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

589 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

5 held in Mombasa, 'bomb' found in Air France plane

http://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2015/12/21/5-held-in-mombasa-bomb-found-i...

Slumberjack

NorthReport wrote:
if i knew how to make them smaller I would be glad to oblige.

Don't you think it's time you learned something about that?

Slumberjack

NorthReport wrote:
 5 held in Mombasa, 'bomb' found in Air France plane 

If you can post stories about killing bombs in a killing gun thread, I can introduce a story about killing cars.  It's a good thing killing cars are registered because otherwise you can just imagine what kind of mayhem they can cause in the wrong hands.

Las Vegas Strip: Killing Car mows down over 30 pedestrians

 

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

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.

 

Of course the corelation of these stats to more people having guns is being used by the NRA and of course that is bullshit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massiv...

There is also the demographic population aging which has been affecting the statistics over a very long period while increasing in intensity.

Another point-- while there exists strong arguments to control (not necessarily ban) firearms like a better ability to know the context when either healthcare workers are dealing with a situation of risk or when police officers are out on a call, the mitigation of gun violence has multiple options.

First mass shootinggs are related to the number and ease of guns and the efficiency of them. It is clear that mass shootings are a minority of gun deaths but this does not mean that they should not be prevented or limited through better control over the very weapons that enable mass shootings -- assault automatics etc.

Another factor that plays heavily to reducing not the mass shootings but other gun crimes is education and poverty which play a significant role in the prevelance of these crimes.

Mixing and matching stats without recognizing al the drivers is very popular among advocates but other factors are there.

 

Paladin1

 

 

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

 

(pics removed to save space)

 

Let us not confuse poorly managed gun control with the value of having it -- even though that is exactly what they want us to do.

I consider it a contradiction to say the following two things which have been presented in this thread from the same person:

1) Banning does not work based on statistics

2) Banning that we have is faulty to the point of the absurd.

These two ideas are at cross purposes. If the banning regime is not functional -- not being done properly -- then it is not a reasonable test as to whether banning can work.

(This is a different issue from the other problem that the statistics also have to be controlled properly -- ie is this the only thing that can explain a result -- changing trends in: education, poverty, the economy, law enforcement, treatment of serious medical trauma, cultural approach to concepts of violence and terrorism, age demographics all influence and can help explain the statistics.

What we see is a logic-free gun lobby that alternates between whichever message is convenient in order to attack the gun control regime -- even though these attacks on the concept of gun control lead to an incoherent logic. The only common thing is the determination to defend the ownership and use of guns.And of course some of the absurdities are the direct result of efforts of the gun lobby.

If we accept both arguments made here that I have highlighted, and consdier them well,  the conclusions are different: if we have not had gun control handled properly and it is not working -- why not do it properly and see if that works?

There is logic to this: places that have fewer guns have less gun violence. This is undeniable. So restricting guns should produce a benefit. The argument that it does not, coming with it the argument that it is not being done properly, should lead to an attempt to do it better but the gun lobby prefers to argue not to do it at all and hopes that you do not notice the fundamental logical contradictions in their argument.

I did not provoke this logical contradiction -- it happened naturally in this thread through the effort of defending the gun lobby position without really thinking about the implications of what is being said. This is a fairly good representation of the avenues of argument:

1) don't do it becuase it is not being done properly

and

2) the fact that it is not working means we should stop doing it as opposed to start doing it effectively.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
if we have not had gun control handled properly and it is not working -- why not do it properly and see if that works?

Haven't we been "doing it properly" all along?  Gun owners may say that gun control isn't working, but presumably the government thinks it is, or why are they continuing down the same path?

It would be great to "do it properly".  But what's more likely is we'll "do something", and then when it doesn't work we'll say "Oh, well, I guess we weren't doing it properly" and then we'll do something else, and when that doesn't work we'll say "Oh, well, I guess we weren't doing it properly", and so on, forever.

I'm reminded of attempts to curb the demand for tobacco.

Someone evidently got the idea to print warning messages on cigarette packages.  So we did that, and I guess it didn't really work.  So then we added graphic photos -- diseased lungs and such -- to the packs, and I guess it didn't really work because we had to add even more graphic, more disturbing images -- bloody urine, people with late-stage cancer, tracheotomy patients and such -- but I guess it didn't really work because then we had to hide cigarettes in stores, but I guess that didn't really work because now there's a lot of talk of moving to "plain" packs (because we finally figured out that what's been leading people to smoke all these years is the pretty colours!) 

So we're going to "do it properly" this time!

