Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Arming Janitors, when Trained Professionals just won't do.


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#31 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:05 PM

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.
Posted Image

#32 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 04:25 PM

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...-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

#33 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:06 PM

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

#34 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:18 PM

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. :roll:
Posted Image

#35 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:24 PM

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. :roll:


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.

#36 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:40 PM

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. :roll:


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

#37 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:08 PM

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.
Posted Image

#38 Access_Denied

Access_Denied

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:15 PM

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. :roll:


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

#39 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:15 PM

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.

#40 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:24 PM

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?

Edited by Clak, 16 January 2013 - 03:11 AM.
noticed spell check typo

Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#41 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:44 PM

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 employees 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?


How about no name calling and instead use facts? Otherwise you act like
Posted Image

#42 thrustbucket

thrustbucket

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:46 AM

What is a leftist potato?


You know, a tuber. A starchy filler that puts you in a happy carb coma but isn't terribly nutritious, making many fat.
It's also what mostly gets thrown around the vs forum.

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 pretty ok with all of those except 6. It's unnecessary and redundant with 5.

#43 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 01:10 AM

You know, a tuber. A starchy filler that puts you in a happy carb coma but isn't terribly nutritious, making many fat.
It's also what mostly gets thrown around the vs forum.



I'm pretty ok with all of those except 6. It's unnecessary and redundant with 5.



Well, to be fair, I'm not certain on that one, either. Although you really don't want a gun that can break down due to bad quality. Taking care of a good one is another story, though.

#44 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:19 AM

You do realize that for many people potatoes are a food staple, right? I mean you do know what the Irish potato famine was, correct? They're incredibly nutritous, as long as you don't spend half your time sitting on your ass jerking off to the latest issue of New Republic.

You can't even get nutrition right, let alone politics or economics.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#45 thrustbucket

thrustbucket

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:14 AM

Well, to be fair, I'm not certain on that one, either. Although you really don't want a gun that can break down due to bad quality. Taking care of a good one is another story, though.


I have never heard of a one of the lower priced guns blowing up and harming anyone. My main concern is that low income people living in low income neighborhoods have access to protection they can afford.
Allowing only the affluent to have guns is not much better than allowing only authority to have guns.

You do realize that for many people potatoes are a food staple, right? I mean you do know what the Irish potato famine was, correct? They're incredibly nutritous, as long as you don't spend half your time sitting on your ass jerking off to the latest issue of New Republic.

You can't even get nutrition right, let alone politics or economics.


Which politics are those? Which economics? Quote it if you want to besmirch me.

Go ahead and subsist on only fries for a few weeks and see how you're doing.

You see, the interesting thing about the potato is it's nutritional value is highly dependent on how you cook it. Deep frying them in beer batter and flinging them at people is more than a little analogous to the dogmatic hate, intolerance, and propaganda you routinely tarnish these forums with.

#46 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 05:43 AM

I have never heard of a one of the lower priced guns blowing up and harming anyone. My main concern is that low income people living in low income neighborhoods have access to protection they can afford.
Allowing only the affluent to have guns is not much better than allowing only authority to have guns.



I took a look a Wiki earlier, and the explanation it gives is that they tend to have poorer accuracy at longer range and low durability. If it's meant for self-defense, though, I guess that wouldn't be too much of an issue, say at home or something and with little or no need to be used.

I do get that price is a factor for many people who might like to own a firearm, though.

#47 Cantatus

Cantatus

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 06:07 AM

You see, the interesting thing about the potato is it's nutritional value is highly dependent on how you cook it. Deep frying them in beer batter and flinging them at people is more than a little analogous to the dogmatic hate, intolerance, and propaganda you routinely tarnish these forums with.


Except far more delicious.

#48 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 07:28 AM

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.

The statistic in regards to Tennessee bothered me so I did some research and voila!
http://www.commercia...eports/?print=1
Sorry to burst your bubble.

#49 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 12:41 PM

Potatoes aren't so delicious when only half baked,however....;)
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#50 detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

    Look at that deal. It's so great!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 03:16 PM

I have a question about gun ownership. Are there any criminal repercussions to losing a gun own legally owns? Does go all "whoopsy daisy, I lost my gun." And nobody really cares? Even if there are laws that make it a crime to lose a legally-owned firearm, are they even strictly enforced? I have to wonder since gun sales are going through the roof, and I doubt these buyers actually give a damn of meticulously keeping track of each and every one they own.

Batsugunner.png


#51 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 16 January 2013 - 04:02 PM

That's why I've been saying that Nancy Lanza shares some responsibility for Adam shooting those people, they were her guns and she obviously wasn't being responsible enough to keep them out of anyone else's hands.

Personal responsibility and all that.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#52 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 16 January 2013 - 04:08 PM

The only person at fault was the kid that did the shooting. No one else shares in it.

There are no shortcuts. No do-overs. What happened, happened. Trust me. I know. All of this matters.

Madden 13 SB Champ in the CAG gentleman's league.


#53 vherub

vherub

Posted 17 January 2013 - 01:45 AM

In terms of gun resale, it varies state to state. Some states require an individual reseller to be a Federal Firearms Licensee. I believe this is the case in Connecticut.
But in other states (and it varies) an individual could buy a gun, and resell it to anyone else in state, provided you were reasonably certain they could legally own a gun- and even here, there is latitude and little legal responsibility on the part of the seller. There would be no need for a background check, or even a receipt of sale. Much of this resulted from FOPA's passage in 1986.
In more states, it's actually far more onerous to sell alcohol to a friend (of legal drinking age) without a license than it is to sell a working minigun manufactured pre-1986, a flamethrower, a homemade handgun or any current legally manufactured gun.

#54 Jruth

Jruth

    No trite shit crew gamer bro

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 January 2013 - 02:16 AM

Everyone should be required by law to keep guns not in use locked up in a home with minors or mentally unstable people. And if you fail to do this, you get jail time. Can we not agree? How about something with substance O instead of your bullshit.

Haven't you figured it out yet fanboys? Your mommy can't afford both consoles! Be grateful with what you got and shut the Fuck up.

 

 

                                                                                                                                             - starving African bro

 


#55 detectiveconan16

detectiveconan16

    Look at that deal. It's so great!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 January 2013 - 11:46 AM

My question still is do people actually get in trouble with the law when they lose their guns in those states with lax laws when purchasing a gun? I'm not talking about reselling, I'm talking about good ole "d'oh! I lost my gun!" From what I read elsewhere with a simple search, that a number of people may not even admit they lost their gun to the police, for fear of dealing with them. If something bad does happen to their legally purchased firearm, I wonder if they can get away with feigning ignorance. If so, we've got a real big problem on our hands in this country.

Batsugunner.png


#56 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 17 January 2013 - 12:50 PM

In terms of gun resale, it varies state to state. Some states require an individual reseller to be a Federal Firearms Licensee. I believe this is the case in Connecticut.
But in other states (and it varies) an individual could buy a gun, and resell it to anyone else in state, provided you were reasonably certain they could legally own a gun- and even here, there is latitude and little legal responsibility on the part of the seller. There would be no need for a background check, or even a receipt of sale. Much of this resulted from FOPA's passage in 1986.
In more states, it's actually far more onerous to sell alcohol to a friend (of legal drinking age) without a license than it is to sell a working minigun manufactured pre-1986, a flamethrower, a homemade handgun or any current legally manufactured gun.

Went to a flea market here over the weekend, saw a rifle for sale and a couple of shotguns at various booths. I could have bought a shotgun and a loaf of sourdough bread from the booth beside it.:lol:
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift