you're referencing but no studies I've seen indicate they're the worst.

Quote:

It is based on the US radical individualism cult founded on the idea that it is okay if more other people have guns becuase I can handle myself and shoot first. Of course when many think this way you only have more gun deaths. Over all, the number of people dying by the gun increases with the number of guns.

Again this feels almost like you're blaming the victim. Criminals are more violent because they expect their victims to be armed. As I mentioned states with the least restrictions on firearm ownership (read: more people are open or conceal carrying) are the states with the least amount of violent crime and homicide.

Unionist

Paladin1 wrote:

Truth be told I would be one of those jackasses that would carry a concealed pistol if it were legal to do so.

Babble policy forbids such vicious personal attacks. I won't flag your post yet, just caution you do be a bit more courteous to Paladin1. Thank you.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Truth be told I would be one of those jackasses that would carry a concealed pistol if it were legal to do so.

Babble policy forbids such vicious personal attacks. I won't flag your post yet, just caution you do be a bit more courteous to Paladin1. Thank you.

 

Ok so this is a joke -- you calling out Paladin for calling himself an ass?

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Truth be told I would be one of those jackasses that would carry a concealed pistol if it were legal to do so.

Babble policy forbids such vicious personal attacks. I won't flag your post yet, just caution you do be a bit more courteous to Paladin1. Thank you.

 

Ok so this is a joke -- you calling out Paladin for calling himself an ass?

Exactly!! You can't call babblers' names, and I see no exception in the rules when the babbler is oneself.

Rules are rules. They're there for a reason.

Paladin must apologize.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If he doesn't accept the apology, who should get suspended?

Sean in Ottawa

Perhaps on behalf of jackasses everywhere I should insist that this not be considered an insult.

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If he doesn't accept the apology, who should get suspended?

Great question. But I think the apology will be offered, and accepted. Let's not assume the worst until we need to.

 

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Perhaps on behalf of jackasses everywhere I should insist that this not be considered an insult.

He also accused Paladin of wanting to carry concealed firearms. That's really beyond the pale.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Perhaps on behalf of jackasses everywhere I should insist that this not be considered an insult.

He also accused Paladin of wanting to carry concealed firearms. That's really beyond the pale.

No forgiveness for accusing someone to want to carry a concealed firearm.

NorthReport

Obama meets Bloomberg as he prepares order on guns

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/obama-mike-bloomberg-gun-control/...

NorthReport

This is another reason why we need to remove "killing guns" from the police as well as others.

Guns used by LA deputies put officers, public at risk, report says

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/us/los-angeles-sheriffs-department-guns-re...

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If he doesn't accept the apology, who should get suspended?

I bought myself a suitible gift and we're amicable with one another once again.

 

NorthReport wrote:

This is another reason why we need to remove "killing guns" from the police as well as others.

Guns used by LA deputies put officers, public at risk, report says

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/16/us/los-angeles-sheriffs-department-guns-re...

 

 

That story is making the ol'facebook rounds I see,  I have one of those and I can see why they're causing accidents and require more training. 

I'm sure the San Bernardino attack would have ended much quicker and without more bloodshed if the police didn't have firearms to stop the murderers armed with rifles, pistols, thousands of rounds of ammo and pipe bombs.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Why wasn't San Bernardino prevented? The hard truth that no one wants to admit.

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/12/17/10440854/san-bernardino-attacks-prevented

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Paladin1 wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If he doesn't accept the apology, who should get suspended?

I bought myself a suitible gift and we're amicable with one another once again.

This reminded me of the intro to one of my favourite Tom Waits songs, "Better Off Without A Wife".

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I bought myself a suitible gift and we're amicable with one another once again.

A flash supressor for the AirSoft?

NorthReport
Paladin1

The Assault Weapon Myth

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-my...

 

-Since the US ban on "assault weapons" was lifted 10 years ago there has been no real change in homocide rates.

-In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows. The vast majority of homicides from firearms are from handguns but there was no interest in a ban for them.

-Only 2% of gun crime was commited with "assault weapons" before the ban.  (Assault Weapons are a politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features)

-The ban did reduce the number of assault weapons recovered by local police, to 1 percent from roughly 2 percent.

