Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2013/01/16 21:33:23
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
The problems I see with the armed guard in every school concept are expense and also that the great majority of shootings do not take place in schools.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problems I see with the armed guard in every school concept are expense and also that the great majority of shootings do not take place in schools.
Eh... while that's true... most school districts HAVE security guards.
It's just a matter of whether they and/or the staff should be armed.
Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!
2013/01/16 21:38:46
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
I don't think it's generally within the purview of local law enforcement to determine, on the fly, the constitutionality of the laws they are to uphold. But eh. I imagine this is mostly chest-thumping from sheriffs running for re-election or whatever; my default suspicion for those strongly protesting hypothetical legislation.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
2013/01/17 00:24:45
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
I don't think it's generally within the purview of local law enforcement to determine, on the fly, the constitutionality of the laws they are to uphold. But eh. I imagine this is mostly chest-thumping from sheriffs running for re-election or whatever; my default suspicion for those strongly protesting hypothetical legislation.
The legislation doesn't really matter, as long as they are opposing Obama.
2013/01/17 00:34:51
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Sheriff's are politicians too, they just like to pretend they aren't; you don't get elected twice without being one. That letter is just as politically motivated as anything a Senator ever wrote.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
2013/01/17 00:34:55
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
WTF?
What does the CDC have to do with gun violence?
Or has there been some bug linked to making people grab a gun and start shooting people?
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Its probably not all that expensive. Certaintly nothing compared to the alternative of having them take Martial arts classes. Those things are expensive and mandate a certain level of physical fitness.
What would be required for the security at schools to be armed?
1) Background check. Already done for working at the school, I would hope.
2) Purchase of firearms and ammo. A pistol would be sufficient for the job. It wouldn't have to cost more than $1500 tops per security guard.
3) Training. There are just tons and tons of ranges everywhere that have courses for only a few hundred dollars. Thats your initial investment for the security guards training. Then you simply have the guard go to a practice range once a month, which is just a range fee plus the ammo.
All together, its not even a significant portion of the guard's yearly wage. The biggest cost for the security guard is the upfront training costs. After that its just the guards yearly wage plus his range practice. For a school thats large enough to have a few security guards the whole additional cost is just going to be a rounding error.
The idea that having armed security guards is too expensive for schools just doesn't hold water.
Ok, makes sense. I was under the impression the CDC was just involved with communicable diseases.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/17 00:46:08
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
aka_mythos wrote: The President and Democrats as well as the media vilified the NRA for the last couple weeks because the NRA wants armed guards available to schools. The jist of that vilification is that it introduces more danger. Many schools already have that kind of armed presence, the President's childrens school is an example. Should only the children of important people or the children of those who can afford a private education be so protected? The attendence of the President's children at that school isn't why there are armed guards, its coincidental. It is however hypocrtical to denounce the very notion that a proposal is innately dangerous when your childrens' school is point of fact proof it isn't innately dangerous. There are many reasons why the NRA's idea might not work but that isn't really one of them. It is a case of privaliage that his children are afforded Secret Service protection though it is justified. The issue is that one side says viamently something will never work, when it either factually works or at worst just wastes money, not that it fails for the reason thats asserted.
I don't thinkt he NRA can catch a break, no matter what they say its going to be framed and vilified, no mater how justified their arguement. Maybe they're the worst people in the world, and morally questionable, but that has little to do with the validity of their idea. I don't think their idea has been given half as much consideration as the the stuff now being proposed, despite the fact that there is more case evidence for its effectiveness and more proof for the lack of effectiveness of an assault weapons ban.
Like I said there are reasons why the NRA plan has flaws, cost being a big one. With ~133,000 public schools having a police officer at each would cost ~$7.8B a year ($56K/officer/year). That is as opposed to a proposed $500M. That is reason enough. Maybe there are ways to bring down that cost, but without an actual discussion we'll never know. The NRA didn't pull this idea out of nowhere as the media would imply, they listened to what the parents in areas around Sandy Hook were asking for and proposed that. The idea wasn't denounced until the NRA said it.
The political discussion by our elected officials has been a one sided dog and pony show. The greater part of their proposals are laws that existed at one point and were allowed to sunset because they were found to have a statistically negligable effect on crime while costing a significant amount. These new laws are being pushed by people who have been pushing for identical laws for the last decade. I think the word "opportunistic" best describes those who re-proposed this battery of laws. I'm willing to listen to reforms, but when "reforms" are without any empirical basis and encroach on Civil Rights and have shown tp have neglible impact we should be concerned about the monologue that is portrayed in the guise of dialogue.
