Gun Homicide rates

[Fearia]

I'm late to the conversation

The original argument of "other countries did it, and look at them!" is unfortunately not a very good argument.  Other countries are not the same.  Other countries have different cultural values, economic factors, population densities, mental health policies, etc.  There are many factors that contribute to violent crime.  The best way to see impact of gun laws in the nation is to compare cities with similar demographics but varying gun laws within a country.  This was done already in many studies, and actually found that the gun laws did not have a correlation to homicide rates.

Without causation, you don't have much of an argument.  So, let's take a look at causation then:  What are common factors that researchers have found in prisons?  Mental illness, drug use, low education, and poverty are pretty common.  Socio-economic factors that drive people to desperation.  So, how's socio-economic programs in the US?  How do we treat the mentally ill, the addicted, the uneducated and the poor?

Oh . . .

Maybe instead of focusing on the tool used, we focus on the actual cause?

Guns are the great equalizer.  If someone was to walk up to me today, and they wanted something from me, they have 2 ways to go about getting what they want.  They can reason with me, and convince me that I want to give them what they want.  Or they can use force and take what they want.  But if I'm armed, I have a much better chance of being able to eliminate that second option from the equation, leaving only reasoning.

 

[rebelschs]

God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal.

 

[Syntax Error]

Without causation, you don't have much of an argument. So, let's take a look at causation then: What are common factors that researchers have found in prisons? Mental illness, drug use, low education, and poverty are pretty common. Socio-economic factors that drive people to desperation. So, how's socio-economic programs in the US? How do we treat the mentally ill, the addicted, the uneducated and the poor?

Oh . . .

"We can't emulate western European nations in their gun laws because they're too different! But if we had social welfare programs like those in western Europe, that would fix all the gun violence..." Though, don't get me wrong: if you're advocating for a western European style social safety-net and healthcare program, I'm completely on board. It's just not going to single-handedly fix the gun violence issue.

The best way to see impact of gun laws in the nation is to compare cities with similar demographics but varying gun laws within a country.

That is, in fact, a terrible way of judging its impact. Which was discussed at length upthread when people said "But Chicago had a handgun ban and..." and apparently were unaware that the primary source of handguns in the city was the south Cook County suburbs some ten minutes away. Cities are unable to regulate firearms in the same manner that nations can -- there's no border control to enter a city, cities can't maintain federal records, cities are still bound by state/federal laws, cities are geographically small and easy to leave to circumvent laws without even needing to leave the state (much less the country), etc.

 

[Fearia]

"We can't emulate western European nations in their gun laws because they're too different! But if we had social welfare programs like those in western Europe, that would fix all the gun violence..."

That is, in fact, a terrible way of judging its impact. Which was discussed at length upthread when people said "But Chicago had a handgun ban and..." and apparently were unaware that the primary source of handguns in the city was the south Cook County suburbs some ten minutes away. Cities are unable to regulate firearms in the same manner that nations can -- there's no border control to enter a city, cities can't maintain federal records, cities are still bound by state/federal laws, cities are geographically small and easy to leave to circumvent laws without even needing to leave the state (much less the country), etc.

I never said that we couldn't emulate their gun laws. We could. But it'd be idiotic because inanimate objects don't make anyone do anything. Cause and effect are pretty important factors to ignore. What causes someone to go commit a crime? If your answer is "A gun.", you're a special kind of person. Treating symptoms is a great way to keep a sickness going on though.

Not that actually instituting a ban would do much good. I could literally take any one of my guns and bury it without any protection for the gun. A year later, I could dig it up, and it'd still be 100% fully functioning after a good cleaning. There is no eliminating all the guns in the country in some magic way. In instituting a ban, you'd be taking away some people's only means of providing food for themselves (See: Alaska), and leaving criminals to be the only ones with guns. Smart!

I like how you call comparing different cities crime statistics terrible, but find comparing different countries a better option. Obviously, comparing places with more differences works better than comparing places with less differences. Funny how that works.

 

[Syntax Error]

I never said that we couldn't emulate their gun laws. We could. But it'd be idiotic because inanimate objects don't make anyone do anything.

No, they just allow people to do it much more efficiently. Seriously, what kind of inane reasoning is that? Presumably you agree that we should ban missile launchers, not because missile launchers make people commit crimes but because the damage potential from people firing them is great enough to warrant their ban. Now, you can play the game where you go in the other direction and say "I can kill someone with this stick so let's just ban sticks, hurr hurr" but then you're equivocating the damage potential of a stick with that of a gun -- in which case, we don't need guns because sticks are just as deadly.

In reality, missile launchers are much more destructive than guns and guns are much more destructive than sticks so it makes perfect sense to regulate each at different levels and to adjust those levels of regulation when they're failing to curtail the damage.

The bit about Alaska is just a strawman since the nations I cited do not prohibit any gun ownership (especially hunting rifles) but rather regulate it far more effectively than we do in the US. Likewise, while stricter regulation will not magically make all the guns disappear, it would over time reduce the amount available. Gun manufacturers still do tremendous business on the private market so someone is buying all those new guns. Likewise, while Chicago's handgun ban was in effect, the south suburban gun shops just over the city line sold a crapton of weapons. No one was saying "Good thing we have all these buried guns that will still be good in 100 years", they were making new firearm purchases (and then transferring them via straw sales).

I like how you call comparing different cities crime statistics terrible, but find comparing different countries a better option.

Well, yes. Because both those statements are true. I gave multiple reason why this is.

You never did respond to whether or not you were advocating for emulating western/northern European style social welfare and medical programs. Anyway, the whole "We're too different so we need unique American ideas! Yay exceptionalism!" schtick was responded to back in the beginning of this thread and you're not bringing anything new to the discussion that wasn't brought up then so I'll let it go at that.

 

[Fearia]

No, they just allow people to do it much more efficiently. Seriously, what kind of inane reasoning is that? Presumably you agree that we should ban missile launchers, not because missile launchers make people commit crimes but because the damage potential from people firing them is great enough to warrant their ban. Now, you can play the game where you go in the other direction and say "I can kill someone with this stick so let's just ban sticks, hurr hurr" but then you're equivocating the damage potential of a stick with that of a gun -- in which case, we don't need guns because sticks are just as deadly.

In reality, missile launchers are much more destructive than guns and guns are much more destructive than sticks so it makes perfect sense to regulate each at different levels and to adjust those levels of regulation when they're failing to curtail the damage.

The bit about Alaska is just a strawman since the nations I cited do not prohibit any gun ownership (especially hunting rifles) but rather regulate it far more effectively than we do in the US. Likewise, while stricter regulation will not magically make all the guns disappear, it would over time reduce the amount available. Gun manufacturers still do tremendous business on the private market so someone is buying all those new guns. Likewise, while Chicago's handgun ban was in effect, the south suburban gun shops just over the city line sold a crapton of weapons. No one was saying "Good thing we have all these buried guns that will still be good in 100 years", they were making new firearm purchases (and then transferring them via straw sales).

