Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 426931 times)

PriestTheRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1750 on: August 19, 2016, 02:50:56 PM »
Indeed. Something about lies, damned lies, and statistics ;)

I'm fairly certain this is not a debate that can be "won," which is why it's so polarizing. What we all can and should do is gather as much evidence as possible to make an informed decision about what is best for our families. Some choose guns, others do not. Neither choice is wrong.

I agree.  The only problem is when one side is trying to force said decision upon the other side.  -Thats why the debate even exists.

Either way, this is a d*mn good forum for these type of things (including the other abortion thread).  People on here are pretty darn respectful in the open section.  I haven't posted much in the regular forums (but have been reading for a year +/- and just recently made an account) because I'm such a novice to MMM and FIRE but the open section is nicely amicable.
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1751 on: August 19, 2016, 03:29:10 PM »
Indeed. Something about lies, damned lies, and statistics ;)

I'm fairly certain this is not a debate that can be "won," which is why it's so polarizing. What we all can and should do is gather as much evidence as possible to make an informed decision about what is best for our families. Some choose guns, others do not. Neither choice is wrong.

I agree.  The only problem is when one side is trying to force said decision upon the other side.  -Thats why the debate even exists.

Either way, this is a d*mn good forum for these type of things (including the other abortion thread).  People on here are pretty darn respectful in the open section.  I haven't posted much in the regular forums (but have been reading for a year +/- and just recently made an account) because I'm such a novice to MMM and FIRE but the open section is nicely amicable.

Heh, not always! But we'll try to maintain the illusion as long as we can. In my opinion, the problem with the gun control debate is that neither side tends to be particularly respectful towards the other, on average, making it difficult to discuss things reasonably. I used to be an avid supporter of gun control, and changed my mind only after many years of reading on the issue, which eventually exposed me to enough well-reasoned sources that were not just fear mongering (from both sides) or arguments akin to "#%#$^ing liberals are trying to take my guns away! etc." I do personally think things like mandating gun safety classes make perfect sense, and any "responsible" gun owner should agree that learning that stuff is important (although I'm sure many would balk at being forced to do anything, even that). But that's besides the point.

I've noticed that the reasons a liberal minded person should worry less about gun laws are rarely mentioned by pro-gun advocates, in part because many of those reasons are not typical conservative positions, I'll grant. The war on drugs is a big one here, for example. Ending that and legalizing marijuana, if not other drugs as well, would dramatically reduce gun deaths in this country almost overnight. Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.

Combine those and similar ideas with the fact that disarming the entire country is effectively impossible, and it becomes rational to oppose overly oppressive gun control laws (or at least to prioritize other initiatives as more important), which would seem destined to cause more harm than good. That said, I also think pro-gun advocates drastically overstate how oppressive most of the laws on the books really are.

PriestTheRunner

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
  • Location: Somewhere in Tejas
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1752 on: August 19, 2016, 03:40:00 PM »
...
 Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.
...

Sorry to sclice and dice your post (good points throughout btw), but who all is excited for the news that the prisons are going away from private entities! :)  I consider this a VERY good thing.

(We can start a new thread if need be).
"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is   x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1753 on: August 19, 2016, 03:59:51 PM »
...
 Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.
...

Sorry to sclice and dice your post (good points throughout btw), but who all is excited for the news that the prisons are going away from private entities! :)  I consider this a VERY good thing.

(We can start a new thread if need be).

Probably is worth it's own thread, but yes I agree that it's a pretty important step in the right direction! Also, decriminalizing marijuana would massively reduce the need for so many prisons in the first place. Hopefully, disincentivizing/outlawing for-profit prisons will help get rid of that side of the anti-drug lobby, which is pure evil, regardless of how one feels about legalizing drugs in general.

mrpercentage

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Location: PHX, AZ
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1754 on: August 19, 2016, 09:35:25 PM »
...
 Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.
...

Sorry to sclice and dice your post (good points throughout btw), but who all is excited for the news that the prisons are going away from private entities! :)  I consider this a VERY good thing.

(We can start a new thread if need be).

Geo took a huge hit today. May be an opportunity for a purchase but I really dislike the idea of investing and taking profit off of people in prison. Definitely could have its own thread
absolute truth... prison guard that has seen shanks does not makes 45k a year managing bullshit tech that was outsourced for what?.... cheaper tech and less taxes... probably

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1755 on: August 20, 2016, 12:31:34 PM »
...
 Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.
...

Sorry to sclice and dice your post (good points throughout btw), but who all is excited for the news that the prisons are going away from private entities! :)  I consider this a VERY good thing.

(We can start a new thread if need be).

Geo took a huge hit today. May be an opportunity for a purchase but I really dislike the idea of investing and taking profit off of people in prison. Definitely could have its own thread

Smith and Wesson is near their 5-year high. Been a great buy for me.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1756 on: August 21, 2016, 02:26:06 PM »

Indeed. Something about lies, damned lies, and statistics ;)


If you torture the numbers long enough, they'll confess.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1757 on: October 23, 2016, 12:39:30 AM »
Bought a bigger gun cabinet for the house. Been meaning to for awhile, but never really had a need. Found a nice one on sale at a local big-box store; it's nice to have all my shooting supplies organized and secured from the little fingers that came into the house a few months ago. Having a defined amount of empty space that can be filled with more stuff makes my purchasing a bit more conscious.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

dcamnc

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1758 on: October 23, 2016, 11:45:32 AM »
I have 4 or 5 firearms. I'm more into actually shooting than collecting though. I spend quite a bit on ammo; where my buddies spend it on guns themselves, and rarely shoot.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1759 on: October 23, 2016, 05:18:54 PM »
I have 4 or 5 firearms. I'm more into actually shooting than collecting though. I spend quite a bit on ammo; where my buddies spend it on guns themselves, and rarely shoot.

Nothing wrong with collections that bring joy.  I'd also have a very hard time not shooting the weapons I purchase, but that's just me. 
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1760 on: October 27, 2016, 03:35:53 PM »
Indeed. Something about lies, damned lies, and statistics ;)

I'm fairly certain this is not a debate that can be "won," which is why it's so polarizing. What we all can and should do is gather as much evidence as possible to make an informed decision about what is best for our families. Some choose guns, others do not. Neither choice is wrong.

I agree.  The only problem is when one side is trying to force said decision upon the other side.  -Thats why the debate even exists.

Either way, this is a d*mn good forum for these type of things (including the other abortion thread).  People on here are pretty darn respectful in the open section.  I haven't posted much in the regular forums (but have been reading for a year +/- and just recently made an account) because I'm such a novice to MMM and FIRE but the open section is nicely amicable.

Heh, not always! But we'll try to maintain the illusion as long as we can. In my opinion, the problem with the gun control debate is that neither side tends to be particularly respectful towards the other, on average, making it difficult to discuss things reasonably. I used to be an avid supporter of gun control, and changed my mind only after many years of reading on the issue, which eventually exposed me to enough well-reasoned sources that were not just fear mongering (from both sides) or arguments akin to "#%#$^ing liberals are trying to take my guns away! etc." I do personally think things like mandating gun safety classes make perfect sense, and any "responsible" gun owner should agree that learning that stuff is important (although I'm sure many would balk at being forced to do anything, even that). But that's besides the point.

I've noticed that the reasons a liberal minded person should worry less about gun laws are rarely mentioned by pro-gun advocates, in part because many of those reasons are not typical conservative positions, I'll grant. The war on drugs is a big one here, for example. Ending that and legalizing marijuana, if not other drugs as well, would dramatically reduce gun deaths in this country almost overnight. Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.

Combine those and similar ideas with the fact that disarming the entire country is effectively impossible, and it becomes rational to oppose overly oppressive gun control laws (or at least to prioritize other initiatives as more important), which would seem destined to cause more harm than good. That said, I also think pro-gun advocates drastically overstate how oppressive most of the laws on the books really are.

Coming from an otherwise pretty liberal gun owner (pro single payer healthcare, pro help the poor, pro environmental protection agency), I definitely see the reason most are skeptical of adding regulations.  For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.  I like that you brought up the drug war and prison, as those are perfect examples of ways to help solve the problem without additional gun laws.  There are numerous easy regulations I can think of that would be good (like your classes idea), but they're prime for abuse, and I'm not convinced the benefit outweighs the cost.

The main issue is the slippery slope.  What happens when classes are mandatory, and people STILL get killed with guns (which they will)?  What if the number is unchanged?  Will they get rid of the class requirement if it's shown not to work?  History says no, they'll add something else on top of it.  Then before too long they'll require certain authorized instructors be the only ones who can give the classes, then they'll only give out so many class licenses, then a president will restrict funding to the organization that trains them, then you're in a situation where to buy a gun you have to drive 3 hours to go to a class in the middle of a weekday that you schedule 6 months in advance.  Kind of like how right now to get a suppressor/silencer, you have to wait a YEAR for the paperwork to go through.  This is for an item that is supposed to protect your hearing.  Every restriction has a potential for abuse, and that's what we're worried about.

The assault weapons ban in the 90's didn't work, and luckily had a sunset provision which is a rarity, but now there is a vocal group trying to bring it back despite its lack of results.  There are numerous states where having a pistol grip on a rifle is illegal, and 10 round magazine limits are enforced.  These are clearly nonsense laws and don't help anyone, yet they're still on the books in a number of places because the anti gun crowd just "has to do something!"  I get it, there are horrific events where people and children are killed, and you feel the need to do something.  The problem is they instantly go to an emotional reaction and want to ban whatever type of gun was used, or make it harder for everyone to get guns (even though often a legal gun owner is the one committing the crime the media covers).  The recent viral "why don't we do this?" idea was to disallow anyone on a terrorist watch list from getting a gun.  This sounds great in theory and would go great in a stand up comedy special, until you remember the terrorist watch list is not created by a court, and those on it have committed no crimes, and most never end up committing any.  Restricting rights without due process is a pretty tricky road to navigate.

There's a large section of the country whose end goal is getting rid of guns.  If it's not currently their goal, it will become it when the smaller steps don't work perfectly.  France has crazy restrictive laws and just had one of the worst mass killings in a developed nation in years using guns.  You'll never stop all of the killings, and there are plenty of people who will never stop trying to add restrictions until you stop all of the killings. I don't blame the no gun folks, if you don't like to shoot and don't see the value, and want to stop people getting killed with them, getting rid of them is a perfectly logical choice.  It means you have a different view of what our country should be than I do, and that's fine.  The problem is, since that group exists, gun owners are understandably skeptical about "common sense" restrictions that may or may not work, but won't be removed even if they don't work.  We don't trust that the people adding restrictions will ever stop, so we might as well stop them as soon as possible.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2016, 03:41:38 PM by ooeei »

dcamnc

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1761 on: October 27, 2016, 04:17:37 PM »
I have 4 or 5 firearms. I'm more into actually shooting than collecting though. I spend quite a bit on ammo; where my buddies spend it on guns themselves, and rarely shoot.