-The use of these assault weapons may be rare over all, but they’re used frequently in the gun violence that gets the most media coverage, mass shootings. The criminologist James Alan Fox at Northeastern University estimates that there have been an average of 100 victims killed each year in mass shootings over the past three decades. That’s less than 1 percent of gun homicide victims.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

The Assault Weapon Myth

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-my...

 

-Since the US ban on "assault weapons" was lifted 10 years ago there has been no real change in homocide rates.

-In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows. The vast majority of homicides from firearms are from handguns but there was no interest in a ban for them.

-Only 2% of gun crime was commited with "assault weapons" before the ban.  (Assault Weapons are a politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features)

-The ban did reduce the number of assault weapons recovered by local police, to 1 percent from roughly 2 percent.

-The use of these assault weapons may be rare over all, but they’re used frequently in the gun violence that gets the most media coverage, mass shootings. The criminologist James Alan Fox at Northeastern University estimates that there have been an average of 100 victims killed each year in mass shootings over the past three decades. That’s less than 1 percent of gun homicide victims.

 

Interesting:

http://www.citylab.com/politics/2013/05/more-proof-assault-weapons-ban-w...

Paladin1

It still appears handguns are the contributer to firearm homicides in the US but no one is too keen on banning them, or other major contributers.

 

2012 Homicide stats for the US.

Handguns: 6371

Rifles: 322

Knives or other stabbing devices: 1,589

Clubs, hammers etc..: 518

Hands and feet etc..: 678

 

Looking at those stats rifles don't seem like the biggest threat. Twice as many people are punched or kicked to death than shot with "assault weapons".  Calls for more gun control after mass shootings is media driven and based on optics not logic.

NorthReport

Actually it is based on logic and common sense.

Human beings will always find lots of ways to kill but why make it easy for them.

Rifles or hand guns is just a red herring argument.

Guns kill and we need to get rid of the "killing guns".

Paladin1

http://infotel.ca/newsitem/suspects-in-two-macs-slayings-in-edmonton-inc...

Suspects in two Mac's slayings in Edmonton include 13-year-old boy

Quote:

December 19, 2015 - 10:30 AM

EDMONTON - Edmonton's police chief says the community should be outraged after two convenience store clerks, who were working alone and didn't fight back when masked robbers walked into their stores early Friday, were shot dead for small amounts of cash.

Three suspects have been arrested, including a 13-year-old boy.

"This was a barbaric and gratuitous act of violence upon two innocent persons resulting in a senseless loss of life," Chief Rod Knecht said at a late-afternoon news conference.

He went on to describe the crime as "over-the-top violence, absolutely unnecessary, gratuitous — evil."

All three suspects have criminal records and were prohibited from possessing firearms, he said. He described the youth's criminal past as violent.

 

Looks like they skipped the $2000 ish, 1-2 year process of getting a licence. Good justification for the Liberals to make it harder for people with licences to transport their restricted firearms.

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

Actually it is based on logic and common sense.

For argument sake lets say half of the rifles used in murders in 2012 qualify as "assault weapons".  That means handguns were used in 40 times more murders than rifles qualifying as assault weapons. 40 times. You think it's logic and common sense (as well as practical and economical) to try and ban an ambigious group of firearms and not the ones responsible for 40x the number of murders first?

 

Quote:

Rifles or hand guns is just a red herring argument.

When efforts are being made to restrict and ban the former in the name of saving lives while the latter is responsible for 40 times the number of deaths it's not a red herring at all.

 

NorthReport

Less "killing guns" = less killings is common sense

The sooner we get rid of all the "killing guns" the safer a society we will be

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
All three suspects have criminal records and were prohibited from possessing firearms

What we need is a ban on ignoring bans.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
All three suspects have criminal records and were prohibited from possessing firearms

What we need is a ban on ignoring bans.

Can we add a ban on ignoring gun free zones by criminals and murderers too?

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:
Less "killing guns" = less killings is common sense The sooner we get rid of all the "killing guns" the safer a society we will be

 

Did you know repeating a phrase is a common form of brain washing. Killing guns.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

That should do it.