Excellent, excellent post.
2013/01/17 03:02:01
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I know this breaks Godwin but dang... when the man makes a speech surrounded by children, then says it's "for the children" it's begging for it.
and yes I checked. This is a direct quote from Mein Kampf.
Second up, this is why the gun lobby is such a useless, counter-productive part of the effort to get decent gun control laws that don't meaningfully limit the proper use of firearms - because they're absolutely, 100% balls to the wall full of crazy lunatics who revel in nonsense politics.
You want good, sensible gun laws that reduces gun killings while limiting proper gun use as much as possible. Then be a reasonable, sensible person who engages in reasoned, sensible debate. You want a lot of noise and nonsense and poor laws that jerk around gun owners without making things safer? Then quote false Mein Kampf quotes and vaguely hint at evil government takeovers.
Or has there been some bug linked to making people grab a gun and start shooting people?
The Centre for Disease control looks at mortality and the factors affecting mortality. This makes them ideally suited to looking at the factors that lead to gun deaths. They in fact did a lot of good work on this issue in the 90s (and bust many myths loved by either the pro- or anti- gun control lobby groups) until they were ordered to stop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/17 03:12:40
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/01/17 03:22:20
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Its probably not all that expensive. Certaintly nothing compared to the alternative of having them take Martial arts classes. Those things are expensive and mandate a certain level of physical fitness.
What would be required for the security at schools to be armed?
1) Background check. Already done for working at the school, I would hope.
2) Purchase of firearms and ammo. A pistol would be sufficient for the job. It wouldn't have to cost more than $1500 tops per security guard.
3) Training. There are just tons and tons of ranges everywhere that have courses for only a few hundred dollars. Thats your initial investment for the security guards training. Then you simply have the guard go to a practice range once a month, which is just a range fee plus the ammo.
All together, its not even a significant portion of the guard's yearly wage. The biggest cost for the security guard is the upfront training costs. After that its just the guards yearly wage plus his range practice. For a school thats large enough to have a few security guards the whole additional cost is just going to be a rounding error.
The idea that having armed security guards is too expensive for schools just doesn't hold water. .
My county Sheriff is offering special courses and a discount on carry permits for all school employees in the county. From what I understand beyond the usual carry law, shooting basics, the course will cover advanced retention techniques, defensive shooting, threat identification and a full course on how the modern LEO handles an active shooter environment. (put rounds on target as soon as possible)
I don't think it's generally within the purview of local law enforcement to determine, on the fly, the constitutionality of the laws they are to uphold. But eh. I imagine this is mostly chest-thumping from sheriffs running for re-election or whatever; my default suspicion for those strongly protesting hypothetical legislation.
Actually there's legal precedent here. The Sheriff as the only elected LEO in his county is the big boss for his county. Time and again Sheriffs have "removed" Federal law enforcement members from their jurisdiction if they felt their case or purpose in the county wasn't sufficient.
Now I'm not going to make you all ready through the majority decision there, and you should go else where then wiki for the full text if you want it, but the general summary is that the US Federal government cannot control or give orders to state and local officials directly.
Professor Ann Althouse has suggested, retained in its strong form, the anti-commandeering doctrine announced in Mack and Printz "can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people";"the federal government might go too far in prosecuting the war on terrorism," Mack and Printz provides a circuit-breaker that might allow local and state officials to refuse to enforce regulations curbing individual rights. Moreover, "[b]y denying the means of commandeering to the federal government, the courts have created an incentive [for Congress] to adopt policies that inspire [rather than demand] compliance, thus preserving a beneficial structural safeguard for individual rights," and "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights."
As it was used in Printz v. United States, the Sheriffs in question literally said they would not enforce certain segments of the Brady Act that they found overstepped Federal authority and threatened the rights of their citizens.
So yes actually. Not only can a Sheriff get away with that, it's been done before. This same legal theory is what's helping protect soon to be legal pot smokers in Colorado and Washington as well, because without this ruling the DEA could order the local LEAs to violate state law in favor of federal law and so forth. All comes back to the power game. For another example see Wyoming and Texas's legislation that directly lifts a middle finger at any potential AWB or magazine ban at a national level.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I know this breaks Godwin but dang... when the man makes a speech surrounded by children, then says it's "for the children" it's begging for it.
and yes I checked. This is a direct quote from Mein Kampf.