Well, yes. Because both those statements are true. I gave multiple reason why this is.

You never did respond to whether or not you were advocating for emulating western/northern European style social welfare and medical programs. Anyway, the whole "We're too different so we need unique American ideas! Yay exceptionalism!" schtick was responded to back in the beginning of this thread and you're not bringing anything new to the discussion that wasn't brought up then so I'll let it go at that.

So, you're comparing sticks, guns, and missile launchers now? Smart.

Let's make things clear: A stick is not anywhere near the level of utility as a gun. A missile launcher has no defensive utility what-so-ever, and is a weapon that has mass destruction capabilities.

A gun, on the other hand, is a defensive tool that can be used to equalize against a larger threat. For example, when a man with a knife tried to break into my house while my wife was home alone. He knew she was home, alone. He did not know she was armed. He's now in jail, and my wife is safe. Would a missile launcher do that for her? How about a stick? And what do you think his intentions were? To say "Hey, I just want your stuff, have a nice day!"

Your solution of "ban guns!" is horrendously ineffective. Essentially, it leaves the bigger to prey on the weaker with no hope of defense. Which is why, when law enforcement personnel across the nation were polled, a VAST majority voted that gun control would *NOT* help deter crime, but encourage it.

I never needed to respond to what I think about emulating other countries welfare systems is a good thing because I don't have an ultimate solution. You know why I don't? Because there isn't one. You seem to of missed a key point when saying "Oh, how great European countries are!" when it comes to homicide / crime statistics: No conviction? No crime took place. So, never find the bad guy, or the bad guy dies? Well, no crime! Great for driving down numbers!

Interesting fact: Remove the statistical outliers for homicide rates in the US, and our crime rates are actually lower than the UKs.

In addition, denying places like Washington D.C. and Chicago of their horrible homicide rates because "criminals can just get guns in the surrounding areas!" is bullshit. "Gun control only works if it's everywhere!". Right, so all those criminals that are driving the crime rates up in those areas would suddenly stop breaking laws because no one had access to guns?

Interesting thing to note: Washington D.C. has a gun ownership rate of 1.6%, but a homicide rate of 21.8 per 100k. Wyoming? 59% ownership rate with a homicide rate of 1.4 per 100k. Those damn guns. They just have a mind of their own and drive people to kill!

But hey, don't believe me? Why don't you poll some prisoners and ask them if they fear a citizen with a gun more or less than a police officer when they are in the commission of a crime? Hint: That poll was already done. Criminals would rather run into police. http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2012a/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/5de089825c00843e872579b80079912d/$FILE/SenState0305AttachB.pdf

 

[Syntax Error]

So, you're comparing sticks, guns, and missile launchers now? Smart.

Thanks. I thought so, too. You know, mainly as an illustration of how we have graduated processes or regulation for different objects.

Your solution of "ban guns!" is horrendously ineffective.

Thankfully, that's not my solution. You should probably re-read the thread since I say this numerous times.

I never needed to respond to what I think about emulating other countries welfare systems is a good thing because I don't have an ultimate solution. You know why I don't? Because there isn't one.

I agree. Just as I agree that strict regulation won't stop 100% of gun homicides. But I do feel it will help drive the rates down just as a more robust social welfare program and safety net (including mental healthcare, drug programs, etc) will help do the same. Just as we've seen BOTH do in other nations. But we want to pretend there's no way it could work here because America is just too super-special.

Interesting fact: Remove the statistical outliers for homicide rates in the US, and our crime rates are actually lower than the UKs.

This thread is about gun homicide rates, not nebulous "crime rates". Another point that was mentioned upthread at length.

In addition, denying places like Washington D.C. and Chicago of their horrible homicide rates because "criminals can just get guns in the surrounding areas!" is bullshit.

Huh? No, it's actual fact. Another point noted (and linked to) upthread.

You know, I'm starting to think you never actually read the thread. Which is fine and all, no one's going to make you, but this is what I meant by you bringing nothing new to the conversation.

I know, my bad for responding again. Just thought it was a point worth making.

 

[Fearia]

Thankfully, that's not my solution. You should probably re-read the thread since I say this numerous times.

I never read the thread, minus the first page and the most recent posts. As I stated earlier, I'm new to the conversation and starting fresh. TLDR; the entire thread. Either way, "more restrictions" aren't going to help. One's similar to European countries aren't going to help either. Once again, what makes you think that you know better than LE professionals that deal with criminals on a daily basis?

But we want to pretend there's no way it could work here because America is just too super-special.

You know why it wouldn't work here? It's not because we're super special. It's because gun control does not have a positive impact on crime statistics. Period. If it did, you'd see statistically significant changes to crime rates in STATES that enact stricter gun control (ie: California). "Oh, Fearia, but the UK has such great gun homicide rates!". Oh, you got me there. The place that doesn't allow private ownership of guns is doing great on gun homicide. I'm sure that makes the person who gets stabbed to death feel great to know they weren't shot to death. Or the woman that was raped so much happier that she didn't get shot, she only was raped and had no equalizing way to defend herself.

It's great that gun homicides went down in those places. Too bad crime rates weren't significantly changed in a positive way. And it's a shame that when adjusted to be recorded in the same way they are here, they're at the same levels of the US now. But it's okay. Let's compare numbers between the US (who says "If a crime was reported, it's a crime") versus the UK (who says "It's not a crime if we don't try AND convict someone with the crime"). That makes perfect sense.

This thread is about gun homicide rates, not nebulous "crime rates". Another point that was mentioned upthread at length.

Oh, I guess a person who's stabbed to death instead of being shot to death feels better because they weren't killed with a gun. Especially since they wouldn't have any reasonable way to even the playing field if they were older, smaller, or disabled. I didn't realize we were going to try to stack the deck in the "guns are bad" deck. Next up: Cars are more likely to kill you in places that cars are allowed. They must be bad!

Huh? No, it's actual fact. Another point noted (and linked to) upthread.

Way to ignore the line following it. If your theory is correct (that gun control works), places with less gun control would still have higher homicides than those with more gun control. Just because "You can leave the area and get a gun and bring it back" does not account for the fact that states with MORE GUNS have statistically lower homicide rates. If gun control worked, areas with more gun control would still be impacted in a statistically significant manner versus those that have less.

Making something illegal only impacts those that follow the law. It unbalances the playing field so that criminals have the upper hand. Which is exactly why "Well, they can just leave the area and get a gun" is bullshit. The majority of gun crime is committed with guns not legally purchased by the criminal. See: Stolen or illegally purchased.

Just thought it was a point worth making.

It's only a point worth making if you actually address the points. But you haven't. Instead, you've thrown around buzz phrases used by gun control advocates while completely denying actual facts.

Focusing on guns is not going to make criminals stop killing people. Once again, we're back to cause and effect. You can give someone less reasons to kill other people, but in the end, if they want to kill someone, they will find a way. Personally, I find it preferential that those more likely to be preyed on by criminals of opportunity have a better way to defend themselves.