If not, another ban won't.

NorthReport

"Killing guns" remind me of the way smoking was looked at 50 years ago. It is obvious the USA will have to round up the "killing guns" as humans are just too stupid to have them.

Self-Assured Obama Will Leave It on the Field for Gun Control

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-19/self-assured-obama...

 

 

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

It is obvious the USA will have to round up the "killing guns" as humans are just too stupid to have them.

 

There is an estimated 300 million guns in the states. The USA will have to train and hire a whole bunch more police officers and ensure they are heavily armed with guns, body armor, armored vehicles, combat fatigures and such then send them out to kick down doors and carry out warrantless searches. 

Buy more guns to take away guns. Where does the money come for the new police officers and equipment?   Do the new police officers and all those guns get laid off/destroyed once all the guns are confiscated? Where will all those people working in firearm and ammunition factories, retail stores and such find work?  Will the US government offer to buy back the property they confiscate?  Firearms cost from a couple hundred dollars to over $15'000. Lets say the government spends an average of $1000 per gun they confiscate and pay the owner.  What's $1000 x 300 million?

 

NorthReport

7 demented ways America thinks about "killing guns".

Our crisis can't be blamed on the NRA alone. Too many Americans operate under the delusion that 'Killing guns" make us safer

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/19/7_ways_fear_and_ignorance_warp_americas_...

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPRJlfkQZcY

20 minutes of video where US citizens carrying legal firearms defend themselves against armed criminals.

There was a time when I would never have expected Rabble to host a video glorifying the murders of criminals by mostly white vigilantes, one that uses cgi animations and includes #NRA tweets. I guess that time has passed.

Paladin1

The "vigilanties" or as I like to call the victims of crime, victims, were not mostly white Sean.   A number of the stories only showed CGI animations.   And the whole "whatever happened to old rabble" is a tried and true method of deflection.  No need to try and bring it off course like that. 

The video is 20 minutes worth of examples of US citizens (including children) using firearms to defend themselves against armed criminals who as you can see in the examples are quite ready to murder someone to get what they want.

In anycase at this stage the conversation is just turning into a series of links. 

quizzical

i didn't click on the link as i don't wanna see any guns in action. defensive or offensive.

i think you should remove it paladin. having it here is offensive in it's own right.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

The "vigilanties" or as I like to call the victims of crime, victims, were not mostly white Sean.   A number of the stories only showed CGI animations.   And the whole "whatever happened to old rabble" is a tried and true method of deflection.  No need to try and bring it off course like that. 

The video is 20 minutes worth of examples of US citizens (including children) using firearms to defend themselves against armed criminals who as you can see in the examples are quite ready to murder someone to get what they want.

In anycase at this stage the conversation is just turning into a series of links. 

First of all they were mostly white -- there were exceptions that is why I did not say exclusively. Second the race of the individuals was very clearly stated in the first stories so as to set the tone. Third the video definitely glorifies the violence -- take for example the blowing the smoke off the end of the barrel Eastwood style. It was definitely favourable to the idea that a person who is a "bad guy" can be judged and executed by not only a victim but a bystander as was the case in some examples. The video, happily a pro gun lobby effort, does not mention the implications or dangers of what happens when untrained people pull out weapons and blast away or even acknowledge how dangerous that is.

Thinking that this place used to and still ought to have some standards of being progressive is not deflection. It is a statement of regret that we have sunk as low as that particular post.

That post was disgusting in every way and it does not reflect the prevailing values this place was created to represent.

Sean in Ottawa

In the video

9 of 16 vigilantes were white 4 black and 3 Hispanic.

Of the "perps" 6 were Black 4 Hispanic and 5 White or 33%.

 

 

Paladin1

9 white victims vs 7 non-white victims doesn't scream at me.  I'm honestly not sure what the majority of the victims being white compared to being black in a video like this would suggest? In some cases you're basing race purely off ambigious CGI videos.

If I thought it would make a difference I'm sure I could spend a few hours putting together a 20 minute video of all white victims or all black victims but when the prevailing opinion is ban all guns I don't see it as an economy of effort.  Also the an #nra tweet from a witness statement is hardly sinister.