Second up, this is why the gun lobby is such a useless, counter-productive part of the effort to get decent gun control laws that don't meaningfully limit the proper use of firearms - because they're absolutely, 100% balls to the wall full of crazy lunatics who revel in nonsense politics.
You want good, sensible gun laws that reduces gun killings while limiting proper gun use as much as possible. Then be a reasonable, sensible person who engages in reasoned, sensible debate. You want a lot of noise and nonsense and poor laws that jerk around gun owners without making things safer? Then quote false Mein Kampf quotes and vaguely hint at evil government takeovers.
Actually if I want noise, nonsense and poor laws that jerk gun owners around I just have to wait for liberal press conferences but yes I see your point. It came up as valid initially and honestly, that's just too perfect. So you bet I'd quote that for any one politicizing children if Hitler had in fact actually said it. So I apologize, plenty of noise and nonsense without adding to it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually if I want noise, nonsense and poor laws that jerk gun owners around I just have to wait for liberal press conferences but yes I see your point. It came up as valid initially and honestly, that's just too perfect. So you bet I'd quote that for any one politicizing children if Hitler had in fact actually said it. So I apologize, plenty of noise and nonsense without adding to it.
Yeah, there is plenty of noise and nonsense coming from the gun control types as well (what in the feth is an assault weapon?!) Which makes it all the worse when the gun rights people start making their own noise and nonsense.
And I apolagise if it sounded like I was originally criticising you for the bad quote. You just took a quote in good faith, and even made an effort to check it. The problem is with the people who fudged that quote in the first place, and with the lack of intellectual honesty that lets it and other nonsense continue to circulate around the gun rights movement. The end result is a lot of people firmly convinced of facts and principles that just aren't real world concerns.
And that isn't exclusive to the gun rights people. The gun control people have had a focus on assault weapons for what, 15 years now, and yet there still hasn't been enough people saying 'hang on, has anyone noticed assault weapons aren't actually a thing? Maybe we should focus on limitations on guns that are actually based around things that are real?'
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/01/17 04:52:31
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Actually if I want noise, nonsense and poor laws that jerk gun owners around I just have to wait for liberal press conferences but yes I see your point. It came up as valid initially and honestly, that's just too perfect. So you bet I'd quote that for any one politicizing children if Hitler had in fact actually said it. So I apologize, plenty of noise and nonsense without adding to it.
Yeah, there is plenty of noise and nonsense coming from the gun control types as well (what in the feth is an assault weapon?!) Which makes it all the worse when the gun rights people start making their own noise and nonsense.
And I apolagise if it sounded like I was originally criticising you for the bad quote. You just took a quote in good faith, and even made an effort to check it. The problem is with the people who fudged that quote in the first place, and with the lack of intellectual honesty that lets it and other nonsense continue to circulate around the gun rights movement. The end result is a lot of people firmly convinced of facts and principles that just aren't real world concerns.
And that isn't exclusive to the gun rights people. The gun control people have had a focus on assault weapons for what, 15 years now, and yet there still hasn't been enough people saying 'hang on, has anyone noticed assault weapons aren't actually a thing? Maybe we should focus on limitations on guns that are actually based around things that are real?'
We're cool Sebs I got where you were going with it.
Well we've been yelling it for awhile now, but we're gun nuts so what do we know? The assault weapons thing is also willful intellectual dishonesty. They know that they don't exist. They also know there's no such thing as "cop killer" ammunition, but it reinforces their narrative and moves their political goals forward, so what's it really matter to them right?
I think the crux of the issue is real world concerns. Neither side seems to give a damn about them. On the right we have people screaming about tyranny and government oppression. On the left the freak out du jour is about a weapon that according to the Uniform Crime Reports for 2011... was used in a hundred less murders then hammers. So what's the point of an AWB? Besides letting them avoid addressing the actual problem and pretend to be doing something (poverty and education are way harder to legislate). At least the strawman sales issues are actually vaguely grounded in reality, but mag bans, etc are just ludicrous.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well we've been yelling it for awhile now, but we're gun nuts so what do we know? The assault weapons thing is also willful intellectual dishonesty. They know that they don't exist. They also know there's no such thing as "cop killer" ammunition, but it reinforces their narrative and moves their political goals forward, so what's it really matter to them right?