But hey, gun control restrictions like banning guns in school zones has done wonders for keeping active shooters from attacking them. Just like keeping them out of hospitals and military bases has kept those places safe. It's not like active shooters care if they're going to be slowed down or possibly stopped by an armed victim. If they cared so much, we'd see less active shooting events in places like police stations and gun ranges . . .

Oh . . . wait . . .

 

[Syntax Error]

I never read the thread, minus the first page and the most recent posts. As I stated earlier, I'm new to the conversation and starting fresh. TLDR; the entire thread.

Oh, well... never mind then. I mean, if you're that disinterested then there's no point in having the conversation.

TL;DR rest of post.

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="Syntax Error" post="12157073" timestamp="1413214801"]Oh, well... never mind then. I mean, if you're that disinterested then there's no point in having the conversation.

TL;DR rest of post.[/quote]
Lulz. Can't address points, so leaves. Good job!

Maybe tonight while at work I'll read the rest of the babble in here, but if it's anything like the "facts" you've stated... well, it's going to be a waste of time.

Cherry picking data clusters doesn't work. Comparing countries with vastly different variables does NOT logically make sense. In order to find causation, you have to isolate variables. Which is why comparing similar geographic regions in the same country with varying gun laws is more accurate. Less variables = more statistically relevant data. Saying otherwise means you should probably retake any critical thinking class you've taken.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Don't mind Syntax, he doesn't understand the purpose of the second amendment. 

 

[Fearia]

So, I read through the entire thread now.

Wow.  So, my points brought up weren't addressed earlier, and still haven't been addressed.  Surprise, surprise!

So, once again, why is it that comparing countries (with different government structures, cultures, population densities, education levels, etc.) is better than comparing different regions (with very similar variables)?  Critical thinking much?  Changing multiple variables that can have an impact on the results does not show causation or correlation.

I did find an interesting argument though from earlier.  "Guns are a great deterrent, but it's overkill" essentially.  Really?  So, a woman that weighs 100 lbs should have a fighting chance against a potential rapist using something less than a gun?  Interesting.  I guess all those people who get pepper sprayed and continue on are just statistical anomalies . . . even though it's a requirement to be pepper sprayed and fight through to be able to make it onto a modern police force.  And I guess a knife fight against a larger assailant is just a risk worth taking.

"Reasonable" regulations are fine.  Very few gun owners believe violent felons should have guns.  Straw purchases are a federal crime, making it illegal across the US.  But guess what?  That's not enforced . . . so we need to pass more laws!  Background checks?  Already a requirement in a majority of cases, unless it's a waste of resources because it's unnecessary (See: background check already ran, CPL holder).  Very few exceptions are out there, and those places don't have a major issue with gun crime.  Odd.

Something tells me your definition of "reasonable" is different than mine though.  Capacity limits and the like.  All of which have proven ineffective for reducing crime while hindering self defense.

 

[dohdough]

Something tells me your definition of "reasonable" is different than mine though. Capacity limits and the like. All of which have proven ineffective for reducing crime while hindering self defense.

Your posts are full of stupid and flat out admit that you didn't read anything(as if that were hard to tell). Like seriously, do you understand anything that you're reading?

Gun violence happens for a plethora of reasons and considering the gun-fetishism of this country, guns being used in violent acts are simply inevitable, but that doesn't mean that we can mitigate some of the collateral damage caused by our impotence to do ANYTHING. WHICH IS THE POINT. I would've thought that a congresswoman getting shot in the head or a bunch of white kids being mowed down would've gotten something rolling, but you conservatives sure as showed me!

If a rapist isn't going to stop after having 10 rounds sent in their direction with the intent of killing them, round #11 to infinity isn't really going to stop them either. And if it takes more than 10 rounds for the shooter to stop the rapist, that's a problem in itself. Last time I checked, no one is saying that potential rape victims can't protect themselves with a firearm. Your strawman is a strawman.

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

Your posts are full of stupid and flat out admit that you didn't read anything(as if that were hard to tell). Like seriously, do you understand anything that you're reading?

Gun violence happens for a plethora of reasons and considering the gun-fetishism of this country, guns being used in violent acts are simply inevitable, but that doesn't mean that we can mitigate some of the collateral damage caused by our impotence to do ANYTHING. WHICH IS THE POINT. I would've thought that a congresswoman getting shot in the head or a bunch of white kids being mowed down would've gotten something rolling, but you conservatives sure as showed me!

If a rapist isn't going to stop after having 10 rounds sent in their direction with the intent of killing them, round #11 to infinity isn't really going to stop them either. And if it takes more than 10 rounds for the shooter to stop the rapist, that's a problem in itself. Last time I checked, no one is saying that potential rape victims can't protect themselves with a firearm. Your strawman is a strawman.

1. What is the point of the second amendment?

2. What kind of collateral damage are you talking about?

 

[Fearia]

Your posts are full of stupid and flat out admit that you didn't read anything(as if that were hard to tell). Like seriously, do you understand anything that you're reading?

Gun violence happens for a plethora of reasons and considering the gun-fetishism of this country, guns being used in violent acts are simply inevitable, but that doesn't mean that we can mitigate some of the collateral damage caused by our impotence to do ANYTHING. WHICH IS THE POINT. I would've thought that a congresswoman getting shot in the head or a bunch of white kids being mowed down would've gotten something rolling, but you conservatives sure as showed me!

If a rapist isn't going to stop after having 10 rounds sent in their direction with the intent of killing them, round #11 to infinity isn't really going to stop them either. And if it takes more than 10 rounds for the shooter to stop the rapist, that's a problem in itself. Last time I checked, no one is saying that potential rape victims can't protect themselves with a firearm. Your strawman is a strawman.

My posts are "full of stupid" and proof that I didn't read the entire post? Excuse me? Did you even read my most post before responding?

Here, let me break some things down for you in simple terms since you don't seem to understand:

Gun violence happens for a plethora reasons. But in actually dealing with it first hand, I've found most of it to stem from inner city violence (see: drug, gang related). Gun fetishism isn't the reason (unless maybe you consider the entire "gang lifestyle" to be fetishism). A congresswoman getting shot in the head or a school shooting aren't what causes places like Washington D.C., Chicago, or Detroit to be statistically disproportionate to other areas when it comes to gun violence. Which is why you don't hear about that as often as, say, "drive by resulted in a 3 year old getting shot and killed in the crossfire."

I'm actually not a conservative just because I find your "common sense, reasonable" regulations idiotic. I don't vote along party lines, but if I did, I'd be considered more left leaning. But, you know, idiocy . . . I guess it must go both ways.

Your logic is astounding. What training have you been through to be able to make these claims that if round #10 doesn't stop someone, round #11 won't either? I'll tell you a secret: In actual training, I've had the typical arsenal of self defense tools used against me. My friends (and trainers) have been through actual gunfights and survived. Including being shot themselves. And guess what? These people, who have actually been through these situations and survived, all agree that your arbitrary capacity limit is absolutely idiotic and nonsensical. Where is that magic line of "you don't need that many rounds to stop an attacker"? Should I not carry more than a certain amount of rounds on the job, because I'll "never need them"? What scientific data do you have to prove that a certain amount of rounds are "not needed"?

