60% of our gun problem isn;t gun violence at all.  It's suicide. The other 40% centers around a shitty set of laws we enacted, and was entirely predictable.  We'd done it before...and the same thing happened. There's no point in talking about the gun violence we have when you can't even account for what it is, Brian. You won't even -talk- about it..and it's clear that our gun problem and your gun problem aren't the same thing at all.

In that segment that is violent, care to guess how much of it is "assault weapons"? OFC it's all -already- illegal.....but that's splitting hairs I suppose? I feel like the only place this can go is to suggest that a problem created by laws, and then compounded by shitty laws which fail to address it..is to write even shittier laws that -still- don't address it.

You'll have to excuse me for lacking confidence in your nanny state dreams.....what with the bangup job they've been doing thusfar.

(June 29, 2016 at 2:33 pm)RetiredArmy Wrote: An ardent supporter of gun rights, one that follows the law very strictly, always being responsible with their firearms, is not the problem.  That is simply a law-abiding citizen who speaks what they believe.  The problem is useless legislation and illogical banter about the danger inanimate objects pose.

You give two cases. Perfect gunner and "useless legislation". Are there no other scenarios? Drunks with guns and laws that have been shown to work?

(June 29, 2016 at 2:08 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote: Guns aren't our problem. Ardent (i.e. irrational) gunners are our problem

(June 29, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Gawdzilla Wrote:

(June 29, 2016 at 2:33 pm)RetiredArmy Wrote: An ardent supporter of gun rights, one that follows the law very strictly, always being responsible with their firearms, is not the problem.  That is simply a law-abiding citizen who speaks what they believe.  The problem is useless legislation and illogical banter about the danger inanimate objects pose.

You give two cases. Perfect gunner and "useless legislation". Are there no other scenarios? Drunks with guns and laws that have been shown to work?

The point of my reply was to refute your linking ardent support of firearms with irrationality.  I have provided your quote for review.  By definition, an ardent supporter (one who supports with enthusiasm and passion) would not risk what they cherish with such stupid behavior as being one of those "drunks with guns." 

Of course there are effective regulations regarding firearms.  Just like any section of governance, there are good parts, and there are really damn stupid parts.  I am referring to the stupid parts.  The parts which are an attempt to illogically go after the lawful gun owner while masquerading as meaningful legislation.  I agree with the first part, guns are not the problem.  People certainly -are- the problem, on both sides.  The ardent supporter is the good guy, let's not confuse.

(June 29, 2016 at 9:23 pm)RetiredArmy Wrote: The point of my reply was to refute your linking ardent support of firearms with irrationality.  I have provided your quote for review.  By definition, an ardent supporter (one who supports with enthusiasm and passion) would not risk what they cherish with such stupid behavior as being one of those "drunks with guns." 

Well, doesn't that really depend on the supporter? If one is under the impression that gun ownership is some immutable reality of their country's code of ethics that can never be changed- as many particularly ardent gun supporters do- then they could act with impunity, without anything to risk.

Now, I'm not saying that all people with interest in guns are liable to act that way, but then, that's sort of the thing with a deadly weapon: it really only takes a moment of inattention or irrational thinking to do something very hard to take back. It's not so much "X group of people act irrationally," as it is "X group of people are human beings liable to the same emotional and personality issues as everyone else, while also in contact with deadly weapons." That's a concern, the question is, how do we address it? #notallgunowners might be a perfectly valid statement, but somehow it's still not encompassing the issue, is it?

Quote:Of course there are effective regulations regarding firearms.  Just like any section of governance, there are good parts, and there are really damn stupid parts.  I am referring to the stupid parts.  The parts which are an attempt to illogically go after the lawful gun owner while masquerading as meaningful legislation.  I agree with the first part, guns are not the problem.  People certainly -are- the problem, on both sides.  The ardent supporter is the good guy, let's not confuse.

What do you mean "go after" the lawful gun owner? What does that legislation look like, to you? And what would you consider good regulation for firearms that might improve the situation as it stands, too?

(June 23, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 23, 2016 at 3:40 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: This is where there is a disconnect for me. I mean if someone intends to kill a bunch of people are they going to stop because they don't have guns? I mean the number of massacre victims are pretty similar, there are just more Arson attacks and less shootings. That does tell you something, maybe the guy who burned a bunch of children to death would have shot them up with guns buy choose a different method. I mean nobody denies that less guns=less shootings. It seems like it just changes people's method of committing mass murder, considering that other types of massacres went up. It's all pretty hard to tell when you restrict the conversation to mass shootings and massacres in a low violence society like Australia. That's why I think the per capita murder rate is really the most important stat when discussion gun violence or any other type of violence. I mean would you much rather live in a society with a high rate of murder, but the murders weren't committed by guns?