I think the crux of the issue is real world concerns. Neither side seems to give a damn about them. On the right we have people screaming about tyranny and government oppression. On the left the freak out du jour is about a weapon that according to the Uniform Crime Reports for 2011... was used in a hundred less murders then hammers. So what's the point of an AWB? Besides letting them avoid addressing the actual problem and pretend to be doing something (poverty and education are way harder to legislate). At least the strawman sales issues are actually vaguely grounded in reality, but mag bans, etc are just ludicrous.
Agreed entirely. And frankly this is just a cycle that will keep happening again and again. There's some killings by firearm that plays well in the media, people declare there's been a seachange and something really has to be done this time, some scary sounding type of gun is banned amidst crazypants shouting that this is government tyranny, and the murders by firearms stat rolls on unaffected, and things go quiet until the next killings get heavy media coverage.
It'll only end when both sides go to the table with a belief that there is a possible compromise that will protect lawful gun use, while at the same time limiting murders by firearms.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/01/17 05:50:16
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
sebster wrote: It'll only end when both sides go to the table with a belief that there is a possible compromise that will protect lawful gun use, while at the same time limiting murders by firearms.
There isn't, is the problem.
2013/01/17 05:55:34
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Of course there is. Despite the hoopla and hysterics, this isn't a do or die cultural war. It's just about putting some limitations on gun ownership, and about reducing the number of gun murders.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
1713/01/17 05:58:51
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
But ideologically speaking the same crowd that is usually on the anti-any-gun-law side are also on the "government shouldn't fix poverty" and "government has no say in education" side.
2013/01/17 06:05:21
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
It really is silly to take away the weapon used to commit the murder when all that will do is make more murders happen with a different weapon.
Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
The murder still happens, just with a different weapon. In a way, its no easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife. A gun makes noise, leaves behind more physical evidence, etc. Its actually benificial for a gun to have been used in a homicide for the investigators due to that. A knife can simply be taken away by the murderer, cleaned up, and no solid trace can be made on it. A gun leaves behind the bullet for ballistics evidence and most criminals don't pick up the bullet casings, if the gun wasn't a revolver. Then there is the gunpowder residue that often gets left behind on your hands when you use a gun.
You can usually almost immediatly tell what kind of gun you are loking for if casings are left, or are only waiting for the autopsy result to identify the caliber. Unless the knife was left behind at the scene you can only guess at its size and description, and then there are going to be thousands of knives fitting that description of all different makes.
The best solution to violence is to look into what caused the murder. Maybe there are socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did, maybe drugs were involved, etc...
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: It really is silly to take away the weapon used to commit the murder when all that will do is make more murders happen with a different weapon.
We don't need guns to defend ourselves, we will defend ourselves with a different weapon.
Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.
Far better to address self defense than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't defend you.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
If someone wants to defend themselves, they will find a way to do it. Removing guns from the equation just makes them pick up a knife. Removing knives will make them look for a club, baseball bat, or even their bare hands.
The murder still happens, just with a different weapon. In a way, its no easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife.
You can still defend yourself, just with a different weapon. IIn a way, it's no easier to defend yourself with a gun than it is with a knife.
The best solution to violence is to look into what caused the murder. Maybe there are socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did, maybe drugs were involved, etc..
Look into the socio-economic factors that led to the situation developing as it did and you won't even have to defend yourself. .
tl;dr
If guns didn't make it easier to kill people, then people wouldn't want guns to defend themselves. Why do you need a gun to overthrow a tyranical government if you can just do it with a knife instead. It's a BS argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/17 06:17:09
2013/01/17 06:52:09
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
sebster wrote: Of course there is. Despite the hoopla and hysterics, this isn't a do or die cultural war. It's just about putting some limitations on gun ownership, and about reducing the number of gun murders.
No, there really isn't. Gun violence in America is overwhelming committed with the one firearm that everybody wants to keep legal - a handgun holding fewer than 10 rounds.
With hundreds of millions of guns in this country, there is no quick fix. There isn't even a slow fix. There's a fix that might bear fruit 100 years from now, but it's unconstitutional and would probably resort in a lot of deaths.
It has nothing at all to do with a culture war, and everything to do with the reality of the situation.