Guess what? If you're shot 10 times, you're probably not worrying about raping someone anymore. You're worrying about surviving. Round #11, 12, and on are not to "keep from being raped" from one attacker. They're for the time someone decides to invade my home (which is typically done with 2 or more people). They're for the time when someone is dead set on killing, and the first 10 either didn't connect, or did not DISABLE INSTANTLY. You see, extreme situations of stress kills things like fine motor ability and does interesting things to the brain like causing tunnel vision. Due to these factors, no matter how hard you train, there's a chance you're going to miss and not be able to shoot the exact spot to end that situation. Unlike the movies, if someone is shot, it doesn't instantly incapacitate unless the shot takes out the central nervous system. See: Brain or Spinal Cord.

What does this mean to you, the individual that thinks if 10 rounds can't stop a potential attacker, 11 won't? It means that Officer Timothy Gramins would most likely be dead if he gave up after the 10th round connected. You see, for those who can't read articles, it took more than 14 hits (6 of which in fatal over time locations) to down his attacker. By a man who's qualifications include being a master's firearm instructor and a sniper for the Tactical Intervention Unit.

But, go ahead. Tell me again how my post is full of "stupid". Explain to me how in California, artificial magazine limits have saved the day and ended gun violence. Show me how requiring tools to remove these 10 round magazines from rifles, and then replace them, has saved lives without endangering those who wish to defend themselves.

Oh, and last time I checked, Syntax was saying that a potential rape victim can't protect themselves with a firearm.

As more of a shade of gray, I'd try to model our gun penetration, regulations and restrictions more after the numerous countries mentioned upthread who manage to not "ban all guns" ...

You see, these "numerous countries" only allow firearms for hunting and target shooting. They restrict things like CPLs from everyone except law enforcement. But hey, way to read the entire thread and understand the ramifications of what's being suggested. "Like seriously, do you understand anything that you're reading?"

 

[dohdough]

tl;dr brah! tl;dr!

Spoiler

Your posts are full of STUPID because you can't understand what you're reading. Instead of making intelligent arguments, you throw up strawman arguments and argue against points that no one here is making. I even pointed directly at my main argument and you STILL can't seem to comprehend anything that either of us(me and Syntax) are trying to say. So yeah, your posts are full-on pants-on-head stupid.

Please point out where Syntax said that potential rape victims can't protect themselves with firearms. TIA

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="dohdough" post="12161773" timestamp="1413381659"]tl;dr brah! tl;dr!

Spoiler

Your posts are full of STUPID because you can't understand what you're reading. Instead of making intelligent arguments, you throw up strawman arguments and argue against points that no one here is making. I even pointed directly at my main argument and you STILL can't seem to comprehend anything that either of us(me and Syntax) are trying to say. So yeah, your posts are full-on pants-on-head stupid.

Please point out where Syntax said that potential rape victims can't protect themselves with firearms. TIA[/quote]
Read the quote and the paragraph after it. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? I guess that shouldn't be a surprise because you don't even understand what a strawman argument is. That, or failing to actually state a real position is hard for you. Because I've addressed yours directly. Along with the typical crap regulations that is "reasonable gun control" suggested. Fail.

 

[dohdough]

OH so we're playing the mimicry game?
 

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="dohdough" post="12161793" timestamp="1413382596"]OH so we're playing the mimicry game?

[/quote]
I see that you've got solid points. Continue!

 

[dohdough]

I see that you've got solid points. Continue!

Thanks for confirming what I'm saying! I guess you DON'T have the self awareness of a rock after all! Good on you, kiddo!

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="dohdough" post="12161803" timestamp="1413382921"]Thanks for confirming what I'm saying! I guess you DON'T have the self awareness of a rock after all! Good on you, kiddo![/quote]
How about writing out what you believe will resolve gun violence? You know, in a detailed fashion instead of "pass some regulations!". We've already gone over capacity limits (which you never responded on). What's next? Or is it all going to be vague personal attacks with no backing or facts?

You're really bad at this. You've made no point.

 

[dohdough]

1. What is the point of the second amendment?
2. What kind of collateral damage are you talking about?

1. If we're being honest with ourselves, it's obviously written to make sure that everyone can fight off the British if they try to take back the colonies since there was no standing army.

2. Bullets don't magically find their mark like the gun from The Fifth Element and don't turn into flower petals if they don't.

 

[dohdough]

How about writing out what you believe will resolve gun violence? You know, in a detailed fashion instead of "pass some regulations!". We've already gone over capacity limits (which you never responded on). What's next? Or is it all going to be vague personal attacks with no backing or facts? You're really bad at this. You've made no point.

Psst...lemme tell about my plan to end world hunger...

Spoiler

feed people

I have another great idea on how to eliminate crime...

Spoiler

kill all the criminals

My biggest secret weapon of all to eliminate gun violence...

Spoiler

destroy all the guns in the world

I am ONE HUNDRED GAJILLION PERCENT SERIOUS about those ideas.

Last time I checked, my personal attacks aren't vague. In matter of fact, I'm pretty direct with them. I've even toned it down some(not that there's a need to anymore), but I'm trying to clean up my language a bit for the little one. Lucky you?

MY POINT was that gun FETISHISM, more commonly known as gun "culture," is so ingrained in us and the conservative's messaging is so powerful(even a self-professed left-leaning person like yourself uses their rhetoric), that even something like NICS checks for private sales or increased precautions if you have a home with someone that's mentally ill are seen as heresy. So yeah! I'm going to throw MORE REGULATIONS!! SO SCARY!!! at the problem because we're never going to get rid of guns or completely eliminate gun violence, rather than doing jack shit and let people whine about registries or slippery slopes.

"Resolve gun crime violence" you say? You might as well ask me to suck my own dick while I'm ing my own ass. At least THAT would be more plausible than that STRAWMAN you're using to rape the concept of reason.

Oh and LOLZ@ThugLyfe(tm)

 

[Fearia]

MY POINT was that gun FETISHISM, more commonly known as gun "culture," is so ingrained in us and the conservative's messaging is so powerful(even a self-professed left-leaning person like yourself uses their rhetoric), that even something like NICS checks for private sales or increased precautions if you have a home with someone that's mentally ill are seen as heresy. So yeah! I'm going to throw MORE REGULATIONS!! SO SCARY!!! at the problem because we're never going to get rid of guns or completely eliminate gun violence rather than doing jack shit and let people whine about registries or slippery slopes.

More regulations? I like how detailed you are. "I'M ASKING FOR MORE LAWS! I REFUSE TO NAME ANY, BUT MORE OF THEM!".

