California and new York don't even rank in the top 20. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...t-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html It also appears that California's gun homicides have declined quite a bit since passing various gun laws (I still need to confirm the data). http://blog.bradycampaign.org/category/stand-your-ground-laws/ No disrespect meant to either you or tac but the fact that you aren't aware of rights being actively taken away shows that Americans are not doing their duty to be informed citizens and further illustrates my point, sadly you guys aren't alone, even I am not as up on everything that I should be (especially local politics). Again I'm not advocating for banning guns, I'm just pointing out the facts. What do you guys think of this idea (it still doesn't address the real problem): All gun puchases require training first, everything from gun safety to gun control. It would be similar to a drivers license test. I'm sure we can all agree that driver education and various safety laws and safety improvements have lead to fewer auto related deaths, why would that not be the same for guns?
Based in this data it looks like texas has less gun related murders but a lot more gun related crimes as a percentage of total crimes: http://m.guardiannews.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state This data looks good but you will notice that gun violence in general went down for the US as a whole: Take all data (including my previous posts) with a big grain of salt, no definitive correlation can be drawn one way or another. I'm doing this on my phone so I'm not as efficient on finding good data to compare to.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ snippet from the article...please read the entire article. its very good and not to long. about a 10 minute read.
He forgets one thing though, most teachers are not killers, they are not trained to shoot a gun and act quickly in such a situation and more than likely they aren't emotionally prepared to handle such a thing. In all cases of gun violence that was stopped by another gun holding citizen all the above weren't true. About the only thing I can agree on with him is about the media and how the shooters name or picture shouldn't be used. ** edit, I thought you posted the whole article. He wants to allow only those that want to carry be allowed to carry, fair enough but only after exhaustive training and yearly follow up gun classes and there must be very strict rules (safety, anti intimidation rules, etc). How many teachers does he think would sign up? How many would that equate to in school? However it still doesn't address the issues, parenting and mental illness.
And how can the government rule parenting? It's impossible. You can never govern morals or values. Not going to happen. Our government can only try to curb the true dangers by minimizing the effects. You apparently didn't read the entire article. It stated that we essentially need only a few people per school with a gun. It is just a matter of someone being on the property, that can respond within seconds or minutes. Also, they aren't necessarily going to be expected to kill the attacker or save the school. They are there as an image of power. More often than not, a perpetrator will change their mind at the slightest evidence of real resistance. If a teacher draws the gun and yells, it will break the perpetrator's attention and throw them off of their game. This will generally be the moment when the person can be stopped. As far as training, why is excessive training necessary? It's not necessary for the average concealed carry permit holder to take those courses. It would just be another reason people wouldn't even try to carry a concealed weapon in school. ~Will Courtier~
When did the US government or any government for that matter, learn how to successfully legislate morals? Are these the type of people we want to protect us from ourselves and run our lives through conveluted laws? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...221?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=76 Just asking. I get a lot of what you are trying to point out Shane, but some of the stats you are pointing to, don't jive with some of the one's I'm seeing. They are noted in my posts. We do agree on the real meat and potatoes of the problems this nation has: I'm not sure what you meant by this though: I try to be more informed than average people. And what I discover is a cause for concern. Not so much for me, my time here is a lot closer to finishing than that for you younger generations.
Yes, did you or bigwill read my fucking post were I edited and addressed my initial reaction? No you didn't.
Why would there not be more training for those who would be in close proximity and will be required to act responsibly? Again, every example of people intervening gun violence with their own gun based reaction were all more trained than the average gun owner. If you can't even concede on such a minor step then you aren't serious about having a discussion on this topic, it's obviously your way or nothing else.
First I don't believe that parenting will ever be regulated by the government and for the most part it shouldn't, it would be a very slippery slope. All concerns aside I believe that parenting classes should be mandatory for new parents but that will never happen nor would it ever be constitutional. My point in the other paragraph was that; instead of being scared of a tyrannical government and thinking guns will allow us to fight back, people need to stay educated (not just learn talking points) and prevent a tyrannical government from ever coming into existence in the first place. The thing a government fears the most isn't a well armed citizen, it's a well educated citizen. How do you think we are doing on that front? Not good. I can tell you that.
You're absolutely correct, this we agree on 100%. But what's wrong with a well armed citizen that is educated also? Arming one's self is not strictly to prevent tyrany but also calamity due to our government not getting it right and causing collapse. It is walking a pretty thin line recently and it knows it. The more I educate myself on governemnt, current events and history, the more I feel the need to be armed. Not only is the right to bear arms in question here. The appointed task force is looking into curbing anything to do with a so-called "culture of violence". Meaning they are looking into media hype, violence in movies and video gaming as culprits. There goes curtailments of the right to free speech, free press and a serious curtailment of everyone's right to choose entertainment options via regulation and legislation. Not even based on science, but instead, based on emotion. This is all being done with all expedience because the public mood will definately change when the emotion wears off.
I agree the the government can't legislate morals, but the government can have a huge impact on values. It just doesn't happen overnight. Sometimes it takes a generation or two. For examples, I cite slavery, racism, and to a lesser degree unions. In the 1800's slavery was prevalent in the South and generally accepted morally. It took tremendous action by a strong president and the federal government, namely the bloodiest war in our history, to end it. The moral acceptance of slavery in the South did not just abruptly end in 1866. It took a generation or two. Obviously, racism persisted and still persists to a degree, but probably only the most extreme of extreme racists in the South would still advocate the morality of slavery itself. Fast forward to 1954. Brown v. Topeka Board of Ed. abruptly ends segregation and kicks off the civil rights movement. Racism didn't abruptly end in 1955. In fact, it took the deployment of federal troops to enforce the new federal law. Racism still exists today but nothing to the degree it did in the early 50's. But only the most extreme of racists would advocate that separate schools, restaurants, restrooms, etc for blacks is morally correct. Fast forward one more time to 1981. Reagan busts the PATCO strike by firing all participating union members. No one in America ever quite views unions the same way. So, I just want to make three points here. First, be careful dismissing governmental action because sometimes the government can do good things. Second, be careful when arguing that we can't legislate values, because the government can effect change even in that arena. Where would our country be now if, in 1860, Abraham Lincoln had just sat on his hands, shrugged his shoulders, and said, "I can't do damn thing about slavery, because I can't legislate morality." We might still have slavery. And third, be cognizant that solutions to the problems being discussed here may take many years to yield results, maybe even generations, but that doesn't mean we simply decide to do nothing.
Did anyone else ready any of that Harvard study that Tac posted up? I didn't read all 690 pages but what I did read didn't surprise me one bit.
Definate or not, this speaks volumes as to whether banning or limiting gun ownership has worked in the past or not.
Not really. In order to draw a correlation to murder rate and gun ownership you would have to ignore all other factors, crime rate, poverty rate, government, culture, etc.
Went to 4 gun stores today, they all laughed when I asked for an AR-15. 30 round pmag's that typically sell for 12$ are selling for 100 if you can find them. Obama is the best gun salesman in history. Picked up a gen 4 glock 23 though.
Yea a 9mm hand gun at 60 yards vs a high powered rifle. there's a fair fight. why do you think ar-15's are now standard issue for many police officers. see "North Hollywood Shootout"
Mentally ill asshats in the USA aren't the only "sick fuckers". This world is completely full of them, some are in high places: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...20121223?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=76
I don't know how I missed this post. There is nothing wrong with a well armed, educated citizen. The reality is that we have well armed citizens but they aren't educated and that's the problem.