If people intend to kill a bunch of people, then sure, they will likely find a way to do it, either by arson or more likely via bombs. However both methods are somewhat harder to execute than killing with a gun. Arson requires that all the people be in an enclosed area with little to no chance of escape, and also requires that the arsonist be able to set a fire big enough to spread and kill people before it is put out. Bomb making comes with it's own set of complexities such as acquiring materials, safely transporting the bomb, etc.

The three arson attacks in the last 20 years in Australia, were all strikingly different as well. One was a bush fire, one was set in a hostel whilst the victims slept, and the other was in a home for the elderly. In all but the first attack, the victims were somehow incapacitated in some way which prevented them from escaping in time.

Guns can be easily bought, are easily transported, and can easily murder people, in large numbers, even if the victims are in open areas with the ability to escape, because bullets travel fast.

You might be interested in a recent study which was released yesterday, which might cover your inquiries about murder rates and substituting some other method of murder for guns: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...id=2530362

The key parts from the conclusion:

Quote:From 1979-1996, the mean annual rate of total nonfirearm suicide and homicide deaths was 10.6 (95% CI, 10.0-11.2) per 100 000 population (average increase of 2.1% per year; annual trend, 1.021; 95% CI, 1.016-1.026), whereas from 1997-2013, the mean annual rate was 11.8 (95% CI, 11.3-12.3) per 100 000 (average decline of 1.4% per year; annual trend, 0.986; 95% CI, 0.980-0.993), with a ratio of trends of 0.966 (95% CI, 0.958-0.973). There was no evidence of substitution of other lethal methods for suicides or homicides.

In other words, the rate of non-firearm related deaths has remained about the same, but has actually been decreasing since the gun control laws were introduced. They didn't find any evidence that people were substituting things for guns either.

I actually read that study, probably in another Atheist forum thread. What's also interesting is the articles that link to it will say something like the last line there, that there is no evidence for substitution, but when you unclump suicide and homicide (as they obviously should be, because they are totally different things.) what you get is that there isn't a total substitution for murders. Also important to note that guns are still used in murders there as well. So all it really amounts to is a slight drop in the murder rate, the same drop that happened in the United States and across the whole first world at the same time. Which is likely to do with an aging populace more then anything. So that study really just doesn't do it for me, especially since the same thing didn't happen in Britain when they passed their gun control laws.

(June 29, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote: What do you mean "go after" the lawful gun owner? What does that legislation look like, to you? And what would you consider good regulation for firearms that might improve the situation as it stands, too?

How about a law called an assault weapon ban that doesn't ban assault rifles, bans win190s instead, and applies to law abiding gun owners(someday, but not today™ )....but obviously a criminal couldn't give a shit?  That's going after the good guys, imo, not that the folks that wrote it and enacted it meant to do that...they just didn't know any better, apparently.

(June 29, 2016 at 10:21 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(June 29, 2016 at 9:23 pm)RetiredArmy Wrote: The point of my reply was to refute your linking ardent support of firearms with irrationality.  I have provided your quote for review.  By definition, an ardent supporter (one who supports with enthusiasm and passion) would not risk what they cherish with such stupid behavior as being one of those "drunks with guns." 

Well, doesn't that really depend on the supporter? If one is under the impression that gun ownership is some immutable reality of their country's code of ethics that can never be changed- as many particularly ardent gun supporters do- then they could act with impunity, without anything to risk.

Well, I don't agree.  I understand there will be exceptions, but the vast majority of supporters (not just the ardent ones) do not "act with impunity," nor would they if tomorrow you said "ok, you can keep you guns."  They wouldn't go ape-shit crazy, running around shooting things if you were to acknowledge the right to bear arms.  What you've said seems to show your bias in the matter.  It appears you believe that the only reason us "weirdo gun nuts" don't go out shooting everything is because we think you're watching.  That's just wrong.  Do you think it's because some are afraid of going to prison? Maybe in some cases, but that's wrong as well.  I equate this to the same thing we atheists often say to the religious... Do you believe in god out of fear of death or wrath?  Do you follow the law because of prison?  No, we follow because it's what is right, because we do the right thing when nobody is watching.

Now, I'm not saying that all people with interest in guns are liable to act that way,

So then why propose the idea above?

but then, that's sort of the thing with a deadly weapon: it really only takes a moment of inattention or irrational thinking to do something very hard to take back.