Rhetoric? So, I cite actual facts with reasoning, but it's "rhetoric" now? That's pretty awesome. Way to address the points I brought up though. Just throw the word "strawman" out there repeatedly without actually making a clear, concise statement on what your argument is.

So far, all you've said clearly is that it's "gun fetishism" driving the problem. But there's a problem with that. See, if it was the "gun culture" you are referencing, wouldn't most of the violence be at places like gun shows and NRA events? Man, those rednecks are just killing each other left and right! It's that gun fetishism brought on by the gun culture! It's definitely not related to drugs or gang violence. It's not like the outliers for our homicide rates in the US are places with high rates of crime that are typically gang related. Every day, rednecks and suburban gun fetishists are just flocking to the inner city to do drive bys!

But hey, a registry is what we need! Those registries have been the reason so much gun crime has been solved . . . oh wait, what's that? That only happens in CSI? But . . . but . . . that couldn't be true!

STRAWMAN! Who's got one?! You've got one! Avoid addressing any points I've made, while throwing made up reasons to why the US has a homicide rate driven by outliers! Man, that's some shit there.

Great point though. Keep it up!

 

[dohdough]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWsYJUbn_fQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpdSzyDtL0

Hmmm...I mention NICS checks for private sales and increased precautions for gun-owning households with mentally ill family members and I'm accused of not naming any "laws" or being "specific enough."

I use the term "rhethoric" because that's what you use. You bitch about tossing out "facts" as if socio-economic conditions are somehow universal. It's not like collecting guns is a cheap hobby(no shortage of racist s either). Thug Lyfe(tm) isn't the vector.

I mention people whining about registries and slippery slope arguments...and then you go talking about CSI and solving crimes as if registries would be primarily used to solve violent gun crimes, which I never even suggested! Not to mention that completely contradicts your earlier statement in the same exact post about me not being specific enough!

We(as a country) obviously don't give a shit about poor (black) people in the country because they tend to be disproportionately populated in under-resourced neighborhoods, whether it's in an urban or semi-urban location, so we don't talk about that because it doesn't affect most of the country geographically(it does when it comes to population density though, but context amiright). Yet when we want to do something that would lessen the flow of guns or mitigate the possibility of mass casualties, we can't do jack shit because "from my cold, dead hands!" You just said yourself that "outliers" don't matter, so you really don't give a about those populations either! Syntax tried repeatedly to steer the conversation into talking about socio-economic solutions, but you kept wanting to talk about your ing guns. Fine! You don't want to talk about the underlying issues? Then we'll go your way and talk about your ing guns. Oh right, you don't want to talk about them, you just want to talk about how it's not an issue nor does it factor into other issues.

Here's an oldie:

it, even I have my limits. Enjoy your straw. dohdough OUT!

Maybe...

 

[Fearia]

Hmmm...I mention NICS checks for private sales and increased precautions for gun-owning households with mentally ill family members and I'm accused of not naming any "laws" or being "specific enough."

You're cute. Using short terms with no details and calling them "specific". But hey, I'll humor you. NICS checks are already in place for a majority of sales. I'm fine with them being put in place for every sale, as long as it doesn't take longer to purchase. You know why I don't care though? Because they're already in place for the vast majority of sales, and most homicides aren't committed with a legally obtained firearm. But hey, strike one for useless addition to an already overly complicated set of laws!

Increased pre-cautions for households with mentally ill family members? You mean, like not allowing a person who is a threat to themselves or others to legally possess a firearm? Like, how the law already is federally, and each state expands on to different levels? See, this is what I mean by you not providing details. But continue to throw around buzz words like they mean something! It's cute and endearing!

I mention people whining about registries and slippery slope arguments...and then you go talking about CSI and solving crimes as if registries would be primarily used to solve violent gun crimes, which I never even suggested! Not to mention that completely contradicts your earlier statement in the same exact post about me not being specific enough!

You know why I said that? Because you mentioned registries. And "MORE REGULATIONS!" without being specific on what, so I had to fill in the blanks. Kind've like how I had to do a moment ago.

So yeah! I'm going to throw MORE REGULATIONS!! SO SCARY!!! at the problem because we're never going to get rid of guns or completely eliminate gun violence, rather than doing jack shit and let people whine about registries or slippery slopes.

Details again, honey. The arguments are always the same in regards to them: Registries help solve crimes! Except they're never used to actually do that. So, how about you tell me what good they'd do if my earlier assumption on what you meant was inaccurate?

We(as a country) obviously don't give a shit about poor (black) people in the country because they tend to be disproportionately populated in under-resourced neighborhoods, whether it's in an urban or semi-urban location, so we don't talk about that because it doesn't affect most of the country geographically(it does when it comes to population density though, but

context amiright). Yet when we want to do something that would lessen the flow of guns or mitigate the possibility of mass casualties, we can't do jack shit because "from my cold, dead hands!" You just said yourself that "outliers" don't matter, so you really don't give a

about those populations either! Syntax tried repeatedly to steer the conversation into talking about socio-economic solutions, but you kept wanting to talk about your ing guns. Fine! You don't want to talk about the underlying issues? Then we'll go your way and talk about your ing guns. Oh right, you don't want to talk about them, you just want to talk about how it's not an issue nor does it factor into other issues.

Except earlier, I said socio-economic issues probably has a lot more to do with the issue than guns. Thing is, how do you fix it? Give everyone free health care and food? We're already doing that, assuming you fill out paperwork. Hell, I used to get both due to health conditions. Very little pain involved!

How about education? GREAT! Raise the bar, I'm cool with that. But I don't predict that fixing everything magically, because PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO KILL EACH OTHER WITHOUT GOING TO SCHOOL. It's not ing rocket science. But hey, drugs and gang violence couldn't possibly stem from non-moral reasons. People can't just be greedy s, they have to be needy and under-provided for, right?

So, what's your solution, honey bunny? The suggested one of model after other countries (like the UK) that Syntax and the OP suggested?

Mine?

-Education (Though I doubt it's going to change what you label "gun culture" violence . . . even though it's really drug / gang violence. But hey, at least we can raise the bar a bit.)

-Mental Health reform, because kicking people to the curb a day after they have a psychotic break is dumb. "Well, they took their pills now. And I know they won't tomorrow, but that's not our problem!".

-Crack down on crime in these high crime neighborhoods. Take the drug pushers off the damn streets and put them away. Zero tolerance. Stop letting the ing crackheads back out on the street after a week repeatedly.

-Societal changes - Maybe the phrase "stop snitchin" should be, I don't know, erased? "Hey, I saw this kid do a drive by . . . but I ain't no snitch." Yup, that's not helping. How about some fun good Samaritan laws that punish people for being un-involved in fixing the problems in their own damn neighborhoods?

-Hell, I'll be nice here: Let's do some prison reform while we're at it. Mandatory education requirements for prisoners. Don't pass? Don't go home unless you're mentally disabled. In which case, special programs for you!

Man, that was rough. I can see why you refuse to put details and just buzz words. Someone might be able to read what I wrote and criticize it! SHIT! I'M SCARED.