2013/01/17 07:01:06
Subject: Re:States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
It'll only end when both sides go to the table with a belief that there is a possible compromise that will protect lawful gun use, while at the same time limiting murders by firearms.
In other words....Never?
For one thing, the gun control movement is suffering some apparent confusion over what the word "Compromise" means versus "Surrender" or "Appease"....
2013/01/17 09:19:27
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Well the real issues behind the murder rate are more focused on poverty and education. Guns get the short end of the stick because they're more visible and easier to legislate then the actual issue.
Guns are often overstated as the whole of the issue, but it's just as false to claim they're not part of the issue at all.
I mean, just look at the basic figures. Compare the US to other developed, politically stable countries, and you'll see a gun murder rate per capita that's anywhere from 10 to 40 times elsewhere in the world. And oh look, it just happens to have gun ownership rates that are miles above the other developed, politically stable countries.
Now, I don't think for one second that banning guns will stop that murder rate (nor is banning a significant majority of guns even slightly politcally plausible). And other factors are a key component (income inequality, drugs etc).
But any sensible conversation has to accept as a basic point that more guns really do lead to more murder by guns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Far better to address the cause of a murder than the tool it was commited with. The weapon didn't cause the murder.
And the hammer didn't put then nail in the wall, it just made it a lot more practical than punching it in with my bare fists. I mean, what you've done there is basically pretend to not understand how tool use works.
Yes, tools are nothing without human action, but they make human action an easier action. As such, guns make the taking of another human life an easier action.
If someone wants to kill someone else, they'll find a way to do it.
And yet if you compare to other stable, developed countries, you'll find in the absence of guns the murder rate is much, much lower. This means one of two things - the US is just a uniquely murderous bunch of lunatics and guns are purely a symptom of that, or that when you don't have ready access to a tool that is extremely good at taking another person's life, you tend to do it less.
I mean, just please use more sensible arguments. There are good, reasoned arguments for limiting gun legislation, but instead we get this ludicrous stuff like the above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/17 09:29:45
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2013/01/17 09:33:50
Subject: States (and cities) propose legislation to nullify federal gun legislation
Sebs we do have a slight gang and drug violence problem that the rest of the Western world is getting to skip out on. That's probably not helping our murder rate any.
I don't have any citation for this but at some point in the last couple weeks someone mentioned that 90% or more of the murders in the US are criminal on criminal crime.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/01/17 09:34:02
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
Seaward wrote: No, there really isn't. Gun violence in America is overwhelming committed with the one firearm that everybody wants to keep legal - a handgun holding fewer than 10 rounds.
And this is a symptom of a disfunctional argument, which is evidence of my key point - that all parties need to get far more sensible, and that if they do more meaningful gun laws could be passed (or hell, there could just be some effort at enforcing the laws already on the books).
It has nothing at all to do with a culture war, and everything to do with the reality of the situation.
The emotion and extremes with which both sides are willing to take this is evidence, perhaps not of a culture war that was poor wording on my parts, but an oppositional approach that makes little sense given the small potatoes of the debate.
There is this idea on the part of gun control advocates that this is the pressing issue of the day when on a numbers basis it simply isn't. Accidents kill 12 times as many people. Suicide kills four times as many. There's plenty of other things killing people that barely rates a mention in political debate.
And at the same time, it's a gun. Big fething whoopsie if there's one type of gun you used to own that now you can't. Or an extra check and a waiting period before you get it. It is no great sacrifice.
People will say something is impossible until all of a sudden they'll start saying it was inevitable
For one thing, the gun control movement is suffering some apparent confusion over what the word "Compromise" means versus "Surrender" or "Appease"....
That applies equally to both sides.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Sebs we do have a slight gang and drug violence problem that the rest of the Western world is getting to skip out on. That's probably not helping our murder rate any.
I don't have any citation for this but at some point in the last couple weeks someone mentioned that 90% or more of the murders in the US are criminal on criminal crime.
That is certainly a major part of the issue. I mean, share a border with Mexico and you're going to get more killings no matter what you do.
But the 90% figure isn't true. First up the figure it simply cannot be anything like 90% - as inter-family murder makes up 24% by itself (or 13% - there's two different figures in the link below). You see all kinds of other relationships and motivations for crime, but you see little evidence of criminal on criminal crime.
I'm not saying that gangs aren't a big part of the problem, but they aren't just an easy way to handwave the high murder rate away.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/01/17 09:56:58
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