 

The majority of posts for gun control in this thread have been about the US.  Handguns are the number one weapon used in the US in homicides. They're also interestingly synomyous with self-defense which is why some believe they've been largely left alone with it comes to firearm bans (if you will recall from my posts about banning assault weapons).

In the video I posted there are examples of firearms being used in numerous self-defense situations.  Home invasions. Car jackings.  Jewelry store. Convienience store. Pharmacy.There's a story of a woman who shot a stalker who wouldn't leave her alone after 6 months of abuse including threats to kill her. 

They're all relevant examples of US citizens using firearms for self-defense which is relevant to the debate on gun control and the US banning firearms.

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

i didn't click on the link as i don't wanna see any guns in action. defensive or offensive.

i think you should remove it paladin. having it here is offensive in it's own right.

This thread is about gun control, I don't think a video featuring firearms being used is all that out of place especially in the context i provided above.

However that said out of respect for your opinion I messaged the staff for clairification on whether or not it's appropriate/violates policy and will gladly remove it if it's deemed inapropriate.

NorthReport

I agree we need to get rid of the 'killing guns' now.

Gun control advocates take to Akron streets to oppose Ohio's gun laws (photos)

http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2015/12/gun_control_advocates_w...

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

9 white victims vs 7 non-white victims doesn't scream at me.  I'm honestly not sure what the majority of the victims being white compared to being black in a video like this would suggest? In some cases you're basing race purely off ambigious CGI videos.

If I thought it would make a difference I'm sure I could spend a few hours putting together a 20 minute video of all white victims or all black victims but when the prevailing opinion is ban all guns I don't see it as an economy of effort.  Also the an #nra tweet from a witness statement is hardly sinister.

 

The majority of posts for gun control in this thread have been about the US.  Handguns are the number one weapon used in the US in homicides. They're also interestingly synomyous with self-defense which is why some believe they've been largely left alone with it comes to firearm bans (if you will recall from my posts about banning assault weapons).

In the video I posted there are examples of firearms being used in numerous self-defense situations.  Home invasions. Car jackings.  Jewelry store. Convienience store. Pharmacy.There's a story of a woman who shot a stalker who wouldn't leave her alone after 6 months of abuse including threats to kill her. 

They're all relevant examples of US citizens using firearms for self-defense which is relevant to the debate on gun control and the US banning firearms.

Obviously you are not missing the point so much as evading it.

The video has racial overtones that are clear by the end of the first couple stories. But the bigger issue you are avoiding is the glorification of vigilante violence. You also ignore any of the social dynamics to crime, which is unusual in a place like rabble.

You also ignore the "NRA" messaging in the video.

But I cannot accuse you of just missing the point as you very clearly know what it is and have steered purposefully around it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'll admit that I didn't watch this video, because life's too short as it is, and I have baking to do.

But question @ SiO, or Paladin1:  how many of the scenes showed self-defence, and how many showed vigilantism (e.g. "I think I know who did this and I know where he lives; let's go get him!!!")?

Defending yourself, in the moment, or defending others, in the moment, just isn't vigilantism.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Obviously you are not missing the point so much as evading it.

The video has racial overtones that are clear by the end of the first couple stories.

Not avoiding it at all.  Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there, hence bringing it up to the moderators. If I'm wrong I'll own up to my mistake.

 

Quote:
But the bigger issue you are avoiding is the glorification of vigilante violence.

Not present in the videos.  The people attacked in the videos weren't going out looking for crime to stop, they were the victims of crime and defend themselves presumeably in accordance with whatever rules and policies the US has for CCW permit holders.

Quote:
You also ignore any of the social dynamics to crime, which is unusual in a place like rabble.

I didn't see an oppertunity to debate that.

Quote:
You also ignore the "NRA" messaging in the video.

Was there one somewhere other than a hastag in a witness statement?

Quote:
But I cannot accuse you of just missing the point as you very clearly know what it is and have steered purposefully around it.

1. I often miss the point.

2. My style isn't to dance around something on purpose.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'll admit that I didn't watch this video, because life's too short as it is, and I have baking to do.