Good luck, honey bunny snookums. I have faith in you!

 

[dohdough]

honey bunny and snookems?...You're getting pretty creepy there...

 

[mrsilkunderwear]

1. If we're being honest with ourselves, it's obviously written to make sure that everyone can fight off the British if they try to take back the colonies since there was no standing army.

2. Bullets don't magically find their mark like the gun from The Fifth Element and don't turn into flower petals if they don't.

1. Yes, I believe defending against foreign invasions was one of the reasons but do you think that maybe it was also to fight a tyrannical government?

2. Ok but how often does that happen? When it does, is it from the criminals who have obtained the weapons through illegal means or by simply walking into the store and purchasing a weapon?

 

[UncleBob]

You know, every time you post a troll meme, it just further entrenches the fact that you have literally nothing of value to contribute.

Indeed.

 

[egofed]

One of the reasons the Obama administration is giving for not instituting an African travel ban is that people would find ways to circumvent it and still enter the country...any parallels that can be drawn to this gun regulation topic?

 

[rebelschs]

One of the reasons the Obama administration is giving for not instituting an African travel ban is that people would find ways to circumvent it and still enter the country...any parallels that can be drawn to this gun regulation topic?

Pretty much Obama has showed us that you can pretty much walk across the border.

I think the sadder part is that NORTH ING KOREA has a travel ban.

Yes North Korea is handling the ebola situation better than the USA.

 

[detectiveconan16]

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/446866939/gun-control-debate-divides-nations-police-officers-too

The nation's police officers are divided on how they feel about gun control. Some of them believe in the NRA standard arguments, including the "Good Guy with a Gun," "Criminals still gonna get guns," and 2nd Amendment. I wonder how many idiots with a gun cops meet on the job. You can't stop robberies either, so why arrest those perps? Why bother being a police officer when you can't stop crime?

Isn't it easier for a cop to know which people to NOT shoot if there are less people with a gun?

 

[RedvsBlue]

Here's a "good guy with a gun" story to warm your heart.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/07/customer-shoots-at-shoplifter/73548972/

Guy shoplifts from Home Depot. While making his getaway, a woman in the parking lot with a conceal carry pulls out her gun and starts wildly shooting at the fleeing shoplifter. In what world do we live in that someone actually thinks using deadly force on a shoplifter is a good idea, in a public parking lot where an innocent bystander could have been hit no less.

But hey, all these armed civilians out there have done such a great job of stopping mass shootings, right?

 

[Fearia]

Here's a "good guy with a gun" story to warm your heart.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/10/07/customer-shoots-at-shoplifter/73548972/

Guy shoplifts from Home Depot. While making his getaway, a woman in the parking lot with a conceal carry pulls out her gun and starts wildly shooting at the fleeing shoplifter. In what world do we live in that someone actually thinks using deadly force on a shoplifter is a good idea, in a public parking lot where an innocent bystander could have been hit no less.

But hey, all these armed civilians out there have done such a great job of stopping mass shootings, right?

Thanks for cherry picking an incident from my area and using the term "good guy with a gun" incorrectly! Just saying, since when is someone performing a felony a "good guy with a gun"? I mean, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc... not terms I'd link with "good guy". But hey, way to try to characterize "good guys" to "bad guys".

Strange how you picked that article, but missed this one (from the same area) weeks earlier: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/customer-shoots-bank-robber-in-warren/35398190

The latter article is one of many. Hell, here's an article for Detroit going over last years justified homicides alone: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/12/as-detroits-justified-homicide-rate-spikes-homicide-rate-declines-in-2014/#axzz3o5U9iwhv

 

[dohdough]

Thanks for cherry picking an incident from my area and using the term "good guy with a gun" incorrectly! Just saying, since when is someone performing a felony a "good guy with a gun"? I mean, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc... not terms I'd link with "good guy". But hey, way to try to characterize "good guys" to "bad guys".

Strange how you picked that article, but missed this one (from the same area) weeks earlier: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/customer-shoots-bank-robber-in-warren/35398190

The latter article is one of many. Hell, here's an article for Detroit going over last years justified homicides alone: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/12/as-detroits-justified-homicide-rate-spikes-homicide-rate-declines-in-2014/#axzz3o5U9iwhv

LOLZ

just LOLZ

The guy at the bank was lucky he didn't hit anyone else and COLOR me surprised: a pro-gun website thinks that more guns are good. I guess Greedo deserved what he got cause he shot first!

 

[RedvsBlue]

Thanks for cherry picking an incident from my area and using the term "good guy with a gun" incorrectly! Just saying, since when is someone performing a felony a "good guy with a gun"? I mean, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, etc... not terms I'd link with "good guy". But hey, way to try to characterize "good guys" to "bad guys".

Strange how you picked that article, but missed this one (from the same area) weeks earlier: http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/customer-shoots-bank-robber-in-warren/35398190

The latter article is one of many. Hell, here's an article for Detroit going over last years justified homicides alone: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/12/as-detroits-justified-homicide-rate-spikes-homicide-rate-declines-in-2014/#axzz3o5U9iwhv

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Meaning, there's no way to know if crime in Detroit would have gone down without an increase in conceal carry. Violent crime is steadily declining across the US, not just Detroit. It has been for years, of course you'd never know that watching or reading most news.

http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

Furthermore, I like these articles a little more explaining just what went down in that bank robbery you cited:

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/09/bank_robber_shot_by_concealed.html

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2015/09/22/customer-shot-bank-robber-warren/72631112/

The salient points:

-The vigilante emptied his gun firing at the robber. Emptied, and only hit him 3 times. That was 3 hits out of 8 shots. That's 5 bullets flying through the air that don't know they're intended for the robber.

-The vigilante fired at the robber, as he was leaving the scene. As in, the danger to the bank and its customers was ending until Dirty Harry decided to be a cowboy and potentially start a shootout.

 

[dohdough]

Looks like

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Meaning, there's no way to know if crime in Detroit would have gone down without an increase in conceal carry. Violent crime is steadily declining across the US, not just Detroit. It has been for years, of course you'd never know that watching or reading most news.

http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

Furthermore, I like these articles a little more explaining just what went down in that bank robbery you cited:

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/09/bank_robber_shot_by_concealed.html

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2015/09/22/customer-shot-bank-robber-warren/72631112/

The salient points:

-The vigilante emptied his gun firing at the robber. Emptied, and only hit him 3 times. That was 3 hits out of 8 shots. That's 5 bullets flying through the air that don't know they're intended for the robber.

-The vigilante fired at the robber, as he was leaving the scene. As in, the danger to the bank and its customers was ending until Dirty Harry decided to be a cowboy and potentially start a shootout.

Looks like Fearia is a cop in the Detroit area. Yeah, violent crime is declining, but folks, especially cops, with similar mindsets have a vested interest in ignoring that fact or downplaying it as if they're in a warzone. It's safer to be a cop now than it's ever been and it's getting safer.