Nothing wrong with collections that bring joy.  I'd also have a very hard time not shooting the weapons I purchase, but that's just me.

Oh no doubt, I'd love to have a bigger collection. I just always imagine how much more I could shoot with the money I would spend on a new gun, and the shooting usually wins out.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1762 on: October 29, 2016, 09:53:43 AM »
Indeed. Something about lies, damned lies, and statistics ;)

I'm fairly certain this is not a debate that can be "won," which is why it's so polarizing. What we all can and should do is gather as much evidence as possible to make an informed decision about what is best for our families. Some choose guns, others do not. Neither choice is wrong.

I agree.  The only problem is when one side is trying to force said decision upon the other side.  -Thats why the debate even exists.

Either way, this is a d*mn good forum for these type of things (including the other abortion thread).  People on here are pretty darn respectful in the open section.  I haven't posted much in the regular forums (but have been reading for a year +/- and just recently made an account) because I'm such a novice to MMM and FIRE but the open section is nicely amicable.

Heh, not always! But we'll try to maintain the illusion as long as we can. In my opinion, the problem with the gun control debate is that neither side tends to be particularly respectful towards the other, on average, making it difficult to discuss things reasonably. I used to be an avid supporter of gun control, and changed my mind only after many years of reading on the issue, which eventually exposed me to enough well-reasoned sources that were not just fear mongering (from both sides) or arguments akin to "#%#$^ing liberals are trying to take my guns away! etc." I do personally think things like mandating gun safety classes make perfect sense, and any "responsible" gun owner should agree that learning that stuff is important (although I'm sure many would balk at being forced to do anything, even that). But that's besides the point.

I've noticed that the reasons a liberal minded person should worry less about gun laws are rarely mentioned by pro-gun advocates, in part because many of those reasons are not typical conservative positions, I'll grant. The war on drugs is a big one here, for example. Ending that and legalizing marijuana, if not other drugs as well, would dramatically reduce gun deaths in this country almost overnight. Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.

Combine those and similar ideas with the fact that disarming the entire country is effectively impossible, and it becomes rational to oppose overly oppressive gun control laws (or at least to prioritize other initiatives as more important), which would seem destined to cause more harm than good. That said, I also think pro-gun advocates drastically overstate how oppressive most of the laws on the books really are.

Coming from an otherwise pretty liberal gun owner (pro single payer healthcare, pro help the poor, pro environmental protection agency), I definitely see the reason most are skeptical of adding regulations.  For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.  I like that you brought up the drug war and prison, as those are perfect examples of ways to help solve the problem without additional gun laws.  There are numerous easy regulations I can think of that would be good (like your classes idea), but they're prime for abuse, and I'm not convinced the benefit outweighs the cost.

The main issue is the slippery slope.  What happens when classes are mandatory, and people STILL get killed with guns (which they will)?  What if the number is unchanged?  Will they get rid of the class requirement if it's shown not to work?  History says no, they'll add something else on top of it.  Then before too long they'll require certain authorized instructors be the only ones who can give the classes, then they'll only give out so many class licenses, then a president will restrict funding to the organization that trains them, then you're in a situation where to buy a gun you have to drive 3 hours to go to a class in the middle of a weekday that you schedule 6 months in advance.  Kind of like how right now to get a suppressor/silencer, you have to wait a YEAR for the paperwork to go through.  This is for an item that is supposed to protect your hearing.  Every restriction has a potential for abuse, and that's what we're worried about.

The assault weapons ban in the 90's didn't work, and luckily had a sunset provision which is a rarity, but now there is a vocal group trying to bring it back despite its lack of results.  There are numerous states where having a pistol grip on a rifle is illegal, and 10 round magazine limits are enforced.  These are clearly nonsense laws and don't help anyone, yet they're still on the books in a number of places because the anti gun crowd just "has to do something!"  I get it, there are horrific events where people and children are killed, and you feel the need to do something.  The problem is they instantly go to an emotional reaction and want to ban whatever type of gun was used, or make it harder for everyone to get guns (even though often a legal gun owner is the one committing the crime the media covers).  The recent viral "why don't we do this?" idea was to disallow anyone on a terrorist watch list from getting a gun.  This sounds great in theory and would go great in a stand up comedy special, until you remember the terrorist watch list is not created by a court, and those on it have committed no crimes, and most never end up committing any.  Restricting rights without due process is a pretty tricky road to navigate.

There's a large section of the country whose end goal is getting rid of guns.  If it's not currently their goal, it will become it when the smaller steps don't work perfectly.  France has crazy restrictive laws and just had one of the worst mass killings in a developed nation in years using guns.  You'll never stop all of the killings, and there are plenty of people who will never stop trying to add restrictions until you stop all of the killings. I don't blame the no gun folks, if you don't like to shoot and don't see the value, and want to stop people getting killed with them, getting rid of them is a perfectly logical choice.  It means you have a different view of what our country should be than I do, and that's fine.  The problem is, since that group exists, gun owners are understandably skeptical about "common sense" restrictions that may or may not work, but won't be removed even if they don't work.  We don't trust that the people adding restrictions will ever stop, so we might as well stop them as soon as possible.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1763 on: October 29, 2016, 09:59:51 AM »
Indeed. Something about lies, damned lies, and statistics ;)

I'm fairly certain this is not a debate that can be "won," which is why it's so polarizing. What we all can and should do is gather as much evidence as possible to make an informed decision about what is best for our families. Some choose guns, others do not. Neither choice is wrong.

I agree.  The only problem is when one side is trying to force said decision upon the other side.  -Thats why the debate even exists.

Either way, this is a d*mn good forum for these type of things (including the other abortion thread).  People on here are pretty darn respectful in the open section.  I haven't posted much in the regular forums (but have been reading for a year +/- and just recently made an account) because I'm such a novice to MMM and FIRE but the open section is nicely amicable.

Heh, not always! But we'll try to maintain the illusion as long as we can. In my opinion, the problem with the gun control debate is that neither side tends to be particularly respectful towards the other, on average, making it difficult to discuss things reasonably. I used to be an avid supporter of gun control, and changed my mind only after many years of reading on the issue, which eventually exposed me to enough well-reasoned sources that were not just fear mongering (from both sides) or arguments akin to "#%#$^ing liberals are trying to take my guns away! etc." I do personally think things like mandating gun safety classes make perfect sense, and any "responsible" gun owner should agree that learning that stuff is important (although I'm sure many would balk at being forced to do anything, even that). But that's besides the point.

I've noticed that the reasons a liberal minded person should worry less about gun laws are rarely mentioned by pro-gun advocates, in part because many of those reasons are not typical conservative positions, I'll grant. The war on drugs is a big one here, for example. Ending that and legalizing marijuana, if not other drugs as well, would dramatically reduce gun deaths in this country almost overnight. Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.

Combine those and similar ideas with the fact that disarming the entire country is effectively impossible, and it becomes rational to oppose overly oppressive gun control laws (or at least to prioritize other initiatives as more important), which would seem destined to cause more harm than good. That said, I also think pro-gun advocates drastically overstate how oppressive most of the laws on the books really are.

Coming from an otherwise pretty liberal gun owner (pro single payer healthcare, pro help the poor, pro environmental protection agency), I definitely see the reason most are skeptical of adding regulations.  For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.  I like that you brought up the drug war and prison, as those are perfect examples of ways to help solve the problem without additional gun laws.  There are numerous easy regulations I can think of that would be good (like your classes idea), but they're prime for abuse, and I'm not convinced the benefit outweighs the cost.

The main issue is the slippery slope.  What happens when classes are mandatory, and people STILL get killed with guns (which they will)?  What if the number is unchanged?  Will they get rid of the class requirement if it's shown not to work?  History says no, they'll add something else on top of it.  Then before too long they'll require certain authorized instructors be the only ones who can give the classes, then they'll only give out so many class licenses, then a president will restrict funding to the organization that trains them, then you're in a situation where to buy a gun you have to drive 3 hours to go to a class in the middle of a weekday that you schedule 6 months in advance.  Kind of like how right now to get a suppressor/silencer, you have to wait a YEAR for the paperwork to go through.  This is for an item that is supposed to protect your hearing.  Every restriction has a potential for abuse, and that's what we're worried about.

The assault weapons ban in the 90's didn't work, and luckily had a sunset provision which is a rarity, but now there is a vocal group trying to bring it back despite its lack of results.  There are numerous states where having a pistol grip on a rifle is illegal, and 10 round magazine limits are enforced.  These are clearly nonsense laws and don't help anyone, yet they're still on the books in a number of places because the anti gun crowd just "has to do something!"  I get it, there are horrific events where people and children are killed, and you feel the need to do something.  The problem is they instantly go to an emotional reaction and want to ban whatever type of gun was used, or make it harder for everyone to get guns (even though often a legal gun owner is the one committing the crime the media covers).  The recent viral "why don't we do this?" idea was to disallow anyone on a terrorist watch list from getting a gun.  This sounds great in theory and would go great in a stand up comedy special, until you remember the terrorist watch list is not created by a court, and those on it have committed no crimes, and most never end up committing any.  Restricting rights without due process is a pretty tricky road to navigate.

There's a large section of the country whose end goal is getting rid of guns.  If it's not currently their goal, it will become it when the smaller steps don't work perfectly.  France has crazy restrictive laws and just had one of the worst mass killings in a developed nation in years using guns.  You'll never stop all of the killings, and there are plenty of people who will never stop trying to add restrictions until you stop all of the killings. I don't blame the no gun folks, if you don't like to shoot and don't see the value, and want to stop people getting killed with them, getting rid of them is a perfectly logical choice.  It means you have a different view of what our country should be than I do, and that's fine.  The problem is, since that group exists, gun owners are understandably skeptical about "common sense" restrictions that may or may not work, but won't be removed even if they don't work.  We don't trust that the people adding restrictions will ever stop, so we might as well stop them as soon as possible.

A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

 
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1764 on: October 29, 2016, 10:45:17 AM »

A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

I guess this would beg the question of why Indiana and Wisconsin don't seem to have the issues with gun violence that Chicago does?
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/302/total_number_of_gun_deaths

Illinois claims that 10% of crime firearms were 'imported' from Indiana.  Not an insignificant number, but it's not as if ALL guns used in Chicago are coming from out of state. Or even the majority of them.
http://fox59.com/2016/06/23/statistics-rank-indiana-low-in-gun-violence-prevention/

It is also illegal to purchase a firearm out of state that is illegal to own in your own state. It is also illegal to sell a handgun to anyone from out-of state; the firearm must be shipped back to an in-state dealer to run a background check.

