Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

More Guns= More Safety
Less Guns- Less Safety

Look at the statistics people.

Who's shitting on janitors? And if we were, would they have to clean it up?

But no seriously, I know it's voluntary, it's still stupid. For that matter so are some of you.

I don't know if this guy should be carrying a gun on school grounds...

Originally Posted by Clak Who's shitting on janitors? And if we were, would they have to clean it up? But no seriously, I know it's voluntary, it's still stupid. For that matter so are some of you.

Why is it stupid? It is better to have some armed personnel with training than none at all. After all you do not expect them to use the broom for self defense against a glock17? Also refrain from insulting the members of this forum, you make yourself look foolish by bashing on someone who has a different opinion.

That's kinda his M.O. in the vs forum, bu I do agree with your post

Originally Posted by mrsilkunderwear Why is it stupid? It is better to have some armed personnel with training than none at all. After all you do not expect them to use the broom for self defense against a glock17? Also refrain from insulting the members of this forum, you make yourself look foolish by bashing on someone who has a different opinion.

You haven't been in the vs forum long have you? If slinging mud and arrogance around like sacks of leftist potatoes doesn't sound like a grand time, this may not be the place for you.

Originally Posted by thrustbucket You haven't been in the vs forum long have you? If slinging mud and arrogance around like sacks of leftist potatoes doesn't sound like a grand time, this may not be the place for you.

I guess i should have expected that type of behavior. Arguments should be civil and lead to education instead of name calling. If we cannot do that then why let such a section exist?

Originally Posted by mrsilkunderwear I guess i should have expected that type of behavior. Arguments should be civil and lead to education instead of name calling. If we cannot do that then why let such a section exist?

I concur. It lowers the level of discourse if people just resort to name calling. For that matter, so does labeling everything "liberal," "leftist," conservative," etc.

Originally Posted by mrsilkunderwear More Guns= More Safety Less Guns- Less Safety Look at the statistics people.

More like:

Regulating / monitoring firearms dealers = more safety and fewer guns because the risk of selling illegally becomes not worth the reward. Ideally on the federal level, but even at the state level can help if a significant portion of states were to adopt legislation toward that purpose.

Originally Posted by thrustbucket You haven't been in the vs forum long have you? If slinging mud and arrogance around like sacks of leftist potatoes doesn't sound like a grand time, this may not be the place for you.

What is a leftist potato?

Originally Posted by mrsilkunderwear Look at the statistics people.

A dollar says the closest you came to any statistic about guns and crime was the fifteen seconds you spent looking at the Amazon.com page for John Lott's book.

If you want to have a legitimate discussion, why don't you introduce an actual statistic instead of herp-derp NRA rhetoric? "More guns, less crime" is pablum in the same way Wayne LaPierre's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" rhetoric is pablum.

Originally Posted by mykevermin A dollar says the closest you came to any statistic about guns and crime was the fifteen seconds you spent looking at the Amazon.com page for John Lott's book. If you want to have a legitimate discussion, why don't you introduce an actual statistic instead of herp-derp NRA rhetoric? "More guns, less crime" is pablum in the same way Wayne LaPierre's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" rhetoric is pablum.

Yeah I have no idea who John Lott is. Here is a great video for you regarding the crimes in US and UK. http://www.fox19.com/story/20538164/...homicide-rates
The thing is a few years back I strongly advocated a big government and regulations of everything. I then realized that the government is always inefficient, hungry and must be limited to few core functions.

A few years ago I would also advocate for ban of guns in order to be "safe". I then realized that guns do not kill people, people kill people. We will always have criminals and many of us wouldn't be able to take them on barehanded or with a knife, armed civilians would. Now remember that 2nd amendment's major purpose was to protect the other amendments from being destroyed by its own government. You cannot fight a tyrannical government through courts as they control them. If you want more statistics then I can get them for you after I am done with work. Also my PP is mrsilkunderwear@gmail.com

Originally Posted by mykevermin A dollar says the closest you came to any statistic about guns and crime was the fifteen seconds you spent looking at the Amazon.com page for John Lott's book. If you want to have a legitimate discussion, why don't you introduce an actual statistic instead of herp-derp NRA rhetoric? "More guns, less crime" is pablum in the same way Wayne LaPierre's "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" rhetoric is pablum.

Maine has perhaps the most loose gun control laws in the nation and it also has one of the lowest rate of violent crime per 100,000 people.

Chicago (Illinois) on the other hand...

Let's compare:

Maine Population: 1,328,361
Violent Crimes: 1,621

Rate per 100,000 occupants: 122

Illinois Population: 12,830,632
Violent Crimes: 55,835

Rate per 100,000 occupants: 435.2

Oh, goodie. Now that that one vlogger linked to the UCR, every two bit hack with an ISP will connect two data points sloppily to prove a point they start with. You mean to tell me a state with no real discernible metropolitan areas has a lower crime rate than the city with one of the largest, most populous metropolitan areas in the nation (an MSA that, on its own, is more than 200% larger than the entire *state* population of the comparison group)?