 

[mykevermin]

And yet, RvB, in the course of trading anecdotes, this is sensible gun use to people arguing against gun control laws. Jesus.

 

[Sarang01]

We'll see soon enough, as de Blasio has to renegotiate 150 plus municipal union contracts this year. If he can get past that hurdle unscathed things will be just fine. That said, the city needed Giuliani and Bloomberg to achieve a level of prosperity it enjoys today.

I'm sure there are responses but I have my own comments here.

Bloomberg was scum, he was a benevolent dictator who ran NYC. He was pleasantly controversial, taking a hardline stance on issues where people would take no offense comparatively, like smoking. There are other issues are well but lets look at his actions with Zucatti Park and Occupy, ultimately getting them kicked out by police. Or how about after the hurricane when he was eager to get the NYC Marathon going, even to the detriment of providing aid to those who suffered in the aftermath. The whole rush and his attitude to me smacked of..."I'm losing money, lets get business up and running, people be damned". He is the richest man in NY state so everyone else right?

As I was saying on policy, point out to me when Bloomberg EVER took a hardline stance on an issue of high visibility that mattered to Conservatives or Liberals, Dems or Pubs. You can't because there isn't one. The anti-smoking thing kicked up a bit of a fuss but smokers are quite in the minority so the truth was this wouldn't cost him many votes. It was just a group he kicked when they were down and it made him look good on the health end. There was a sizeable portion of people who supported Occupy and still support it but not enough at the time to link to him or endanger his political future. The one thing that killed his political aspirations ultimately was pushing to run the Marathon instead of cleaning up after the hurricane and providing aid. He ended up not running it because of the enormous blowback but the damage was done and his mask had come off.

Don't even get me started on Giulliani. From what I remember a definite question could be broached on moving the anti-terrorism NYC center(or something similar) a month or even a week before 9/11. There's also the fact 9/11 happened on his watch. The last thing he should be able to do is capitalize on that considering first responders equipment. You can plead ignorance but we know that TV's et al, you don't dispose of them at a local landfill because of hazardous materials. I haven't even got into the racial problems on his watch. Wasn't Rudy's admin. the one where the African immigrant ended up shot 16 times coming out of his apartment?

The Disneylanding of Times Square and the conversion of NYC from a working class city into one pandering to tourists disgusts me. I would rather see a bit of warts along with high quality eclectic local businesses then a massive storefront for Big Businesses.

Commenting on the white collar criminals, the issue is their crimes indirectly lead to some of those nasty acts. The problem is how do we downgrade those people's salary across the board especially with CEOs, CFOs, etc. One of my suggestions would be to BAN any Fortune 500 companies from funding any media outlets like MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, CNN Headline, FOX Business, Al-Jazeera America, FNC or Bloomberg. I'm talking indefinitely and having this decision made by shareholders. If ESPN involuntarily bloats athletes salaries by forced carriage in Cable and Satellite packages then the above networks distort shareholder perception of a CEO and lead to an otherwise unlikely salary proposal. The alphabet news networks present these men and women CEO's as the quarterback, the only ones who will throw the winning pass.

Now I'm just venting but I still propose banning that funding.

 

[Fearia]

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Meaning, there's no way to know if crime in Detroit would have gone down without an increase in conceal carry. Violent crime is steadily declining across the US, not just Detroit. It has been for years, of course you'd never know that watching or reading most news.

http://time.com/3577026/crime-rates-drop-1970s/

Furthermore, I like these articles a little more explaining just what went down in that bank robbery you cited:

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/09/bank_robber_shot_by_concealed.html

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/macomb/2015/09/22/customer-shot-bank-robber-warren/72631112/

The salient points:

-The vigilante emptied his gun firing at the robber. Emptied, and only hit him 3 times. That was 3 hits out of 8 shots. That's 5 bullets flying through the air that don't know they're intended for the robber.

-The vigilante fired at the robber, as he was leaving the scene. As in, the danger to the bank and its customers was ending until Dirty Harry decided to be a cowboy and potentially start a shootout.

Actually, he didn't shoot at a fleeing suspect. But hey, way to misrepresent again!

Kendrick was standing near the counter when Mann then trained the gun on him. He told Kendrick to step behind the counter with three other bank employees.

But Kendrick said that he couldn’t. Mann then grabbed him by the back of the neck and pushed him to one side of the counter, the complaint said.

Mann then demanded that he be given “all the (expletive) money,” with no hidden dye packs, according to the complaint.

Employees handed him the cash, but Kendrick looked over his shoulder and put a round in the chamber of his concealed Smith & Wesson M&P Shield 9 mm, which could hold eight rounds, according to Fouts and Warren Police. He had a license to carry a concealed weapon, Fouts said.

Then Kendrick opened fire. He emptied the rounds, hitting the robber three times – once in each arm, and once in a leg. Another shot smashed the glass of a bank’s window.

Mann never returned fire, though his Colt Mark IV was found to be loaded.

Moments later, Mann staggered out of the bank and fell. Of the $11,000 or so he dropped, about $2,000 is still missing, Fouts said.

When it says "he emptied the gun as the suspect tried to flee", they're referring to the fact that he fired and then the guy decided to suddenly flee. As in, "Oh shit, I'm now getting shot at, time to leave!". Otherwise, charges would've been put forward for the CPL holder because he was no longer a threat. Which is also why the shoplifter shooter is going to get charged.

Yes, he missed. But he also didn't injure anyone else because he made sure his backdrop was clear. Misses happen, which is why classes and training emphasize making sure you know your target, and what is behind it.

Interestingly enough, even HuffPo wrote an article on the fact that Detroit has had plenty of successful self defense cases: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/detroit-homeowner-shooting-intruder_n_5128271.html

I'm not claiming causation. I'm claiming that you misrepresenting most CPL holders as irresponsible is wrong. A "good guy" with a gun defends themselves and others without hitting / killing others on a regular basis. https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/ has a decent list that is ever expanding from around the country of defensive gun uses.

And dohdough, of course that article I picked was going to be from a pro-gun website. It was written by a friend of mine who happens to train civilians. Every year he gives free lessons to women (here's an article on it: http://www.wxyz.com/news/free-shooting-lesson-for-300-women-on-sunday-may-17).

All in all, I think trying to paint CPL holders as "bad guys" is wrong. Statistically speaking, they commit less crimes than non-CPL holders despite the fact that their fingerprints are on record. If they do commit a crime (felony or domestic violence related), it's revoked (along with their firearms). It might have to do with the fact that getting a CPL requires actually taking a class, getting fingerprinted, paying, and going through a background check. Most criminals that are going to commit a crime aren't willing to go through that.

 

[dohdough]

Uhhh...quoting your friend doesn't help your argument, dude. That's the epitome of a biased source.

 

[Fearia]

[quote name="dohdough" post="12961669" timestamp="1444432122"]Uhhh...quoting your friend doesn't help your argument, dude. That's the epitome of a biased source.[/quote]
The news articles he referenced were valid. He's been quoted in various news articles because he's an expert on the subject of firearms. You know you can have friends that are experts, right?