Are there suggestions to make the gun laws "less lax?" (That would actually address the issue of Chicago gun violence, say) Current law seems to cover the talking points that are brought up constantly pretty well.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1765 on: October 29, 2016, 11:25:08 AM »

A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

I guess this would beg the question of why Indiana and Wisconsin don't seem to have the issues with gun violence that Chicago does?
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/302/total_number_of_gun_deaths

Illinois claims that 10% of crime firearms were 'imported' from Indiana.  Not an insignificant number, but it's not as if ALL guns used in Chicago are coming from out of state. Or even the majority of them.
http://fox59.com/2016/06/23/statistics-rank-indiana-low-in-gun-violence-prevention/

It is also illegal to purchase a firearm out of state that is illegal to own in your own state. It is also illegal to sell a handgun to anyone from out-of state; the firearm must be shipped back to an in-state dealer to run a background check.

Are there suggestions to make the gun laws "less lax?" (That would actually address the issue of Chicago gun violence, say) Current law seems to cover the talking points that are brought up constantly pretty well.

I don't know the answer to the first question, but I would guess that the statistics are somewhat easy to misread given the percentages of urban to rural populations in each of the three states.

The Chicago police superintendent also that lax laws in counties surrounding Cook County also contribute to the problem.

http://chicagoist.com/2013/01/30/new_york_times_maps_where_chicago_g.php

Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1766 on: October 30, 2016, 03:33:16 PM »
I don't know the answer to the first question, but I would guess that the statistics are somewhat easy to misread given the percentages of urban to rural populations in each of the three states.

The Chicago police superintendent also that lax laws in counties surrounding Cook County also contribute to the problem.

http://chicagoist.com/2013/01/30/new_york_times_maps_where_chicago_g.php

Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

Are you suggesting that the populations have more to do with crime than that availability of guns? Interesting.

Of course Chicago would blame crime on issues outside of its control. But that doesn't make the argument valid. If gun availability is the problem, then one would think that areas that have more guns have more gun crime - not so (within the USA).  However, if population demographics have a larger role than firearm availability, then perhaps those issues should be addressed, if one truly wanted to curb gun deaths.  Restricting guns in areas where gun crime is not a problem doesn't seem to be the most effective way to curb crime in other areas.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1767 on: October 30, 2016, 04:40:20 PM »
I don't know the answer to the first question, but I would guess that the statistics are somewhat easy to misread given the percentages of urban to rural populations in each of the three states.

The Chicago police superintendent also that lax laws in counties surrounding Cook County also contribute to the problem.

http://chicagoist.com/2013/01/30/new_york_times_maps_where_chicago_g.php

Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

Are you suggesting that the populations have more to do with crime than that availability of guns? Interesting.

Of course Chicago would blame crime on issues outside of its control. But that doesn't make the argument valid. If gun availability is the problem, then one would think that areas that have more guns have more gun crime - not so (within the USA).  However, if population demographics have a larger role than firearm availability, then perhaps those issues should be addressed, if one truly wanted to curb gun deaths.  Restricting guns in areas where gun crime is not a problem doesn't seem to be the most effective way to curb crime in other areas.

That would make total sense if there were a wall around Chicago which completely prevented guns from other parts of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and other states from entering the city. Since there's no way to isolate a city with a gun problem from the rest of the country, we need sane gun laws in the whole country.

Just because Bubba, living in Podunk, Mississippi has 16 loaded guns in his closet, night stand, dresser drawer, glove box of his pickup truck, etc., and has never had a problem, doesn't mean it's okay. We need sensible federal laws, for the whole country.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2881
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1768 on: October 30, 2016, 05:37:15 PM »
I don't know the answer to the first question, but I would guess that the statistics are somewhat easy to misread given the percentages of urban to rural populations in each of the three states.

The Chicago police superintendent also that lax laws in counties surrounding Cook County also contribute to the problem.

http://chicagoist.com/2013/01/30/new_york_times_maps_where_chicago_g.php

Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

Are you suggesting that the populations have more to do with crime than that availability of guns? Interesting.

Of course Chicago would blame crime on issues outside of its control. But that doesn't make the argument valid. If gun availability is the problem, then one would think that areas that have more guns have more gun crime - not so (within the USA).  However, if population demographics have a larger role than firearm availability, then perhaps those issues should be addressed, if one truly wanted to curb gun deaths.  Restricting guns in areas where gun crime is not a problem doesn't seem to be the most effective way to curb crime in other areas.

That would make total sense if there were a wall around Chicago which completely prevented guns from other parts of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin and other states from entering the city. Since there's no way to isolate a city with a gun problem from the rest of the country, we need sane gun laws in the whole country.

Just because Bubba, living in Podunk, Mississippi has 16 loaded guns in his closet, night stand, dresser drawer, glove box of his pickup truck, etc., and has never had a problem, doesn't mean it's okay. We need sensible federal laws, for the whole country.

Uh, why exactly is it not okay?
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1769 on: October 30, 2016, 07:49:42 PM »
I don't know the answer to the first question, but I would guess that the statistics are somewhat easy to misread given the percentages of urban to rural populations in each of the three states.

The Chicago police superintendent also that lax laws in counties surrounding Cook County also contribute to the problem.

http://chicagoist.com/2013/01/30/new_york_times_maps_where_chicago_g.php

Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

Are you suggesting that the populations have more to do with crime than that availability of guns? Interesting.


Of course Chicago would blame crime on issues outside of its control. But that doesn't make the argument valid. If gun availability is the problem, then one would think that areas that have more guns have more gun crime - not so (within the USA).  However, if population demographics have a larger role than firearm availability, then perhaps those issues should be addressed, if one truly wanted to curb gun deaths.  Restricting guns in areas where gun crime is not a problem doesn't seem to be the most effective way to curb crime in other areas.

I don't see where you got that.

I would definitely imagine that high population density has something to do with crime density.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1770 on: October 31, 2016, 06:44:43 AM »
A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Boy that is making a big leap for causality. 

Do Wisconsin and Indiana have gun violence issues comparable to Chicago?  From the Wikipedia article using 2010 data, both of those places actually have LESS gun violence than Illionois, and way less than Chicago.

I suspect the gun violence in Chicago is impacted by things not related to gun laws more than it is to its neighbors' gun laws.  Perhaps income inequality, social mobility, and education.  Gangs are pretty big stereotype for Chicago, and I'm betting they get their funding from the drug trade.  Perhaps that has something to do with it?

To state as a fact that Chicago has high gun violence because its less violent neighbors have lax laws just sounds like a big leap to me. 

Quote
Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

There absolutely is a group of people for whom that is the end goal.  As I said, many of them RIGHT NOW want to make "common sense" gun laws (many of which are actually ridiculous).  The problem is, there will continue to be gun violence no matter what laws you put in place. 

I challenge you to ask your typical pro gun regulation friend what an acceptable number of gun deaths per year is, or mass shootings.  If their answer is "0 of course" then they will want to continue passing laws until we reach 0, which is never.  During every mass shooting media coverage a ton of people start shouting for a ban on "assault weapons."  Once those get banned, and the next shooting is by a pistol, guess what they'll want to ban?  Then when the crazy guy shoots up a kindergarten with a pump action shotgun, guess what'll be top of the ban queue?

There are already states that ban guns based on arbitrary "features" like a magazine release or the number of rounds in its magazine.  Some of them ban individual guns by name due to how a committee thinks they look, or based on the muzzle device at the end of the barrel.  We already have laws in the books banning certain barrel lengths combined with stocks.  Take a look at the attached picture for some arbitrary rules determining whether an AR-15 requires an NFA stamp or is a felony.  I'd LOVE to see the research that shows how only allowing angled foregrips instead of vertical ones reduces gun violence in any way, or how a 15" barrel being illegal and a 16" model that's identical being legal makes anyone safer.  Until the pro "common sense gun laws" folks show they'll get rid of regulations that are ridiculous, I see no reason to continue compromising toward what they want.  Why else other than "well at least it gets rid of some guns" would the rules outlined in the picture be in place?   Even in the era of OSHA, silencers/suppressors designed to protect shooter and spectator hearing require a $200 tax stamp, and approximately a YEAR of waiting for the extremely pain in the ass paperwork to go through. 

Many gun owners I know would be fine with adding laws that might reduce gun violence, IF we get rid of the laws that only make things a pain in the ass for us and don't help anyone.  For example, give us mandatory classes, IF we can buy a silencer at a neighborhood gun store like any other accessory.  Create a federal waiting period of a few days, IF we can buy short barreled rifles the same as long barreled ones.  Let us import guns from currently banned countries (who we still import all sorts of other stuff from), and we can do private party sale background checks.  That's what I call an actual compromise and "common sense" instead of the current model where we always compromise toward more laws. 

The current "compromises" are like if a racist said "I want all black people kicked out of the country, and you don't.  Let's compromise and only make it where they can't drive cars."  That's not a compromise at all. 
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 07:31:50 AM by ooeei »

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1771 on: October 31, 2016, 07:36:13 AM »
A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Boy that is making a big leap for causality. 

Do Wisconsin and Indiana have gun violence issues comparable to Chicago?  From the Wikipedia article using 2010 data, both of those places actually have LESS gun violence than Illionois, and way less than Chicago.


I suspect the gun violence in Chicago is impacted by things not related to gun laws more than it is to its neighbors' gun laws.  Perhaps income inequality, social mobility, and education.  Gangs are pretty big stereotype for Chicago, and I'm betting they get their funding from the drug trade.  Perhaps that has something to do with it?

To state as a fact that Chicago has high gun violence because its less violent neighbors have lax laws just sounds like a big leap to me. 

Quote
Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

There absolutely is a group of people for whom that is the end goal.  As I said, many of them RIGHT NOW want to make "common sense" gun laws (many of which are actually ridiculous).  The problem is, there will continue to be gun violence no matter what laws you put in place. 

I challenge you to ask your typical pro gun regulation friend what an acceptable number of gun deaths per year is, or mass shootings.  If their answer is "0 of course" then they will want to continue passing laws until we reach 0, which is never.  During every mass shooting media coverage a ton of people start shouting for a ban on "assault weapons."  Once those get banned, and the next shooting is by a pistol, guess what they'll want to ban?  Then when the crazy guy shoots up a kindergarten with a pump action shotgun, guess what'll be top of the ban queue?