But question @ SiO, or Paladin1:  how many of the scenes showed self-defence, and how many showed vigilantism (e.g. "I think I know who did this and I know where he lives; let's go get him!!!")?

Defending yourself, in the moment, or defending others, in the moment, just isn't vigilantism.

All of the videos show firearms being used in self defense.  In the video of the woman shooting the stalker I don't recall if the stalker was armed but I would argue that after 50 texts and phone calls a day for 6 months and being threatened with death she probably felt her life was in danger.

 

On gun control,

For as many Americans who have had their lives ruined by firearms there are probably just as many (maybe more) who feel their lives have been saved by them. Even more so who feel safer.  Lots of stats show a dramatic drop in violent crime in the US and a dramatic increase in firearm ownership.

Suggesting the US just ban guns is more of a flippant statement rather than considering the logistics implimintation and execution of it.

NorthReport

Except the problem with your analysis is feelings aren't facts.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Obviously you are not missing the point so much as evading it.

The video has racial overtones that are clear by the end of the first couple stories.

Not avoiding it at all.  Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there, hence bringing it up to the moderators. If I'm wrong I'll own up to my mistake.

 

Quote:
But the bigger issue you are avoiding is the glorification of vigilante violence.

Not present in the videos.  The people attacked in the videos weren't going out looking for crime to stop, they were the victims of crime and defend themselves presumeably in accordance with whatever rules and policies the US has for CCW permit holders.

Quote:
You also ignore any of the social dynamics to crime, which is unusual in a place like rabble.

I didn't see an oppertunity to debate that.

Quote:
You also ignore the "NRA" messaging in the video.

Was there one somewhere other than a hastag in a witness statement?

Quote:
But I cannot accuse you of just missing the point as you very clearly know what it is and have steered purposefully around it.

1. I often miss the point.

2. My style isn't to dance around something on purpose.

The issue if you watch the video is not just the circumstances but the voice overs and the clear glorification.

Plus in some cases they may be people fighting back but the message is distorted as in the level of escalation to death was not necessary in some cases and it was left uncriticized. The message was have a gun to shoot bad guys.

There are a lot of issues that go far beyond the cartoony pro-gun video's interest. This includes the increased danger to bystanders as people take guns in hand. Turning an armed robbery into a gun battle does not increase safety.

I found the style of video with one clip after another to be goulish, trivializing. one-sided. I maintain my feeling that it is not appropriate here at all and not required in a discussion like this.

Paladin1

*Edited to replace with a more articulate neutral video. *

20 minutes of video where US citizens carrying legal firearms defend themselves against armed criminals.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Well in the name of getting the conversation back on track since I edited out the video and will put more effort into finding a better arcticulated and more professionally presented video.

 

Turning an armed robbery into a gun battle may not always increase safety but it can also save your life.

I can post a video of two men robbing a convienience store in Plano, Texas posted 3 years ago. The cashier is an old man who is unarmed. The robbers are frustrated that there isn't a lot of money in the cash so they vent their frustration by shooting him 3 times in the chest before turning and running away. They didn't have to shoot him but they did anyways.  Had he been armed his situation *could* have turned out to be like one of the ones in the video I previously posted where the store workers shot the armed robbers instead if being murdered themselves.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2015/0...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-ri...

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/01/111286/access-guns-increases-risk-suic...

Paladin1

Well in the name of getting the conversation back on track since that video seemed bring it off the rails so much I edited out the video and will put more effort into finding a better arcticulated and more professionally presented video.

 

Turning an armed robbery into a gun battle may not always increase safety but it can also save your life.

I can post a video of two men robbing a convienience store in Plano, Texas posted 3 years ago. The cashier is an old man who is unarmed. The robbers are frustrated that there isn't a lot of money in the cash so they vent their frustration by shooting him 3 times in the chest before turning and running away. They didn't have to shoot him but they did anyways.  Had he been armed his situation *could* have turned out to be like one of the ones in the video I previously posted (or any number of videos I can put up) where the store workers shot the armed robbers instead if being murdered themselves.

Paladin1

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-...

Quote:
A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

 

Pages