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
if we have not had gun control handled properly and it is not working -- why not do it properly and see if that works?

Haven't we been "doing it properly" all along?  Gun owners may say that gun control isn't working, but presumably the government thinks it is, or why are they continuing down the same path?

It would be great to "do it properly".  But what's more likely is we'll "do something", and then when it doesn't work we'll say "Oh, well, I guess we weren't doing it properly" and then we'll do something else, and when that doesn't work we'll say "Oh, well, I guess we weren't doing it properly", and so on, forever.

I'm reminded of attempts to curb the demand for tobacco.

Someone evidently got the idea to print warning messages on cigarette packages.  So we did that, and I guess it didn't really work.  So then we added graphic photos -- diseased lungs and such -- to the packs, and I guess it didn't really work because we had to add even more graphic, more disturbing images -- bloody urine, people with late-stage cancer, tracheotomy patients and such -- but I guess it didn't really work because then we had to hide cigarettes in stores, but I guess that didn't really work because now there's a lot of talk of moving to "plain" packs (because we finally figured out that what's been leading people to smoke all these years is the pretty colours!) 

So we're going to "do it properly" this time!

You are missing the point that it is the same people who argue that we have not done it right and that is proof that it does not work. The logical contradiction is clear. Not sure why you don't see that.

Those who want gun control are not the ones saying it is not being done properly -- in general. They tend to argue that it is not being done enough and that there are holes in it that must be fixed.

The extreme argument that it is being done so badly that it has no effect are coming from the same people who say that it has been tried and has failed. This of course makes no sense.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
You are missing the point that it is the same people who argue that we have not done it right and that is proof that it does not work. The logical contradiction is clear. Not sure why you don't see that.

Because I'm reading it as "the banning that we currently do isn't being done right, and statistics show it does not work".

Maybe an all-out ban would change things.  But we haven't tried that yet, so I can't see anyone dismissing its effectiveness based on statistics.

Meanwhile, though, as Paladin1 patiently keeps pointing out, the government seems more interested in banning guns that look all scary than in actually looking at (and starting with) the guns that are actually used to harm people, the people who are acquiring those guns, how they acquire those guns, and what to do about it. 

And I'll ask again, if bans work, then why not just ban disobeying bans?  Then criminals who have banned weapons, or who are themselves banned from owning a weapon, will have no choice but to comply with those bans, because not complying will be banned! 

Checkmate, criminals!

NorthReport

Slowly, yes very slowly, but nevertheless surely, the noose begins to tighten around the throat of the NRA.

 

Virginia will no longer recognize concealed carry permits from 25 states

Officials announced that the state will stop recognizing the handgun permits from the states that have reciprocity agreements with the commonwealth.

NorthReport

Santa, I want an AK-47 for Christmas: Mass shootings, terrorism has made for a very happy holiday for the "killing guns" industry

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/23/santa_i_want_an_ak_47_for_christmas_mass...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

The actual article title just says "gun", not "killing guns".

Are you trying to make a viral meme?

I got a gun for Christmas 37 years ago -- a bolt-action, .22 repeater -- but in nearly four decades, it hasn't killed anyone.  It's batting .000 in the murder category.

Am I just doin' it wrong?  Did I get a faulty "killing gun"??  Is there something *I* have to do to make it kill???

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The actual article title just says "gun", not "killing guns".

Are you trying to make a viral meme?

I got a gun for Christmas 37 years ago -- a bolt-action, .22 repeater -- but in nearly four decades, it hasn't killed anyone.  It's batting .000 in the murder category.

Am I just doin' it wrong?  Did I get a faulty "killing gun"??  Is there something *I* have to do to make it kill???

 

I don't think  killing guns are ready to go viral just yet. The thread hit the event horizon when the story of a bomb in an airplane was posted, IMO.

But speaking of getting a gun for Xmas (and AK47s) I'm getting one that has the identical action to an AK47 (long stroke piston). Same caliber too. Weird how I can own that (and legally drive around with it under my seat) but a gun that *looks* like an AK47 is illegal.  I believe the RCMP was trying to ban a .22 repeater that looked like an AK47 too.

Paladin1

H.R.4269 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text

 

 

Few interesting things I picked up on on a quick read.

They want to ban firearms because of how you hold them (pistol grip) as well as things like a barrel shroud, which covers the barrel to prevent shooters from burning their hands.

Keeping in mind handguns are responsible for over 80% of firearm homicides in the US, most (practically all) semi-automatic pistols would be exempted from this ban.

 

Looking at the list of firearms they want to ban by name or accessories (grips, stocks) there's a few rifles that are exempted from the ban.