There are already states that ban guns based on arbitrary "features" like a magazine release or the number of rounds in its magazine.  Some of them ban individual guns by name due to how a committee thinks they look, or based on the muzzle device at the end of the barrel.  We already have laws in the books banning certain barrel lengths combined with stocks.  Take a look at the attached picture for some arbitrary rules determining whether an AR-15 requires an NFA stamp or is a felony.  I'd LOVE to see the research that shows how only allowing angled foregrips instead of vertical ones reduces gun violence in any way, or how a 15" barrel being illegal and a 16" model that's identical being legal makes anyone safer.  Until the pro "common sense gun laws" folks show they'll get rid of regulations that are ridiculous, I see no reason to continue compromising toward what they want.  Why else other than "well at least it gets rid of some guns" would some of the rules outlined in the picture be in place?   Even in the era of OSHA, silencers/suppressors designed to protect shooter and spectator hearing require a $200 tax stamp, and approximately a YEAR of waiting for the extremely pain in the ass paperwork to go through. 

Many gun owners I know would be fine with adding laws that might reduce gun violence, IF we get rid of the laws that only make things a pain in the ass for us and don't help anyone.  For example, give us mandatory classes, IF we can buy a silencer at a neighborhood gun store like any other accessory.  Create a federal waiting period of a few days, IF we can buy short barreled rifles the same as long barreled ones.  Let us import guns from currently banned countries (who we still import all sorts of other stuff from), and we can do private party sale background checks.  That's what I call an actual compromise and "common sense" instead of the current model where we always compromise toward more laws. 

The current "compromises" are like if a racist said "I want all black people kicked out of the country, and you don't.  Let's compromise and only make it where they can't drive cars."  That's not a compromise at all.

Regarding the first point, I think you're making my argument for me when you way that gun violence in Chicago is impacted by other things than gun laws. As you notice, that is what i said in the first sentence.

Regarding the Wikipedia article, I think you'd have to first look at the percentage of the population of the states that are urban rather than rural to get a sense of how the gun violence actually compares, and then also control for other factors that likely contribute, to get a sense of the true picture.

Regarding the second of your comments that I bolded, you will notice that I did say there is a group of people for whom getting rid of guns completely is the end goal. I will repeat, as I bolded above, that is a fringe of the population. And focusing on them skews the conversation. As I said above. And as you showed by immediately skewing the conversation toward a person you created so that you could use that person as the straw man against your "sensible" argument.

« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 07:38:20 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1772 on: October 31, 2016, 07:45:22 AM »
Regarding the first point, I think you're making my argument for me when you way that gun violence in Chicago is impacted by other things than gun laws. As you notice, that is what i said in the first sentence.

No, you said gun violence in Chicago is bad because of other states' gun laws.  That is still gun laws.

Quote
Regarding the Wikipedia article, I think you'd have to first look at the percentage of the population of the states that are urban rather than rural to get a sense of how the gun violence actually compares, and then also control for other factors that likely contribute, to get a sense of the true picture.

So we need to control for other factors when my guesses at what causes gun violence in Chicago are being analyzed, but blanketly saying "it's because those less violent states nearby are so chill" doesn't require any additional evidence or statistical controls?

Quote
Regarding the second of your comments that I bolded, you will notice that I did say there is a group of people for whom getting rid of guns completely is the end goal. I will repeat, as I bolded above, that is a fringe of the population. And focusing on them skews the conversation. As I said above. And as you showed by immediately skewing the conversation toward a person you created so that you could use that person as the straw man against your "sensible" argument.

Well, then your majority of sensible folks should have no problem attaching repeals of some of the ridiculous current laws to your proposals for new "common sense" ones if that's true. 

I just get tired about hearing how the pro-gun folks are so against compromise and are unreasonable, when the compromise is ALWAYS toward more regulation.  Bringing "sensibility" to our gun laws goes both ways. 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1773 on: October 31, 2016, 07:49:04 AM »
Regarding the first point, I think you're making my argument for me when you way that gun violence in Chicago is impacted by other things than gun laws. As you notice, that is what i said in the first sentence.

No, you said gun violence in Chicago is bad because of other states' gun laws.  That is still gun laws.

Quote
Regarding the Wikipedia article, I think you'd have to first look at the percentage of the population of the states that are urban rather than rural to get a sense of how the gun violence actually compares, and then also control for other factors that likely contribute, to get a sense of the true picture.

So we need to control for other factors when my guesses at what causes gun violence in Chicago are being analyzed, but blanketly saying "it's because those less violent states nearby are so chill" doesn't require any additional evidence or statistical controls?

Quote
Regarding the second of your comments that I bolded, you will notice that I did say there is a group of people for whom getting rid of guns completely is the end goal. I will repeat, as I bolded above, that is a fringe of the population. And focusing on them skews the conversation. As I said above. And as you showed by immediately skewing the conversation toward a person you created so that you could use that person as the straw man against your "sensible" argument.

Well, then your majority of sensible folks should have no problem attaching repeals of some of the ridiculous current laws to your proposals for new "common sense" ones if that's true. 

I just get tired about hearing how the pro-gun folks are so against compromise and are unreasonable, when the compromise is ALWAYS toward more regulation.  Bringing "sensibility" to our gun laws goes both ways.

Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said. Here is my quote, again:

 "The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones."

Your second point is covered by this answer, as well.

As for the third, I think you're so "tired" about hearing a particular argument that you overlay it onto this discussion even when it is not there.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 07:51:12 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1774 on: October 31, 2016, 07:52:48 AM »
Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said. Here is my quote, again:

 "The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones."

I must be stupid then, because that sure looks like you're blaming Chicago's gun problem on the gun laws in the other states.  Not totally blaming it I suppose, but as that was the only reason you gave, I assume you think it's a pretty big part of it.

Quote
Your second point is covered by this answer, as well.

I'm not sure how.  Based on your bolding I'm guessing the nuances of the word "fueled" mean something I don't understand.

Quote
As for the third, I think you're so "tired" about hearing a particular argument that you overlay it onto this discussion even when it is not there.

Could be. 
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 07:55:13 AM by ooeei »

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1775 on: October 31, 2016, 07:54:28 AM »
Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said. Here is my quote, again:

 "The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones."

I must be stupid then, because that sure looks like you're blaming Chicago's gun problem on the gun laws in the other states.  Not totally blaming it I suppose, but as that was the only reason you gave, I assume you think it's a pretty big part of it.

Because this is a discussion about firearms?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1776 on: October 31, 2016, 07:56:57 AM »
Indeed. Something about lies, damned lies, and statistics ;)

I'm fairly certain this is not a debate that can be "won," which is why it's so polarizing. What we all can and should do is gather as much evidence as possible to make an informed decision about what is best for our families. Some choose guns, others do not. Neither choice is wrong.

I agree.  The only problem is when one side is trying to force said decision upon the other side.  -Thats why the debate even exists.

Either way, this is a d*mn good forum for these type of things (including the other abortion thread).  People on here are pretty darn respectful in the open section.  I haven't posted much in the regular forums (but have been reading for a year +/- and just recently made an account) because I'm such a novice to MMM and FIRE but the open section is nicely amicable.

Heh, not always! But we'll try to maintain the illusion as long as we can. In my opinion, the problem with the gun control debate is that neither side tends to be particularly respectful towards the other, on average, making it difficult to discuss things reasonably. I used to be an avid supporter of gun control, and changed my mind only after many years of reading on the issue, which eventually exposed me to enough well-reasoned sources that were not just fear mongering (from both sides) or arguments akin to "#%#$^ing liberals are trying to take my guns away! etc." I do personally think things like mandating gun safety classes make perfect sense, and any "responsible" gun owner should agree that learning that stuff is important (although I'm sure many would balk at being forced to do anything, even that). But that's besides the point.

I've noticed that the reasons a liberal minded person should worry less about gun laws are rarely mentioned by pro-gun advocates, in part because many of those reasons are not typical conservative positions, I'll grant. The war on drugs is a big one here, for example. Ending that and legalizing marijuana, if not other drugs as well, would dramatically reduce gun deaths in this country almost overnight. Major reform to our prison system would also be huge.

Combine those and similar ideas with the fact that disarming the entire country is effectively impossible, and it becomes rational to oppose overly oppressive gun control laws (or at least to prioritize other initiatives as more important), which would seem destined to cause more harm than good. That said, I also think pro-gun advocates drastically overstate how oppressive most of the laws on the books really are.

Coming from an otherwise pretty liberal gun owner (pro single payer healthcare, pro help the poor, pro environmental protection agency), I definitely see the reason most are skeptical of adding regulations.  For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.  I like that you brought up the drug war and prison, as those are perfect examples of ways to help solve the problem without additional gun laws.  There are numerous easy regulations I can think of that would be good (like your classes idea), but they're prime for abuse, and I'm not convinced the benefit outweighs the cost.

The main issue is the slippery slope.  What happens when classes are mandatory, and people STILL get killed with guns (which they will)?  What if the number is unchanged?  Will they get rid of the class requirement if it's shown not to work?  History says no, they'll add something else on top of it.  Then before too long they'll require certain authorized instructors be the only ones who can give the classes, then they'll only give out so many class licenses, then a president will restrict funding to the organization that trains them, then you're in a situation where to buy a gun you have to drive 3 hours to go to a class in the middle of a weekday that you schedule 6 months in advance.  Kind of like how right now to get a suppressor/silencer, you have to wait a YEAR for the paperwork to go through.  This is for an item that is supposed to protect your hearing.  Every restriction has a potential for abuse, and that's what we're worried about.

The assault weapons ban in the 90's didn't work, and luckily had a sunset provision which is a rarity, but now there is a vocal group trying to bring it back despite its lack of results.  There are numerous states where having a pistol grip on a rifle is illegal, and 10 round magazine limits are enforced.  These are clearly nonsense laws and don't help anyone, yet they're still on the books in a number of places because the anti gun crowd just "has to do something!"  I get it, there are horrific events where people and children are killed, and you feel the need to do something.  The problem is they instantly go to an emotional reaction and want to ban whatever type of gun was used, or make it harder for everyone to get guns (even though often a legal gun owner is the one committing the crime the media covers).  The recent viral "why don't we do this?" idea was to disallow anyone on a terrorist watch list from getting a gun.  This sounds great in theory and would go great in a stand up comedy special, until you remember the terrorist watch list is not created by a court, and those on it have committed no crimes, and most never end up committing any.  Restricting rights without due process is a pretty tricky road to navigate.