 

[dohdough]

The news articles he referenced were valid. He's been quoted in various news articles because he's an expert on the subject of firearms. You know you can have friends that are experts, right?

You're trolling me, right? How about I introduce you to my friend Giorgio, he's one of the foremost experts in his field that has a similar cv to your friend:

And btw, if you're going to whine about cherry picking, you don't get to do the same thing by not owning one of your own ideological peers if they up. Talk about being hypocritical...

 

[RedvsBlue]

Actually, he didn't shoot at a fleeing suspect. But hey, way to misrepresent again!


When it says "he emptied the gun as the suspect tried to flee", they're referring to the fact that he fired and then the guy decided to suddenly flee. As in, "Oh shit, I'm now getting shot at, time to leave!". Otherwise, charges would've been put forward for the CPL holder because he was no longer a threat. Which is also why the shoplifter shooter is going to get charged.

Yes, he missed. But he also didn't injure anyone else because he made sure his backdrop was clear. Misses happen, which is why classes and training emphasize making sure you know your target, and what is behind it.

Interestingly enough, even HuffPo wrote an article on the fact that Detroit has had plenty of successful self defense cases: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/detroit-homeowner-shooting-intruder_n_5128271.html

I'm not claiming causation. I'm claiming that you misrepresenting most CPL holders as irresponsible is wrong. A "good guy" with a gun defends themselves and others without hitting / killing others on a regular basis. https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/ has a decent list that is ever expanding from around the country of defensive gun uses.

And dohdough, of course that article I picked was going to be from a pro-gun website. It was written by a friend of mine who happens to train civilians. Every year he gives free lessons to women (here's an article on it: http://www.wxyz.com/news/free-shooting-lesson-for-300-women-on-sunday-may-17).

All in all, I think trying to paint CPL holders as "bad guys" is wrong. Statistically speaking, they commit less crimes than non-CPL holders despite the fact that their fingerprints are on record. If they do commit a crime (felony or domestic violence related), it's revoked (along with their firearms). It might have to do with the fact that getting a CPL requires actually taking a class, getting fingerprinted, paying, and going through a background check. Most criminals that are going to commit a crime aren't willing to go through that.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/09/bank_robber_shot_by_concealed.html

As Mann was leaving with the cash, Kendrick, an autoworker according to the Macomb Daily, pulled out his own gun and fired on Mann.

How is that a misrepresentation?

And I never said conceal carry holders were "bad guys". I do believe there's a troubling amount of adrenaline seeking amateur vigilantes who carry a gun not for protection but for their one chance to live out their very own Dirty Harry/John McClane moment. How many? I have no idea but as problematic as police shootings have been, Id still prefer law enforcement carrying a gun than Joe Schmoe, passed a background check and got fingerprinted so he's clearly A-OK.

You have no evidence to support your claim that Kendrick made sure there was a clear backdrop before opening fire. That's your own conjecture.

 

[Fearia]

Strange. I call the person who did wrong a bad guy, but I'm ignoring and cherry picking?

I'd love for you to prove that CPL holders are the problem with real numbers and statistics. However, from what I've witnessed, it's the exact opposite. Feel free to prove me wrong though instead of stating opinions.

Oh, and how do I know he checked the backdrop? Because I live in the area and know the location pretty well. If he didn't, he'd almost certainly hit someone else. But he didn't hit anyone else, stopped a threat, and was praised by LE and the mayor. Yet you find something wrong somehow.

Back to hiding from the trolls I go!

 

[RedvsBlue]

Strange. I call the person who did wrong a bad guy, but I'm ignoring and cherry picking?I'd love for you to prove that CPL holders are the problem with real numbers and statistics. However, from what I've witnessed, it's the exact opposite. Feel free to prove me wrong though instead of stating opinions. Oh, and how do I know he checked the backdrop? Because I live in the area and know the location pretty well. If he didn't, he'd almost certainly hit someone else. But he didn't hit anyone else, stopped a threat, and was praised by LE and the mayor. Yet you find something wrong somehow.Back to hiding from the trolls I go!

See, now we're back to where we started which is that I'm telling you is that the simple existence of a correlation between a decrease in violent crimes and an increase in conceal carry permits doesn't mean one is caused by the other, particularly in light of the fact that violent crime has been decreasing at a similar rate across the nation.

I'm assuming your "cherry picking" comment is wth regard to fleeing vs leaving. You jumped on a vagueness in one article where it states he was shot as he was leaving. Nowhere in the article does it say what you are trying to put forth, which is hat he began to flee when he was shot at. On the other hand, the article I cited directly states he was leaving with the money (ergo the imminent threat was over) when Kendrick drew his weapon and opened fire on him.

All you are answering with is "because I know" and "I live nearby so I have superior knowledge". You cited one article which hypothesizes a connection between conceal carry permit increases causing a decrease in violent crime but even there the strongest evidence they have to support this is an opinion from a police officer. The data shows a correlation, it does not prove a causation. I also never stated conceal carry holders are the problem, I think they have the potential to be a problem, but they are not the problem at the heart of the gun violence issue.

 

[detectiveconan16]

For every bad guy with a gun, there has to be a good guy with a gun, there are no idiots with a gun.

 

[egofed]

Anybody here for confiscation and full ban? If not, what measures do you want to see in place? I do not want to make it so a person can not defend themselves, especially in their own home. Wouldn't further costs added through regulation be unfair to the poor to obtain a way of defending themselves like Liberals claim voter ID requirements would?

 

[detectiveconan16]

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/badger-guns-found-liable-negligence-milwaukee-police-shooting-n443951

This is an outrage for our Second Amendment Rights and as our rights to be a small business owner.

 

[n8rockerasu]

I'm so uncomfortable with concealed carry. I am ALL FOR gun ownership, especially as a means for protecting your home and your family. I am 100% in favor of castle law. If my doors are locked and somebody breaks and enters, I don't care what their intentions are or if they are the Pope or Jesus himself...they deserve to be shot. You don't get to explain yourself when you're doing shit you shouldn't be doing in places you shouldn't be.

But I also 100% DO NOT trust my general neighbor's ability to make good decisions involving lethal weapons. I don't trust them to assess danger properly, or to figure out if anybody else is in the crossfire. People are dumb as shit and can barely walk or drive without catastrophic events taking place. And it is absolutely creating a world of vigilantes who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner.

I didn't see you guys mention it, but there was one at a Waffle House the other day.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/Waffle-House-customer-shoots-kills-armed-robbery-suspect/35795498

So yeah, armed robber, scary situation...but the guy was outside in his car and decided to confront the robber as he was leaving. The shoplifting example you guys were talking about is even more crazy. If we are at a point where criminal = shoot...regardless of the crime or who else is around, then I am seriously staying my ass at home and shopping on Amazon. I want no part of this OK Corral (ha, at Golden Corral next probably), wild west bullshit where everybody needs to act like ing Wyatt Earp.