This idea very much applies to very nearly all forms of tragedy and massacre, including automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, lawnmowers, knifes, etc.  We can say take away all cars, but we need them.  We can say take away all guns, but we need them (go ahead, dispute that, I'm ready).

It's not so much "X group of people act irrationally," as it is "X group of people are human beings liable to the same emotional and personality issues as everyone else, while also in contact with deadly weapons." That's a concern, the question is, how do we address it? #notallgunowners might be a perfectly valid statement, but somehow it's still not encompassing the issue, is it?

I understand, and disagree.  Because Ralph down the street does X wrong doesn't mean I or any other person is going to do X wrong as well.  Emotional and personality issues can just as easily cause a person to kill groups of people with a car.  It truly IS a concern! We address the concern with mental healthcare, community awareness, realistic drug prevention and treatment (that's an entirely different thread, right?)  The issue is people, true, and attempting to take away guns does not address the issue, it creates another.  The problem would be inadequate defense against those not willing to follow the law.  Police are inadequate for that problem.

Quote:Of course there are effective regulations regarding firearms.  Just like any section of governance, there are good parts, and there are really damn stupid parts.  I am referring to the stupid parts.  The parts which are an attempt to illogically go after the lawful gun owner while masquerading as meaningful legislation.  I agree with the first part, guns are not the problem.  People certainly -are- the problem, on both sides.  The ardent supporter is the good guy, let's not confuse.

What do you mean "go after" the lawful gun owner? What does that legislation look like, to you? And what would you consider good regulation for firearms that might improve the situation as it stands, too?

When a politician stands at the podium and professes the intent to take all guns, and some cheer, that's going after the lawful gun owner.  To me, that legislation would look like the government saying we have to turn in all firearms.  When that doesn't work for obvious reasons, they would have to come door to door.  That just isn't really feasible either.  Taking all the guns is not reasonable or practical or viable.  It's a reaction to fear, just as the meaningless legislation (that failed) after Orlando. 

(June 29, 2016 at 7:11 pm)Rhythm Wrote: 60% of our gun problem isn;t gun violence at all.  It's suicide. The other 40% centers around a shitty set of laws we enacted, and was entirely predictable.  We'd done it before...and the same thing happened.  There's no point in talking about the gun violence we have when you can't even account for what it is, Brian.  You won't even -talk- about it..and it's clear that our gun problem and your gun problem aren't the same thing at all.  

In that segment that is violent, care to guess how much of it is "assault weapons"?  OFC it's all -already- illegal.....but that's splitting hairs I suppose?  I feel like the only place this can go is to suggest that a problem created by laws, and then compounded by shitty laws which fail to address it..is to write even shittier laws that -still- don't address it.

You'll have to excuse me for lacking confidence in your nanny state dreams.....what with the bangup job they've been doing thusfar.

Yes it is. I am sick and tired of this bullshit.

It is utter hypocrisy. If you claim the laws are shitty, fine, then don't obstruct those trying to improve them. If you claim it is the mentally ill, then don't obstruct those trying to prevent the mentally ill from getting them. If you claim it is the "terrorists" don't cherry pick the religion and don't obstruct those trying to prevent the wrong people from getting them.

You cant have it both ways, you cant rightfully say we should keep them out of the wrong hands, then scream when others want to do just that.

Our laws ARE Swiss Cheese, I agree. We have no national consistency and we lack the funding to enforce those laws because of one party cutting budgets that could give us the resources to vet people better.

NOBODY NOBODY NOBODY ........ Let me repeat....... NOBODY, as a vast majority on the left, wants to ban every single gun. That is a myth and a fucking lie. All we want on the left is to prevent the wrong people from getting them, and yes, certain types and big clips. And if the gun owner doesn't want that false perception you claim we have, then you also should value keeping them out of the wrong hands too. But what I see isn't that value, what I see is far too many on the right, a very small majority of gun owners, holding everyone else hostage. 

If you would pull your head out of the sand, you could see that there is nothing to be paranoid about. If you would stop buying into the NRA fear mongering you'd see what we see and you'd want what we want, and you would find that their bullshit "slippery slope" propaganda, is just that.

Gun safety advocates are NOT delusional. We are not trying to foster a fascist state. We simply are fed up with the flooded market and volume of gun violence. But as it stands now, we are not on the left going to continue to put up with one party and one profit lobby holding the nation hostage. Whatever the NRA started out as, is not what it is today. And I have personal friends who grew up with guns and still like guns who agree with me that the NRA is full of shit and is protecting our climate of gun violence for one reason, and one reason only, to protect the profits of the gun factories.