There's a large section of the country whose end goal is getting rid of guns.  If it's not currently their goal, it will become it when the smaller steps don't work perfectly.  France has crazy restrictive laws and just had one of the worst mass killings in a developed nation in years using guns.  You'll never stop all of the killings, and there are plenty of people who will never stop trying to add restrictions until you stop all of the killings. I don't blame the no gun folks, if you don't like to shoot and don't see the value, and want to stop people getting killed with them, getting rid of them is a perfectly logical choice.  It means you have a different view of what our country should be than I do, and that's fine.  The problem is, since that group exists, gun owners are understandably skeptical about "common sense" restrictions that may or may not work, but won't be removed even if they don't work.  We don't trust that the people adding restrictions will ever stop, so we might as well stop them as soon as possible.

A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

First:  I've been in Indiana gun shops multiple times where Illinois residents have tried to purchase firearms.  It doesn't happen (at least not without a FFL transfer).  Long guns, handguns, doesn't matter.  You cannot legally buy a gun in Indiana with an Illinois ID and walk out of the store with it.

Second:  Most of these "sensible gun laws" already exist.  The only way you can buy a gun without a background check is if you buy a gun from an individual in a private party sale, which may be two guys who meet at a gun show and decide to sell/trade a gun.  This is commonly known as the "gun show loophole".  Eliminating private party sales for guns would be equivalent to having to take your car to a dealership to legally sell it.  You absolutely cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to your house, period.  The is no "online loophole" unless you are talking about a classified section or something (again, private party sale). 

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1777 on: October 31, 2016, 08:01:31 AM »
Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said. Here is my quote, again:

 "The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones."

I must be stupid then, because that sure looks like you're blaming Chicago's gun problem on the gun laws in the other states.  Not totally blaming it I suppose, but as that was the only reason you gave, I assume you think it's a pretty big part of it.

Because this is a discussion about firearms?

I would think in a discussion about firearms, you could talk about anything related to firearms.  Anything that is a probable cause of increases in firearms violence is fair game, not just gun laws.  Are you saying there are other bigger factors than the other states' gun laws that contribute to Chicago's problem? 

My point is, if you state a single reason for a gun problem in Chicago, it's generally going to be assumed that you think that's a pretty big reason for it, and "fixing" that problem would help quite a bit with the problem.  If your actual position is that there are a bunch of other factors that create the gun problem in Chicago and affect it more than what you stated, but they don't have enough to do with guns to post about here, I'm just a bit flabbergasted. 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1778 on: October 31, 2016, 08:03:37 AM »


A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

First:  I've been in Indiana gun shops multiple times where Illinois residents have tried to purchase firearms.  It doesn't happen (at least not without a FFL transfer).  Long guns, handguns, doesn't matter.  You cannot legally buy a gun in Indiana with an Illinois ID and walk out of the store with it.

Second:  Most of these "sensible gun laws" already exist.  The only way you can buy a gun without a background check is if you buy a gun from an individual in a private party sale, which may be two guys who meet at a gun show and decide to sell/trade a gun.  This is commonly known as the "gun show loophole".  Eliminating private party sales for guns would be equivalent to having to take your car to a dealership to legally sell it.  You absolutely cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to your house, period.  The is no "online loophole" unless you are talking about a classified section or something (again, private party sale).

Okay, quite honestly, I'm not interested in arguing with you about points that you are advancing that I did not make. Please stop arguing with your straw man.

Here's an article from Bloomberg that does a pretty good job of explaining the issue.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1779 on: October 31, 2016, 08:06:50 AM »
Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said. Here is my quote, again:

 "The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones."

I must be stupid then, because that sure looks like you're blaming Chicago's gun problem on the gun laws in the other states.  Not totally blaming it I suppose, but as that was the only reason you gave, I assume you think it's a pretty big part of it.

Because this is a discussion about firearms?

I would think in a discussion about firearms, you could talk about anything related to firearms.  Anything that is a probable cause of increases in firearms violence is fair game, not just gun laws.  Are you saying there are other bigger factors than the other states' gun laws that contribute to Chicago's problem? 

My point is, if you state a single reason for a gun problem in Chicago, it's generally going to be assumed that you think that's a pretty big reason for it, and "fixing" that problem would help quite a bit with the problem.  If your actual position is that there are a bunch of other factors that create the gun problem in Chicago and affect it more than what you stated, but they don't have enough to do with guns to post about here, I'm just a bit flabbergasted.

Oh, my God. Honestly, I am fairly flabbergasted by your tunnel vision in reading my comments. I'm not going to argue with you on a perspective you are SHOVING onto me that I never stated. You're showing by your comments that you are very prone to assumptions about my perspective and opinions, and I'm not obligated to defend myself against baseless assertions just because you feel like making them.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 08:08:40 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1780 on: October 31, 2016, 08:14:27 AM »


A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

First:  I've been in Indiana gun shops multiple times where Illinois residents have tried to purchase firearms.  It doesn't happen (at least not without a FFL transfer).  Long guns, handguns, doesn't matter.  You cannot legally buy a gun in Indiana with an Illinois ID and walk out of the store with it.

Second:  Most of these "sensible gun laws" already exist.  The only way you can buy a gun without a background check is if you buy a gun from an individual in a private party sale, which may be two guys who meet at a gun show and decide to sell/trade a gun.  This is commonly known as the "gun show loophole".  Eliminating private party sales for guns would be equivalent to having to take your car to a dealership to legally sell it.  You absolutely cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to your house, period.  The is no "online loophole" unless you are talking about a classified section or something (again, private party sale).

Okay, quite honestly, I'm not interested in arguing with you about points that you are advancing that I did not make. Please stop arguing with your straw man.

Here's an article from Bloomberg that does a pretty good job of explaining the issue.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control

So I comment specifically on Indiana gun laws (which you brought up), and try to have some dialogue (which you say most people want to have), but you don't agree with either, and then tell me to stop arguing?  Sounds pretty unreasonable.

This was basically the jist of the article regarding Indiana:

"A lot of that access comes from outside Illinois. Cook said he found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state. Twenty-four percent of the total pool of guns came from Indiana, which is "not regulated at all," he said."

If Indiana wasn't regulated at all, I could be a felon and go into the gun shop and pick up a full auto without any ID or background check.  That couldn't be any further from the truth.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 08:16:57 AM by hoosier »

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1781 on: October 31, 2016, 08:21:29 AM »


A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

First:  I've been in Indiana gun shops multiple times where Illinois residents have tried to purchase firearms.  It doesn't happen (at least not without a FFL transfer).  Long guns, handguns, doesn't matter.  You cannot legally buy a gun in Indiana with an Illinois ID and walk out of the store with it.

Second:  Most of these "sensible gun laws" already exist.  The only way you can buy a gun without a background check is if you buy a gun from an individual in a private party sale, which may be two guys who meet at a gun show and decide to sell/trade a gun.  This is commonly known as the "gun show loophole".  Eliminating private party sales for guns would be equivalent to having to take your car to a dealership to legally sell it.  You absolutely cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to your house, period.  The is no "online loophole" unless you are talking about a classified section or something (again, private party sale).

Okay, quite honestly, I'm not interested in arguing with you about points that you are advancing that I did not make. Please stop arguing with your straw man.

Here's an article from Bloomberg that does a pretty good job of explaining the issue.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control

So I comment specifically on Indiana gun laws (which you brought up), and try to have some dialogue (which you say most people want to have), but you don't agree with either, and then tell me to stop arguing?  Sounds pretty unreasonable.

This was basically the jist of the article regarding Indiana:

"A lot of that access comes from outside Illinois. Cook said he found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state. Twenty-four percent of the total pool of guns came from Indiana, which is "not regulated at all," he said."

If Indiana wasn't regulated at all, I could be a felon and go into the gun shop and pick up a full auto without any ID or background check.  That couldn't be any further from the truth.

That's not at all what I said. What I said was, please stop having my side of the argument for me, and then respond to the words you put into my mouth, and then say that we're having "some dialogue."
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1782 on: October 31, 2016, 08:29:02 AM »


A couple of points:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Second, your assertion that there's a large population that wants to "get rid of" guns isn't true. Most people want to have a dialogue on sensible laws. Not ban them. Those who want to ban them are a tiny fringe of the population, and leading people to believe otherwise is just perpetuating the polarization.

First:  I've been in Indiana gun shops multiple times where Illinois residents have tried to purchase firearms.  It doesn't happen (at least not without a FFL transfer).  Long guns, handguns, doesn't matter.  You cannot legally buy a gun in Indiana with an Illinois ID and walk out of the store with it.

Second:  Most of these "sensible gun laws" already exist.  The only way you can buy a gun without a background check is if you buy a gun from an individual in a private party sale, which may be two guys who meet at a gun show and decide to sell/trade a gun.  This is commonly known as the "gun show loophole".  Eliminating private party sales for guns would be equivalent to having to take your car to a dealership to legally sell it.  You absolutely cannot buy a gun and have it shipped to your house, period.  The is no "online loophole" unless you are talking about a classified section or something (again, private party sale).

Okay, quite honestly, I'm not interested in arguing with you about points that you are advancing that I did not make. Please stop arguing with your straw man.

Here's an article from Bloomberg that does a pretty good job of explaining the issue.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-06/the-problem-with-using-chicago-to-make-the-case-against-gun-control

So I comment specifically on Indiana gun laws (which you brought up), and try to have some dialogue (which you say most people want to have), but you don't agree with either, and then tell me to stop arguing?  Sounds pretty unreasonable.

This was basically the jist of the article regarding Indiana:

"A lot of that access comes from outside Illinois. Cook said he found that 60 percent of guns recovered in connection with an arrest were from out of state. Twenty-four percent of the total pool of guns came from Indiana, which is "not regulated at all," he said."

If Indiana wasn't regulated at all, I could be a felon and go into the gun shop and pick up a full auto without any ID or background check.  That couldn't be any further from the truth.

That's not at all what I said. What I said was, please stop having my side of the argument for me, and then respond to the words you put into my mouth, and then say that we're having "some dialogue."

I'm so confused about what your argument is.  I just want to make sure I understand you correctly here.  So, Indiana gun laws that are "lax" and "not regulated at all" are or are not a contributing factor to Chicago's problem?  Need some clarity on what "fueled by" means.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1783 on: October 31, 2016, 08:31:44 AM »
Oh, my God. Honestly, I am fairly flabbergasted by your tunnel vision in reading my comments. I'm not going to argue with you on a perspective you are SHOVING onto me that I never stated. You're showing by your comments that you are very prone to assumptions about my perspective and opinions, and I'm not obligated to defend myself against baseless assertions just because you feel like making them.

I'm sincerely confused as to what position you hold then.  Maybe you could elaborate?  Are you saying Chicago's gun problem is partially caused by other states gun laws, but other factors affect it more?  If so, why not mention any of those other factors?  I'm just honestly really confused. 