The rifle used by Marc Lepine to murder the 14 women in the polytechnique shooting.

The rifle used by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau to murder Nathan Cirillo then assault the parliment.

An "SKS" which is a Russian made semi-automatic rifle (predecessor to the AK47) which not only sometimes are designed to fire Rocket Propelled Grenades but also comes with a 12 1/4" bayonette attached to it.  They sell for $150-$200 CDN at Canadian Tire.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I simply don't see why anyone needs a weapon. I know there' the meme about Farmes and people living in the country, but even there I have my doubts. No one has ever given me a good reason for why they needed a weapon other than some airey fairey argument about "rights", whatever the hell that actually mean. I agree with Johnny Wayne in Fronteir Pyschiatrist, its a symbol. There's no such as outlawas, there's just problem cowboys.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I simply don't see why anyone needs a weapon.

And I don't see why anyone needs a chainsaw, a tattoo, a gore-tex tent, a $3000 watch, a carbon-fibre tennis racket, Air Jordans, or an iPad Pro.

But generally speaking, it's not up to us to prove to the state that we "need" something.  It's up to the state to tell us why -- in very specific language -- we can't have it.  And generally speaking, "because SOME OTHER PERSON can't handle the responsibility" doesn't cut it.

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I simply don't see why anyone needs a weapon. I know there' the meme about Farmes and people living in the country, but even there I have my doubts. No one has ever given me a good reason for why they needed a weapon other than some airey fairey argument about "rights", whatever the hell that actually mean. I agree with Johnny Wayne in Fronteir Pyschiatrist, its a symbol. There's no such as outlawas, there's just problem cowboys.

There are a number of cases where workers or people living up North saved their lives by having a firearm on hand, and a number where they didn't and were mauled to death.  Of course a quick counter to that which I've seen here is just don't work or live up north, as if people always have a choice.

Lives depend on those firearms but sadly sometimes even that's not enough. A few days ago a grizzly bear broke into a house and started mauling a woman. Her husband shot and killed the grizzly but one of the bullets he fired apparently bounched off a tree and struck his wife killing her- so it's not a fool proof plan.

Ultimately with this debate theres no way I can change your mind because your mind is made up. The same is true for you changing my mind. I'd sooner be able to make you change political parties.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I simply don't see why anyone needs a weapon.

And I don't see why anyone needs a chainsaw, a tattoo, a gore-tex tent, a $3000 watch, a carbon-fibre tennis racket, Air Jordans, or an iPad Pro.

But generally speaking, it's not up to us to prove to the state that we "need" something.  It's up to the state to tell us why -- in very specific language -- we can't have it.  And generally speaking, "because SOME OTHER PERSON can't handle the responsibility" doesn't cut it.

If we're talking about needs vs wants I like to compare firearms to alcohol (and usually get dismissed as deflecting the issue).

You don't need alcohol.  You can function as a member of soceity without it and it also can't put food on your table or suppliment your income.

More people are killed in vehicle accidents where alcohol is a factor in the US than from firearms in a year.  Alcohol is also a factor in firearm deaths as well as numerous non-firearm related deaths like the numbers I spoke to earlier; people killed with hammers and clubs or with hands and feet. 

Further more, alcohol is or can be a factor in domestic abuse, domestic assault and sexual assaults. The list goes on.

Can you imagine all the lives we would save and the abuse we could curb if we banned alcohol? 

I'm not sure the number of people in the US or Canada that imbide alcohol but I'd guess they would call me an idiot for such a stupid suggestion. They're able to enjoy a drink or two and be responsible about it. Why should they have something they responsibly enjoy taken away from them because other people act like assholes?

NorthReport
NorthReport
Paladin1
Paladin1
NorthReport

There is sizeable percentage of "killing gun" nuts that are just bullies and cowards. Some of these "killing gun" nuts actually think they are exhibiting some form of bravery by possessing "killing guns", self-deluded as they are. And the NRA is showing its cowardice once again by refusing to participate in CNN's town hall meeting on "killing guns".  

NRA declines to participate in Obama gun town hall

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/06/politics/nra-obama-gun-town-hall/index.html

NorthReport

Bingo!

This is the overiding issue that the "killing guns" proponents don't have an answer for, and why I support rounding up all the "killing guns" 

 

President Obama Isn’t Taking People’s Guns—But Maybe He Should

The president zoomed in on exactly the right point Tuesday: What about the rights of those killed by gun violence to live free from terror?