No more. Now either work with the left, or get out of the way, but one party and one lobby do not get to dictate our laws.

(June 30, 2016 at 10:23 am)Brian37 Wrote: Yes it is. I am sick and tired of this bullshit.

It is utter hypocrisy. If you claim the laws are shitty, fine, then don't obstruct those trying to improve them. If you claim it is the mentally ill, then don't obstruct those trying to prevent the mentally ill from getting them. If you claim it is the "terrorists" don't cherry pick the religion and don't obstruct those trying to prevent the wrong people from getting them.

I'm not obstructing anyone, I'm insisting that they actually try to improve them.

Quote:You cant have it both ways, you cant rightfully say we should keep them out of the wrong hands, then scream when others want to do just that.

Our laws ARE Swiss Cheese, I agree. We have no national consistency and we lack the funding to enforce those laws because of one party cutting budgets that could give us the resources to vet people better.

-and many of our laws are garbage and/or unenforceable because the other side is incompetent.  Stop pointing the finger as though it;s all the other guys fault.  It isn't.  Try to improve our laws.

Quote:NOBODY NOBODY NOBODY ........ Let me repeat....... NOBODY, as a vast majority on the left, wants to ban every single gun. That is a myth and a fucking lie. All we want on the left is to prevent the wrong people from getting them, and yes, certain types and big clips. And if the gun owner doesn't want that false perception you claim we have, then you also should value keeping them out of the wrong hands too. But what I see isn't that value, what I see is far too many on the right, a very small majority of gun owners, holding everyone else hostage. 

Then why do they keep stumping for laws that, according to you..unintentionally have that effect?

Quote:If you would pull your head out of the sand, you could see that there is nothing to be paranoid about. If you would stop buying into the NRA fear mongering you'd see what we see and you'd want what we want, and you would find that their bullshit "slippery slope" propaganda, is just that.

I;m not paranoid..I think that you, and others like you..are incompetent.

Quote:Gun safety advocates are NOT delusional. We are not trying to foster a fascist state. We simply are fed up with the flooded market and volume of gun violence. But as it stands now, we are not on the left going to continue to put up with one party and one profit lobby holding the nation hostage. Whatever the NRA started out as, is not what it is today. And I have personal friends who grew up with guns and still like guns who agree with me that the NRA is full of shit and is protecting our climate of gun violence for one reason, and one reason only, to protect the profits of the gun factories.

No more. Now either work with the left, or get out of the way, but one party and one lobby do not get to dictate our laws.

Work with the left you say, as though I'm on the right.  Get a grip, and learn who your allies are. If you told me you wanted to ban all pistols...I wouldn't agree ideologically, but I would understand the argument, practically...and shake my head in disappointment as I signed off on just such a law. Why? Because pistols actually -are- the gun of crime, and since we aren't putting any saner..or more effective measures on the table, we have to work with what we've got. If it was harder to get your hands on a pistol, that 40% of our gun problem that is due to gun violence would decrease. It wouldn't go away (nor would pistols).....but it changes the calculus of crime, and Joe "What about my rights" Citizen could still rest easy in that he could own a shotgun to protect himself from all the criminals with pistols....and obviously still has access to gun. See how easy that is?

(June 30, 2016 at 8:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: How about a law called an assault weapon ban that doesn't ban assault rifles, bans win190s instead, and applies to law abiding gun owners(someday, but not today™ )....but obviously a criminal couldn't give a shit?  That's going after the good guys, imo, not that the folks that wrote it and enacted it meant to do that...they just didn't know any better, apparently.

I've never understood this "criminals don't obey the law, so this law only influences good people," logic, because it's another one of those things where the person proposing it has clearly never looked beyond the bounds of the country they're discussing to verify that. Australia has an assault weapons ban, and the number of criminals with assault weapons is almost nonexistent. We don't have guys with AR-15s shooting up public places every other month, despite being criminals and therefore not caring about the law, because the law makes it way harder for them to obtain one whether they care about it or not.

Now, is the situation identical in America? No, it's not; the Yankees have dug themselves into a pretty nice hole in terms of gun legislation that it's in all likelihood going to be way harder to get out of. But acting as though "criminals don't obey the law," is both not a statement that demonstrates the thing you might think it does, and is also an argument against laws, not gun control laws specifically. Yet were I to propose removing all laws on the basis of that logic, or hell, even one specific other law in any other context, the problems with that argument would be immediately apparent.

Yes, criminals don't obey the laws. I thought we already understood that laws don't exist to prevent pre-crime.