The only thing you mentioned when I pointed out that Chicago has high levels of gun violence despite its gun laws, is that it's not Chicago's laws that are the problem, but laws in other states "fuel" the problem.  What I was trying to point out was that one of the cities with very strict gun laws has a problem with gun violence many less restrictive states don't.  That is a fact.  I said the regulations aren't the whole story, which you seem to agree with, yet you felt the need to correct me by assigning a cause (sorry, not a cause, a "fuel") to Chicago's high gun crime rate (lax laws nearby) that doesn't have to do with Chicago's laws.

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Chicago's gun problem isn't because of BLANK, it's fueled by BLANK.  To me, this is similar to saying "Chicago's gun problem isn't this, it's THIS."  Can you help me out and translate this statement into what you were trying to say? 

I agree Chicago's gun problem probably isn't caused by their gun laws.  My point is, their gun laws haven't fixed it.  Blanketly applying a strategy shown not to work to the rest of the country seems silly to me, even if the people who wrote the laws claim they can explain why it failed.  Yes, I know, you never said we should.  I'm just saying that as a general statement of my position.

Then I got a bit frustrated with this:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.
Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

No, you said gun violence in Chicago is bad because of other states' gun laws.  That is still gun laws.

Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said.

I just don't know how to interpret what you said.  What did you mean by it?

vern

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1784 on: October 31, 2016, 10:53:12 AM »
"Of my fifty-seven years I have applied at least thirty to forgetting most of what I had learned or read, and since I succeeded in this I have acquired a certain ease and cheer which I should never again like to be without."  World Chess Champion Emanuel Lasker

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1785 on: October 31, 2016, 01:34:06 PM »
Oh, my God. Honestly, I am fairly flabbergasted by your tunnel vision in reading my comments. I'm not going to argue with you on a perspective you are SHOVING onto me that I never stated. You're showing by your comments that you are very prone to assumptions about my perspective and opinions, and I'm not obligated to defend myself against baseless assertions just because you feel like making them.

I'm sincerely confused as to what position you hold then.  Maybe you could elaborate?  Are you saying Chicago's gun problem is partially caused by other states gun laws, but other factors affect it more?  If so, why not mention any of those other factors?  I'm just honestly really confused. 

The only thing you mentioned when I pointed out that Chicago has high levels of gun violence despite its gun laws, is that it's not Chicago's laws that are the problem, but laws in other states "fuel" the problem.  What I was trying to point out was that one of the cities with very strict gun laws has a problem with gun violence many less restrictive states don't.  That is a fact.  I said the regulations aren't the whole story, which you seem to agree with, yet you felt the need to correct me by assigning a cause (sorry, not a cause, a "fuel") to Chicago's high gun crime rate (lax laws nearby) that doesn't have to do with Chicago's laws.

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Chicago's gun problem isn't because of BLANK, it's fueled by BLANK.  To me, this is similar to saying "Chicago's gun problem isn't this, it's THIS."  Can you help me out and translate this statement into what you were trying to say? 

I agree Chicago's gun problem probably isn't caused by their gun laws.  My point is, their gun laws haven't fixed it.  Blanketly applying a strategy shown not to work to the rest of the country seems silly to me, even if the people who wrote the laws claim they can explain why it failed.  Yes, I know, you never said we should.  I'm just saying that as a general statement of my position.

Then I got a bit frustrated with this:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.
Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

No, you said gun violence in Chicago is bad because of other states' gun laws.  That is still gun laws.

Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said.

I just don't know how to interpret what you said.  What did you mean by it?

I believe you're being sea-lioned. Ignore it, the perpetrator has nothing useful to say on the matter and just wants to detail legitimate discussion.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1786 on: October 31, 2016, 02:58:53 PM »
Oh, my God. Honestly, I am fairly flabbergasted by your tunnel vision in reading my comments. I'm not going to argue with you on a perspective you are SHOVING onto me that I never stated. You're showing by your comments that you are very prone to assumptions about my perspective and opinions, and I'm not obligated to defend myself against baseless assertions just because you feel like making them.

I'm sincerely confused as to what position you hold then.  Maybe you could elaborate?  Are you saying Chicago's gun problem is partially caused by other states gun laws, but other factors affect it more?  If so, why not mention any of those other factors?  I'm just honestly really confused. 

The only thing you mentioned when I pointed out that Chicago has high levels of gun violence despite its gun laws, is that it's not Chicago's laws that are the problem, but laws in other states "fuel" the problem.  What I was trying to point out was that one of the cities with very strict gun laws has a problem with gun violence many less restrictive states don't.  That is a fact.  I said the regulations aren't the whole story, which you seem to agree with, yet you felt the need to correct me by assigning a cause (sorry, not a cause, a "fuel") to Chicago's high gun crime rate (lax laws nearby) that doesn't have to do with Chicago's laws.

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Chicago's gun problem isn't because of BLANK, it's fueled by BLANK.  To me, this is similar to saying "Chicago's gun problem isn't this, it's THIS."  Can you help me out and translate this statement into what you were trying to say? 

I agree Chicago's gun problem probably isn't caused by their gun laws.  My point is, their gun laws haven't fixed it.  Blanketly applying a strategy shown not to work to the rest of the country seems silly to me, even if the people who wrote the laws claim they can explain why it failed.  Yes, I know, you never said we should.  I'm just saying that as a general statement of my position.

Then I got a bit frustrated with this:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.
Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

No, you said gun violence in Chicago is bad because of other states' gun laws.  That is still gun laws.

Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said.

I just don't know how to interpret what you said.  What did you mean by it?

I believe you're being sea-lioned. Ignore it, the perpetrator has nothing useful to say on the matter and just wants to detail legitimate discussion.

Nope. No sea-lioning here. But I will admit that after trying to offer a couple of nuanced points as a comment on someone's post, and then having a bunch of other presumptions of what my beliefs were pushed back into my lap, my interest in trying once again to explain myself has been pretty much exhausted.

And, I'll edit this to add: Ncornilsen clearly felt the need to pile on to ascribing intent to me by dipping in to the conversation for the sole purpose of insulting me.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 03:09:38 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1787 on: October 31, 2016, 03:17:20 PM »
Nope. No sea-lioning here. But I will admit that after trying to offer a couple of nuanced points as a comment on someone's post, and then having a bunch of other presumptions of what my beliefs were pushed back into my lap, my interest in trying once again to explain myself has been pretty much exhausted.

And, I'll edit this to add: Ncornilsen clearly felt the need to pile on to ascribing intent to me by dipping in to the conversation for the sole purpose of insulting me.

I never heard of sea lioning until this thread, cool verb.  Doesn't seem like what you're doing.

You've done a great job at telling us that we're wrong about your opinions and what you've said, but haven't done much to elaborate.  I get it, I'm wrong about what you think/said.  Can you please explain what you DID mean/say?  Now I feel like I'm sea lioning.  damnit.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1788 on: October 31, 2016, 04:25:13 PM »
Oh, my God. Honestly, I am fairly flabbergasted by your tunnel vision in reading my comments. I'm not going to argue with you on a perspective you are SHOVING onto me that I never stated. You're showing by your comments that you are very prone to assumptions about my perspective and opinions, and I'm not obligated to defend myself against baseless assertions just because you feel like making them.

I'm sincerely confused as to what position you hold then.  Maybe you could elaborate?  Are you saying Chicago's gun problem is partially caused by other states gun laws, but other factors affect it more?  If so, why not mention any of those other factors?  I'm just honestly really confused. 

The only thing you mentioned when I pointed out that Chicago has high levels of gun violence despite its gun laws, is that it's not Chicago's laws that are the problem, but laws in other states "fuel" the problem.  What I was trying to point out was that one of the cities with very strict gun laws has a problem with gun violence many less restrictive states don't.  That is a fact.  I said the regulations aren't the whole story, which you seem to agree with, yet you felt the need to correct me by assigning a cause (sorry, not a cause, a "fuel") to Chicago's high gun crime rate (lax laws nearby) that doesn't have to do with Chicago's laws.

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Chicago's gun problem isn't because of BLANK, it's fueled by BLANK.  To me, this is similar to saying "Chicago's gun problem isn't this, it's THIS."  Can you help me out and translate this statement into what you were trying to say? 

I agree Chicago's gun problem probably isn't caused by their gun laws.  My point is, their gun laws haven't fixed it.  Blanketly applying a strategy shown not to work to the rest of the country seems silly to me, even if the people who wrote the laws claim they can explain why it failed.  Yes, I know, you never said we should.  I'm just saying that as a general statement of my position.

Then I got a bit frustrated with this:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.
Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

No, you said gun violence in Chicago is bad because of other states' gun laws.  That is still gun laws.

Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said.

I just don't know how to interpret what you said.  What did you mean by it?

I believe you're being sea-lioned. Ignore it, the perpetrator has nothing useful to say on the matter and just wants to detail legitimate discussion.

Nope. No sea-lioning here. But I will admit that after trying to offer a couple of nuanced points as a comment on someone's post, and then having a bunch of other presumptions of what my beliefs were pushed back into my lap, my interest in trying once again to explain myself has been pretty much exhausted.

And, I'll edit this to add: Ncornilsen clearly felt the need to pile on to ascribing intent to me by dipping in to the conversation for the sole purpose of insulting me.

I feel the need to pile on because you made a statement that seems to me, VERY clearly to be one thing, only for you to act like you're being attacked when someone tried to refute the face-value of what you said or to sus out what you really meant to say. I intend to make it known that it isn't a fluke that you were misunderstood on your post. Calling it sea-lioning was probably a bit of a stretch, fair enough. I perhaps mistakenly, apply that to those who lobs a statement out there that appears to clearly imply one conclusion, then refuse to elaborate and try's to claim the intellectual high road by insulting the reading comprehension of those who call them out on it.







Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1789 on: October 31, 2016, 05:08:09 PM »
Oh, my God. Honestly, I am fairly flabbergasted by your tunnel vision in reading my comments. I'm not going to argue with you on a perspective you are SHOVING onto me that I never stated. You're showing by your comments that you are very prone to assumptions about my perspective and opinions, and I'm not obligated to defend myself against baseless assertions just because you feel like making them.

I'm sincerely confused as to what position you hold then.  Maybe you could elaborate?  Are you saying Chicago's gun problem is partially caused by other states gun laws, but other factors affect it more?  If so, why not mention any of those other factors?  I'm just honestly really confused. 