President Obama said a lot about guns in his teary press conference Tuesday, but the one thing that he is not saying, despite all the howling from the right, is that he intends to take away Americans’ guns. Yet equally significant is the realization that individual citizens are unwilling to free themselves of the destructive weapons that are wreaking havoc on our society. Numerous Americans care more about their individual freedoms than our collective freedoms, and they are unable to see how these individualistic desires undermine the essential fabric of a democracy.

This democratic fabric includes the Second Amendment that has been contorted, misinterpreted, and applied in a way that destroys its intended meaning and threatens the safety and stability of our nation. And as the president pointed out on Tuesday, this grotesque emphasis on the Second Amendment impairs other Americans’ ability to freely exercise many of the other 26 amendments.

As President Obama forges a lone path toward gun regulation, we must wonder how we as a society have arrived to a point where “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” has morphed into allowing individual citizens to possess firearms for their individual protection with little to no concern about the security of a free state.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/07/president-obama-isn-t-t...

NorthReport
NorthReport

On CNN now.

Town Hall Meeting with Obama on "Killing Guns"

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

CNN only says "guns".

Did you add the "killing" part yourself?

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

NRA declines to participate in Obama gun town hall

They couldn't bring their guns?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

They couldn't bring their persuasive arguments in favour of armor-piercing rounds.

Discretion is the better part of valour.

NorthReport

Obama's birther conspiracy died rotting on the vine, (actually Cruz has now stepped into that cesspool) so Obama's "killing guns" conspiracy was exposed tonite to replace it. Background checks will only lead to a "killing guns" registry,  those rotten Canadians (we need to put a wall up there just like the one we have planned for the Mexicans) and then confiscation. 

NorthReport

The NRA cowardly no show, because they can't defend their bullshit in a setting which they don't control, says it all!  Frown

NorthReport

Has a president even done what Obama did tonite at the CNN's town hall meeting? Seemed to be successful.

NorthReport

Obama has doug his heels in on gun control and will now become as strident as the NRA and has an op-ed article in tomorrow's (Friday) New York Times

NorthReport

It was inevitable.

If yuo do not want to have your family, your friends, and your neighbours dead at the hand of "killing guns" you are now labeled:

ANTI-GUN-FREEDOM

NorthReport

US gun control forces must be feeling energised after last nite's town hall on CNN as the word spreads that the NRA was too cowardly to show up. 

Paladin1

http://crimeresearch.org/2016/01/france-suffered-more-casualties-murders-and-injuries-from-mass-public-shootings-in-2015-than-the-us-has-suffered-during-obamas-entire-presidency-508-to-424-2/

 

FRANCE SUFFERED MORE CASUALTIES (MURDERS AND INJURIES) FROM MASS PUBLIC SHOOTINGS IN 2015 THAN THE US HAS SUFFERED DURING OBAMA’S ENTIRE PRESIDENCY (UPDATED 532 TO 396)

6079_Smith_W

What that cherry-picking article misses is the meaning of the words "pattern" and "frequency".

Without that one terrible incident in Paris they wouldn't even be able to make the claim, and it still isn't an argument that challenges the record of systemic gun violence, nor the political power of the NRA.

It is ridiculous, really.

Paladin1

Not as ridiculous as the media constantly shinning the spotlight on US mass shootings when the deaths from those represent a very small number of overall deaths.  Today 15-20 Americans will die from illegally owned and obtained handguns in the US.  Like the 15-20 that died yesterday and 15-20 that will die tomorrow.

 

Whats the government worried about? A plastic grip like this.

 

Maybe what the US needs is a set of rules for firearms that encompass all 50 states and not have each state with their own laws and versions.

6079_Smith_W

Good that you agree with Obama on that.

Paladin1

Of course. There are states where you can walk up the road carrying a rifle without a firearms license or ID.  All you need to buy a gun is be American.  I haven't actually read what changes to the law he's proposing aside from I believe something to do with background checks  for private sales?   To me that should be a no brainer.  From what I've read on an FBI paper though background checks don't exactly work so maybe overhaul how they're done or something.

They need to get a handle on all the guns they have floating around.  It's nice to see companies like Stag arms fined for having unaccounted for firearms and such but I bet larger companies are guilty of far worse.

 

 

NorthReport

Strong support for Obama's crack down on "killing gun" control measures announced this week

What's So Appealing About Obama's Executive Actions On Guns

http://fortune.com/2016/01/09/barack-obama-gun-control-2/

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

What that cherry-picking article misses is the meaning of the words "pattern" and "frequency".