No shit? Really? And next thing you'll try telling me that North Dakota and Arizona have different climates, too.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Oh, goodie. Now that that one vlogger linked to the UCR, every two bit hack with an ISP will connect two data points sloppily to prove a point they start with. You mean to tell me a state with no real discernible metropolitan areas has a lower crime rate than the city with one of the largest, most populous metropolitan areas in the nation (an MSA that, on its own, is more than 200% larger than the entire *state* population of the comparison group)? No shit? Really? And next thing you'll try telling me that North Dakota and Arizona have different climates, too.

Oh... so if violent crime is linked to cities maybe we should propose population regulation?

Because it is a fact that gun regulation has done nothing to stop violent crime in Chicago. It has a disgustingly high violent crime rate---even when compared to other urban areas in the United States.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Oh, goodie. Now that that one vlogger linked to the UCR, every two bit hack with an ISP will connect two data points sloppily to prove a point they start with. You mean to tell me a state with no real discernible metropolitan areas has a lower crime rate than the city with one of the largest, most populous metropolitan areas in the nation (an MSA that, on its own, is more than 200% larger than the entire *state* population of the comparison group)? No shit? Really? And next thing you'll try telling me that North Dakota and Arizona have different climates, too.

Could you please supply us with some statistics or evidence to back up your claims?

Originally Posted by mrsilkunderwear Could you please supply us with some statistics or evidence to back up your claims?

TENNESSEE'S VIOLENT CRIME RATE IS OVER 600 PER 100,000! THAT'S 133% GREATER THAN ILLINOIS! LORDY, LORDY, WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO?

my point is that cherry picking any data is an inefficient exercise. crime rates are moving ineffective of gun laws, as I've pointed out in the connecticut shooting thread. allowing private sales of firearms to occur without background checks is exploitable and only serves the purpose of allowing people who should *not* purchase or possess firearms to do both.

stopping firearms-related fatalities is my goal more than reducing shootings that can, at best, be categorized as outliers. part of reducing firearms-related fatalities includes stricter gun control legislation - because when I say "firearms-related fatalities," I mean more than deliberate criminal usage - I mean idiot gun owners who accidentally shoot someone, or idiot gun owners whose children get ahold of their firearms and use them accidentally (or not).

nobody is an absolutist on the second amendment, so the size of your magazine isn't anything anyone can reasonably claim as the last stand for arguing for no compromise on gun control.

Originally Posted by mykevermin Oh, goodie. Now that that one vlogger linked to the UCR, every two bit hack with an ISP will connect two data points sloppily to prove a point they start with. You mean to tell me a state with no real discernible metropolitan areas has a lower crime rate than the city with one of the largest, most populous metropolitan areas in the nation (an MSA that, on its own, is more than 200% larger than the entire *state* population of the comparison group)? No shit? Really? And next thing you'll try telling me that North Dakota and Arizona have different climates, too.

Even the metropolitan areas of Maine have a smaller violent crime rate than the non-metropolitan areas of Illinois.

Non-Metropolitan Illinois
Population: 750,998
Violent Crimes: 1,076

Rate Per 100,000: 143

Metropolitan Maine
Population: 779,776
Violent Crimes: 971

Rate Per 100,000: 124

Almost every firearm used illegally was originally obtained legally though a licensed dealer. It eventually ends up in the hands of someone who isn't supposed to have one.

You can ultimately reduce the violence by more accountability and oversight. Federal law has weakened the ability of BAFTE to inspect and monitor firearms dealers; it was already underfunded in this area to begin with. This leaves it up to the states to start requiring a state license and inspections.

1. States should require a state license and perform routine inspections.

2. Regulate the secondary market by requiring screening in each state for a private sale. Hold private sellers criminally accountable for unlawful straw purchases.

3. Pass laws requiring firearm registration.

4. Require firearm theft to be reported.

5. Enact one gun per month law to prevent mass trafficking.

6. Restrict sales of cheap, low quality "Saturday Night Specials" to reduce trafficking.

States that have already implemented these countermeasures tend to have lower interstate trafficking of guns purchased in said state.

I'm getting really tired of people coming in here with half baked ideas and opinions, and then acting like we should take them seriously. It's the same god damn shit that Ron Paul employs in politics when he whines about not being taken seriously.

Maybe some of you should take a hard look at yourselves and figure out why we don't take you seriously. If you act like big boys we'll treat you like it, otherwise all we've got is name calling, whether it's us calling you stupid or you calling us "leftists".

And yeah, just wtf is a leftist potato?