The only thing you mentioned when I pointed out that Chicago has high levels of gun violence despite its gun laws, is that it's not Chicago's laws that are the problem, but laws in other states "fuel" the problem.  What I was trying to point out was that one of the cities with very strict gun laws has a problem with gun violence many less restrictive states don't.  That is a fact.  I said the regulations aren't the whole story, which you seem to agree with, yet you felt the need to correct me by assigning a cause (sorry, not a cause, a "fuel") to Chicago's high gun crime rate (lax laws nearby) that doesn't have to do with Chicago's laws.

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.

Chicago's gun problem isn't because of BLANK, it's fueled by BLANK.  To me, this is similar to saying "Chicago's gun problem isn't this, it's THIS."  Can you help me out and translate this statement into what you were trying to say? 

I agree Chicago's gun problem probably isn't caused by their gun laws.  My point is, their gun laws haven't fixed it.  Blanketly applying a strategy shown not to work to the rest of the country seems silly to me, even if the people who wrote the laws claim they can explain why it failed.  Yes, I know, you never said we should.  I'm just saying that as a general statement of my position.

Then I got a bit frustrated with this:

First, Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.
Which again points back to laxness of gun laws contributing to the problem.

No, you said gun violence in Chicago is bad because of other states' gun laws.  That is still gun laws.

Look, I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you're either not reading very clearly or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said.

I just don't know how to interpret what you said.  What did you mean by it?

I believe you're being sea-lioned. Ignore it, the perpetrator has nothing useful to say on the matter and just wants to detail legitimate discussion.

Nope. No sea-lioning here. But I will admit that after trying to offer a couple of nuanced points as a comment on someone's post, and then having a bunch of other presumptions of what my beliefs were pushed back into my lap, my interest in trying once again to explain myself has been pretty much exhausted.

And, I'll edit this to add: Ncornilsen clearly felt the need to pile on to ascribing intent to me by dipping in to the conversation for the sole purpose of insulting me.

I feel the need to pile on because you made a statement that seems to me, VERY clearly to be one thing, only for you to act like you're being attacked when someone tried to refute the face-value of what you said or to sus out what you really meant to say. I intend to make it known that it isn't a fluke that you were misunderstood on your post. Calling it sea-lioning was probably a bit of a stretch, fair enough. I perhaps mistakenly, apply that to those who lobs a statement out there that appears to clearly imply one conclusion, then refuse to elaborate and try's to claim the intellectual high road by insulting the reading comprehension of those who call them out on it.

Ncornilsen, I am sick to death of you attributing ill intent to my statements.

I'm going to post a reply. But it is not a reply to you. Because I'm not interested in conversing with someone whose only motive seems to be to insult me.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1790 on: October 31, 2016, 05:08:45 PM »
OOEEI said:
For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.

I said:
Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.


This was a response to his saying “this tells me the regulations aren’t the whole story.”

In a follow-up thread, I posted a link to an article explaining why Chicago’s regulations don’t translate to lower problems – explaining that, while Chicago’s regulations are tough, the regulations in the areas around it are not.

So, again, my response was specifically to help fill in more of the story, which ooeei specifically mentioned saying regulations alone are not the whole of. Because Chicago doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

I’d like to point out that I said the gun problem in Chicago is FUELED because of lax laws around it.

Apparently, this has been a hard sentence to understand. Fueled. As in adding fuel to something. Not that it IS because of the laws. That it is FUELED. A partial contributor. IMPACTED by.

I also mentioned in comment 1827 that there are other factors one would have to control for in understanding whether gun violence in Chicago is per capita higher than in other areas, and why. There are likely a lot of factors that would impact this – I could speculate on a few of them, but didn’t want to derail the thread by going into them, and won’t go into them here, either. Studies on factors that contribute to violent crime could talk about these things better than I can. It’s fairly silly to assume I’m saying the mere presence of a gun means someone is going to use it to shoot someone. And yet, In comment #1828, ooeei misunderstands two of my statements, and for some reason, every attempt to clarify that he is misunderstanding me gets me told that I’m attributing the entirety of the problem to something that I am manifestly not attributing the entire problem to.

The point being, I was trying to introduce some nuance into the discussion, and specifically respond to ooeei’s original musing that Chicago’s strict gun laws are not the entire story of why some cities with strict gun laws nevertheless have higher than “average” levels of gun violence.

I hesitate to even post this, honestly. Based on past experience, it seems pretty likely that it will all be reduced to “You think guns are bad” or something. Well, the definition of insanity…
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 05:14:21 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1791 on: October 31, 2016, 07:03:44 PM »
Replying to me or not, thanks for the clarification. Re-reading the posts with your explanation in mind, I can see how you appeared to be having words put in your mouth. It is both Ooeei, yours, and later, my faults for attributing bad intent, all around. My apologies for my contribution, and for appearing to jump in only to insult. I lurk on these alot and feel like a participant even when I've been silent, and I need to keep that in mind. I assumed malicious intent, since I've experience people being purposefully misunderstanding of things said, solely to advance their specious agenda.

I still think you have to cut a little slack for some people taking your statement they way they did. Your post in context can be taken easily as " the strict regulations in chicago would work fine if it wasn't for the yokels and their lax regulations all around it" and as rather contrarian to OOEEI's original post.  I think you were trying to say that "whatever the underlying "cause" for Chicago's gun violence problem is, it is supplied by guns from around Chicago.



OOEEI said:
For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.

I said:
Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.


This was a response to his saying “this tells me the regulations aren’t the whole story.”

In a follow-up thread, I posted a link to an article explaining why Chicago’s regulations don’t translate to lower problems – explaining that, while Chicago’s regulations are tough, the regulations in the areas around it are not.

So, again, my response was specifically to help fill in more of the story, which ooeei specifically mentioned saying regulations alone are not the whole of. Because Chicago doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

I’d like to point out that I said the gun problem in Chicago is FUELED because of lax laws around it.

Apparently, this has been a hard sentence to understand. Fueled. As in adding fuel to something. Not that it IS because of the laws. That it is FUELED. A partial contributor. IMPACTED by.

I also mentioned in comment 1827 that there are other factors one would have to control for in understanding whether gun violence in Chicago is per capita higher than in other areas, and why. There are likely a lot of factors that would impact this – I could speculate on a few of them, but didn’t want to derail the thread by going into them, and won’t go into them here, either. Studies on factors that contribute to violent crime could talk about these things better than I can. It’s fairly silly to assume I’m saying the mere presence of a gun means someone is going to use it to shoot someone. And yet, In comment #1828, ooeei misunderstands two of my statements, and for some reason, every attempt to clarify that he is misunderstanding me gets me told that I’m attributing the entirety of the problem to something that I am manifestly not attributing the entire problem to.

The point being, I was trying to introduce some nuance into the discussion, and specifically respond to ooeei’s original musing that Chicago’s strict gun laws are not the entire story of why some cities with strict gun laws nevertheless have higher than “average” levels of gun violence.

I hesitate to even post this, honestly. Based on past experience, it seems pretty likely that it will all be reduced to “You think guns are bad” or something. Well, the definition of insanity…

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1792 on: October 31, 2016, 07:15:14 PM »
OOEEI said:
For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.

I said:
Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.


This was a response to his saying “this tells me the regulations aren’t the whole story.”

In a follow-up thread, I posted a link to an article explaining why Chicago’s regulations don’t translate to lower problems – explaining that, while Chicago’s regulations are tough, the regulations in the areas around it are not.

So, again, my response was specifically to help fill in more of the story, which ooeei specifically mentioned saying regulations alone are not the whole of. Because Chicago doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

I’d like to point out that I said the gun problem in Chicago is FUELED because of lax laws around it.

Thank you for clarifying your position, Kris.

As we have established that gun laws do not exist in a vacuum, and current laws have been explained, do you have any suggestions that might reduce the gun violence in Chicago specifically, or the USA in general?

This, to me, is a more productive line of discussion - if what we are doing isn't working, what could be done?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1793 on: October 31, 2016, 07:23:44 PM »
Replying to me or not, thanks for the clarification. Re-reading the posts with your explanation in mind, I can see how you appeared to be having words put in your mouth. It is both Ooeei, yours, and later, my faults for attributing bad intent, all around. My apologies for my contribution, and for appearing to jump in only to insult. I lurk on these alot and feel like a participant even when I've been silent, and I need to keep that in mind. I assumed malicious intent, since I've experience people being purposefully misunderstanding of things said, solely to advance their specious agenda.

I still think you have to cut a little slack for some people taking your statement they way they did. Your post in context can be taken easily as " the strict regulations in chicago would work fine if it wasn't for the yokels and their lax regulations all around it" and as rather contrarian to OOEEI's original post.  I think you were trying to say that "whatever the underlying "cause" for Chicago's gun violence problem is, it is supplied by guns from around Chicago.



OOEEI said:
For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.

I said:
Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.


This was a response to his saying “this tells me the regulations aren’t the whole story.”

In a follow-up thread, I posted a link to an article explaining why Chicago’s regulations don’t translate to lower problems – explaining that, while Chicago’s regulations are tough, the regulations in the areas around it are not.

So, again, my response was specifically to help fill in more of the story, which ooeei specifically mentioned saying regulations alone are not the whole of. Because Chicago doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

I’d like to point out that I said the gun problem in Chicago is FUELED because of lax laws around it.

Apparently, this has been a hard sentence to understand. Fueled. As in adding fuel to something. Not that it IS because of the laws. That it is FUELED. A partial contributor. IMPACTED by.

I also mentioned in comment 1827 that there are other factors one would have to control for in understanding whether gun violence in Chicago is per capita higher than in other areas, and why. There are likely a lot of factors that would impact this – I could speculate on a few of them, but didn’t want to derail the thread by going into them, and won’t go into them here, either. Studies on factors that contribute to violent crime could talk about these things better than I can. It’s fairly silly to assume I’m saying the mere presence of a gun means someone is going to use it to shoot someone. And yet, In comment #1828, ooeei misunderstands two of my statements, and for some reason, every attempt to clarify that he is misunderstanding me gets me told that I’m attributing the entirety of the problem to something that I am manifestly not attributing the entire problem to.

The point being, I was trying to introduce some nuance into the discussion, and specifically respond to ooeei’s original musing that Chicago’s strict gun laws are not the entire story of why some cities with strict gun laws nevertheless have higher than “average” levels of gun violence.

I hesitate to even post this, honestly. Based on past experience, it seems pretty likely that it will all be reduced to “You think guns are bad” or something. Well, the definition of insanity…

No.

Do NOT introduce bullshit words like "yokel" into this discussion, as though I implied this.

This is why I am not interested in replying. I tried to participate in this dialogue. I am done now.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1794 on: November 01, 2016, 12:47:15 AM »
It's unnecessary to guess what types of gun laws might work in the United States. An example of reasonable gun laws that are already working well can be found in Hawaii.