Without that one terrible incident in Paris they wouldn't even be able to make the claim, and it still isn't an argument that challenges the record of systemic gun violence, nor the political power of the NRA.

It is ridiculous, really.

Yup. And here's a very thorough article debunking John Lott, the head of the so-called "Crime Research Prevention Center", which authored that article and which provides the Gun Lobby talking points with their pseudo-academic veneer:

[url=http://www.armedwithreason.com/shooting-down-the-gun-lobbys-favorite-aca... down the gun lobby's favorite "academic": A Lott of lies[/url]

 

6079_Smith_W

Good find.

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Good find.

Bull's eye, eh? And first shot too!

NorthReport

Ha! Laughing

---------

Actually it is a good article. Unfortunately just another example of how science and the truth often lose out to the smallest but often the loudest and shrillest voices. 

------

Never believe that a few caring people can't change the world. For, indeed, that's all who ever have.

Margaret Mead

Which can apply both ways -  for evil things and good things.

 

 

NorthReport

Studying gun violence is the only way to figure out how to stop it – but we don’t

 

https://theconversation.com/studying-gun-violence-is-the-only-way-to-fig...

NorthReport

How US gun control compares to the rest of the world

In fact, a study of 198 cases of unwanted entry into occupied single-family dwellings in Atlanta (not limited to night when the residents were sleeping) found that the invader was twice as likely to obtain the victim’s gun than to have the victim use a firearm in self-defense.

The author of the study, Arthur Kellerman, concluded in words that Justice Thomas and Scalia might well heed:

On average, the gun that represents the greatest threat is the one that is kept loaded and readily available in a bedside drawer.

A loaded, unsecured gun in the home is like an insurance policy that fails to deliver at least 95% of the time you need it, but has the constant potential – particularly in the case of handguns that are more easily manipulated by children and more attractive for use in crime – to harm someone in the home or (via theft) the public at large.

https://theconversation.com/how-us-gun-control-compares-to-the-rest-of-t...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Studying gun violence is the only way to figure out how to stop it – but we don’t

As a pragmatic person, I heartily endorse taking a scientific, facts-based approach.  But I can also see where the more entrenched representatives of both sides of the issue might be concerned.

If you're a gun owner, what if a robust study produced compelling, unemotional reasons why you should have to give up your gun?

If you're anti-gun, what if a robust study produced compelling, unemotional reasons why that gun owner shouldn't have to?

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Studying gun violence is the only way to figure out how to stop it – but we don’t

As a pragmatic person, I heartily endorse taking a scientific, facts-based approach.  But I can also see where the more entrenched representatives of both sides of the issue might be concerned.

If you're a gun owner, what if a robust study produced compelling, unemotional reasons why you should have to give up your gun?

If you're anti-gun, what if a robust study produced compelling, unemotional reasons why that gun owner shouldn't have to?

And all concerned would be incredibly pissed if the science proves that this is not the dichotomy at all.

Gun advocates want to frame the debate as not about regulaton and control of certain people who should not have access to a gun or to limit the potential of the guns they have to a debate about taking away all guns.

This false debate has been engineered by the gun lobby to the point that they label any attempt to regulate, register, control the lethal potential of gun designs, or limit those who should not have access to guns to get them as an attempt to take away guns in general.

We have often compared this to the car: imagine if we were to say that an attempt to require drivers' licenses, have speed limits, register cars, require security for them, or prevent people from driving who are not safe drivers, is just an attempt to take cars away from you.

This comparison is of course old and tired. It is also completely unanswered and logically very strong.

The problem is that car drivers are the general population where as gun owners have a high proportion of people who are libertarian to the point that they do not acknowledge any argument that restricts their freedom for any social good. In fact a large number of gun advocates come off as sociopathic to me. The ones that sound reasonable often do so by avoiding the problematic parts of the conversation and using slective unscientific or biased reasearch and reports which leads me to distrust many of them in conversation.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Gun advocates want to frame the debate as not about regulaton and control of certain people who should not have access to a gun or to limit the potential of the guns they have to a debate about taking away all guns.

Do you feel like the anti-gun folk ever stoke this by actually insisting on the need to take away all guns?

Seems to me that's not just a figment of the fevered imaginations of the gun owners.

Quote:
imagine if we were to say that an attempt to require drivers' licenses, have speed limits, register cars, require security for them, or prevent people from driving who are not safe drivers, is just an attempt to take cars away from you.

Imagine if some part of the discussion of automobile safety were, in fact, occupied by people who who genuinely insisted that the only way to prevent automobile deaths is, in fact, to take cars away from everyone.

Pages