Plenty of people in Hawaii own guns, especially in the more rural parts of the state, but yet there is very, very little gun violence in Hawaii, due at least in part to Hawaii's relatively strict gun laws.

Plenty of people in Hawaii have MANY guns, including assault rifles, semi automatics, pistols, shotguns, etc. It's totally legal to own as many guns as you want in Hawaii. You can collect them, take them to the range to shoot them, and use them to go hunting. People who are so inclined, can accumulate a pretty good sized arsenal of guns and ammunition that they could potentially use to fight against a future tyrranical government.

What you can't do in Hawaii is walk around on the streets or drive around in your car carrying loaded weapons. You can't carry your AR-15 into Starbucks to pick up a cup of coffee or take your AK-47 with you to the grocery store. You can't carry a loaded pistol in the glove box of your car or carry a Derringer in your purse. That's illegal. If you get caught carrying weapons around with you, other than when you're on our way to the range to go shoot or heading to or from a gun shop, the police arrest you and take you to jail.

To me, that seems like a pretty good compromise. People who are willing to be responsible, keep their guns locked up when they're not using them, not carry them around in public, can own/collect as many guns as they like. It seems to work fine, not only here in Hawaii, but in every. other. rich. industrialized. country. in. the. world. It's not rocket science. We can do it too. We just have to quit believing that it can't be done.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1795 on: November 01, 2016, 01:21:06 AM »
It's unnecessary to guess what types of gun laws might work in the United States. An example of reasonable gun laws that are already working well can be found in Hawaii.

Plenty of people in Hawaii own guns, especially in the more rural parts of the state, but yet there is very, very little gun violence in Hawaii, due at least in part to Hawaii's relatively strict gun laws.

Plenty of people in Hawaii have MANY guns, including assault rifles, semi automatics, pistols, shotguns, etc. It's totally legal to own as many guns as you want in Hawaii. You can collect them, take them to the range to shoot them, and use them to go hunting. People who are so inclined, can accumulate a pretty good sized arsenal of guns and ammunition that they could potentially use to fight against a future tyrranical government.

What you can't do in Hawaii is walk around on the streets or drive around in your car carrying loaded weapons. You can't carry your AR-15 into Starbucks to pick up a cup of coffee or take your AK-47 with you to the grocery store. You can't carry a loaded pistol in the glove box of your car or carry a Derringer in your purse. That's illegal. If you get caught carrying weapons around with you, other than when you're on our way to the range to go shoot or heading to or from a gun shop, the police arrest you and take you to jail.

To me, that seems like a pretty good compromise. People who are willing to be responsible, keep their guns locked up when they're not using them, not carry them around in public, can own/collect as many guns as they like. It seems to work fine, not only here in Hawaii, but in every. other. rich. industrialized. country. in. the. world. It's not rocket science. We can do it too. We just have to quit believing that it can't be done.

Interesting.  Are you postulating that citizens carrying around ar-15s in public, or licensed concealed weapon carriers with handguns, are a significant source of gun violence? Because every. single. statistic. compiled upon the subject ever would strongly disagree with you...

Hawaii has the lowest firearm ownership of any state in the nation; 'plenty' is a subjective term, but arguing that the lowest rate of gun ownership in the nation should be 'plenty' seems rather severe; the citizens of literally every other state have decided that a higher numbers of guns per capita is acceptable.

We can be sure which gun laws don't work - an example is already available: Washington D.C. No one is carrying assault rifles around D.C.; very few people (any?) are licensed to carry concealed handguns; yet still the area is one of the highest rates of firearm crime in the nation.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1796 on: November 01, 2016, 02:01:44 AM »
It depends on where you live in Hawaii, but in the rural part of the state where I lived for the past 20+ years almost everyone owned guns. I knew several people who owned assault rifles. Our next door neighbor owned at least a dozen hunting rifles. I worked with a guy who dedicated an entire room in his house to storing his gun collection.

It's true that in Honolulu, where most of the people in the state live, gun ownership is lower, probably because there are fewer opportunities to hunt. It makes sense to me. People who live in the country where guns are useful tools for hunting, shooting predators, slaughtering livestock, etc., have plenty of guns. People who live in a city where nobody is allowed to carry guns around on the streets legally, don't own many guns. Why would they? What's somebody who lives on the 20th floor of a high rise building going to do with a gun? Sit around in his apartment polishing it?

There are no regular people in Hawaii who legally carry loaded guns around with them on the streets. Zero. Not saying that that's the only reason why there are low levels of gun violence in the state, but it sure doesn't hurt.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1797 on: November 01, 2016, 06:11:57 AM »
OOEEI said:
For one, some of the places with the most regulations have more issues than the places with less (Chicago and DC come to mind).  This tells me the regulations aren't the whole story, so I wonder why they're the first stop in every conversation about gun violence.

I said:
Chicago's problem with guns is not because of their gun laws. The gun problem in Chicago is fueled because Indiana and Wisconsin have such lax ones.


This was a response to his saying “this tells me the regulations aren’t the whole story.”

In a follow-up thread, I posted a link to an article explaining why Chicago’s regulations don’t translate to lower problems – explaining that, while Chicago’s regulations are tough, the regulations in the areas around it are not.

So, again, my response was specifically to help fill in more of the story, which ooeei specifically mentioned saying regulations alone are not the whole of. Because Chicago doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

I’d like to point out that I said the gun problem in Chicago is FUELED because of lax laws around it.

Apparently, this has been a hard sentence to understand. Fueled. As in adding fuel to something. Not that it IS because of the laws. That it is FUELED. A partial contributor. IMPACTED by.

I also mentioned in comment 1827 that there are other factors one would have to control for in understanding whether gun violence in Chicago is per capita higher than in other areas, and why. There are likely a lot of factors that would impact this – I could speculate on a few of them, but didn’t want to derail the thread by going into them, and won’t go into them here, either. Studies on factors that contribute to violent crime could talk about these things better than I can. It’s fairly silly to assume I’m saying the mere presence of a gun means someone is going to use it to shoot someone. And yet, In comment #1828, ooeei misunderstands two of my statements, and for some reason, every attempt to clarify that he is misunderstanding me gets me told that I’m attributing the entirety of the problem to something that I am manifestly not attributing the entire problem to.

The point being, I was trying to introduce some nuance into the discussion, and specifically respond to ooeei’s original musing that Chicago’s strict gun laws are not the entire story of why some cities with strict gun laws nevertheless have higher than “average” levels of gun violence.

I hesitate to even post this, honestly. Based on past experience, it seems pretty likely that it will all be reduced to “You think guns are bad” or something. Well, the definition of insanity…

I understand now, thanks for the clarification.  My apologies for jumping to conclusions.  I can get a little "ranty" when talking about guns.

ooeei

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 888
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1798 on: November 01, 2016, 06:27:09 AM »
It's unnecessary to guess what types of gun laws might work in the United States. An example of reasonable gun laws that are already working well can be found in Hawaii.

Plenty of people in Hawaii own guns, especially in the more rural parts of the state, but yet there is very, very little gun violence in Hawaii, due at least in part to Hawaii's relatively strict gun laws.

Plenty of people in Hawaii have MANY guns, including assault rifles, semi automatics, pistols, shotguns, etc. It's totally legal to own as many guns as you want in Hawaii. You can collect them, take them to the range to shoot them, and use them to go hunting. People who are so inclined, can accumulate a pretty good sized arsenal of guns and ammunition that they could potentially use to fight against a future tyrranical government.

What you can't do in Hawaii is walk around on the streets or drive around in your car carrying loaded weapons. You can't carry your AR-15 into Starbucks to pick up a cup of coffee or take your AK-47 with you to the grocery store. You can't carry a loaded pistol in the glove box of your car or carry a Derringer in your purse. That's illegal. If you get caught carrying weapons around with you, other than when you're on our way to the range to go shoot or heading to or from a gun shop, the police arrest you and take you to jail.

To me, that seems like a pretty good compromise. People who are willing to be responsible, keep their guns locked up when they're not using them, not carry them around in public, can own/collect as many guns as they like. It seems to work fine, not only here in Hawaii, but in every. other. rich. industrialized. country. in. the. world. It's not rocket science. We can do it too. We just have to quit believing that it can't be done.

Yes, clearly the gun laws are what prevent gun violence in Hawaii, and not an overall difference in the populations and cultures between there and many cities in the mainland. 

As the person above me pointed out, Washington DC has equally restrictive gun laws, and is one of the most violent places in the United States.

If someone plans to commit a mass murder (or regular murder), a law telling them they can't carry their AR-15 into Starbucks is not going to help anyone.   I live in TX and I've never seen anyone carrying an AR-15 around except to a range anyway.  It's not like people here just carry rifles around all over the place, except occasionally in an open carry demonstration.

For me the gun issue comes down to a pretty important freedom, to have the ability to defend yourself.  There are all sorts of ways to restrict freedoms and make the world safer, I just draw my line a bit differently than you do.  If I told you we could reduce violent crime by 30% by instituting mandatory body cameras on everyone in the general population linked to government databases, would you support making it law?  Why or why not? 

Shane

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #1799 on: November 01, 2016, 09:19:51 AM »
As the person above me pointed out, Washington DC has equally restrictive gun laws, and is one of the most violent places in the United States.

One of the differences between Washington D.C. and Hawaii is that Washington D.C. has no effective means of preventing guns from entering from neighboring states. As most people enter Hawaii on commercial aircraft, Hawaii does.

For me the gun issue comes down to a pretty important freedom, to have the ability to defend yourself.  There are all sorts of ways to restrict freedoms and make the world safer, I just draw my line a bit differently than you do.

For me, the gun issue comes down to a pretty important freedom, to have the ability to go outside my house and walk around without getting shot.

In Hawaii, we have both the freedom to own as many weapons as we like, including assault rifles and semi-automatics, and the freedom to go anywhere we like without having to worry some asshole with a gun might shoot us. Seems like a pretty good balance to me.

Instead of arguing that it can't be done in the rest of the country, why not be willing to accept some reasonable restrictions on gun ownership in exchange for the freedom to not get shot?

If I told you we could reduce violent crime by 30% by instituting mandatory body cameras on everyone in the general population linked to government databases, would you support making it law?  Why or why not? 

I would not support mandatory body cameras, because it would infringe on personal privacy. I also don't support having surveillance cameras everywhere, but most Americans seem to tolerate that without much problem. I also don't support allowing the government to monitor our emails, text messages and phone conversations, but apparently many Americans are just fine with that as long as it keeps them "safe" from the scary dark-skinned terrorists.