Orlando

[MoonShadow]

Of course, but so what?  You are comparing different cultures, but blaming the tools used.  The United States is a violent culture, in part, because we tolerate sub-cultures that don't tolerate each other, and sometimes these cultures clash.  Germany does not tolerate contrary sub-cultures.  Should we repeal the 1st Amendment while we are at it?  We are not Germany.  Conformity is not our way.  This event in Orlando is a perfect example of such a clash of culture.  Should we ban homosexuality in public?  Or Islam?  No, of course not.  We put up with the conflicts because we, generally, believe that freedom of self-expression is more important than safety through conformity.  Yet, that is why we still need the 2nd.  Because self-defense is also a basic human right, and to deny others the right to an effective form of self defense makes victims of the law abiding.  There is no argument, at least from me, that if our society was homogeneous, restrictions on weapons would lead to a reduction in lethal crime.  However, we have the society that we have; and when conflicts do occur, they are never so lethal in places that personal weapons are permitted as they are where they are prohibited.  Name one mass shooting that you can think of that occurred someplace that was not a gun free zone, I beg of you, because I can't remember a single one.

Obviously, during a mass shooting such as happened in Orlando recently, if there had been armed people in the crowd at the night club, one of them may have been able to subdue the shooter and end his rampage prematurely. That doesn't mean that having more guns in our society makes us safer!

Most gun violence is not a mass shooting. Even though it seems like mass shootings happen all the time now, they actually make up only a very small percentage of deaths and injuries from guns.

Around 15 years ago my dad called me from PA to tell me about an incident that had just happened on the sidewalk in front of his urban home. He had observed a man walking in front of his house throw a soda can into his front yard. My dad went outside and asked the man to not throw rubbish in his yard to which the man responded with a string of expletives as he began reaching into a bag he was carrying. My dad didn't actually see it, but he was "sure" the man was reaching into his bag to pull out a hand gun.

I advised my dad to just pick up any rubbish out of his front yard himself and keep his mouth shut, stop confronting people on the sidewalk in front of his house. Of course he didn't listen to me, though. I'm just his son.

My dad went straight out to the nearest gun shop and exercised his right to buy himself a semi automatic hand gun to "defend" himself from people who might throw rubbish into his front yard. Being a law abiding citizen of PA, my dad also applied for and received a concealed carry permit so that he could take his pistol with him everywhere he went, which he proceeded to do. I'm sorry, but my elderly father carrying a loaded semi-automatic pistol around with him everywhere that he went did not make him or anybody else safer.

If you give somebody like my dad a gun, all it does is embolden them to confront people about petty shit like throwing rubbish. Without a gun, my dad would probably be too scared to say anything and just keep his mouth shut, which would be the best and safest thing for him and everyone else. I told him if he was unhappy with something he saw somebody doing, that he should call the police and let them deal with it. That's their job. Don't go confronting strangers over things like where they throw their wrappers for their Big Macs or their empty soda cans. Just keep you mouth shut, is what I told my dad.

As far as the uniqueness of the U.S.'s "tolerating subcultures" as an explanation for gun violence, I'm not convinced. Canada has large non-white minorities as do many European countries, especially now after millions of refugees have fled Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to seek asylum in Europe. The main difference is the strictness of our gun laws. In the U.S. guns are everywhere and easy to get, legally or illegally, whereas in Europe and Canada their gun safety laws are stricter and it's harder for people to get guns, thus the lower gun violence rates there.

The answer to occasional mass shootings is NOT to arm everyone so that they can defend themselves. The answer is to make it harder for people who don't need guns to get them. The fewer guns in our society, the fewer shootings there will be.

As far as your father is concerned, it's an anecdotal reference, and means nothing in the grand picture.  That  said, do you really think your father deserves to be in fear of some random freak who litters in his front yard?  I never claimed that Canada wasn't a tolerant society as far as immigrants & refugees are concerned, but the US is already a violent & varied culture well before Canada became such a popular refuge for the world's downtrodden.  If your goal is to reduce the murder rate, you have to deal with the violent nature of the many cultures first.  Simply outlawing firearms isn't going to work out.

[Northwestie]

The no brainer here is what separates us out from other developed countries is access to firearms.  That's it.

Been to London or Birmingham lately?   I have, it's a pretty large mixing pot these days.  They have access to the internet, film, books, and all the other cultural trapping we do.  The only difference is that they don't have guns.  People get emboldened to act on petty slights when they have a gun (penis compensator).

[Yaeger]

The answer to occasional mass shootings is NOT to arm everyone so that they can defend themselves. The answer is to make it harder for people who don't need guns to get them. The fewer guns in our society, the fewer shootings there will be.

We've already shown evidence that strongly supports the notion than gun control doesn't work. That restricting the legal rights of the people to firearms, for whatever reason, doesn't meaningfully impact gun homicide rates. I've also posted evidence that since 1993, the number of privately-owned firearms has increased more than 56% while simultaneously firearms homicide rates have dropped 49%. So no, the data doesn't agree with your assumption that if there were fewer firearms there would be fewer shootings. You might want to consider that gun violence has many other controllable factors besides the gun. Stop ignoring those crucial factors in your comparison of the US to other countries.

Australia is touted by the left as a success story for gun control. Here's Australia's firearms gun deaths before and after their 1996 gun control and gun buyback programs. There's almost no change in the homicide rate despite massive, restrictive new laws, and despite efforts to reduce the number of guns owned by private entities. The relatively freer US experienced a far more massive drop in firearms homicides in that same time period, without the need for gun laws.

[frugalnacho]

Pro gun side: Gun control doesn't work! It demonstrably doesn't work!

Anti gun side: Gun control just works! It demonstrably works!

[beltim]

Australia is touted by the left as a success story for gun control. Here's Australia's firearms gun deaths before and after their 1996 gun control and gun buyback programs. There's almost no change in the homicide rate despite massive, restrictive new laws, and despite efforts to reduce the number of guns owned by private entities. The relatively freer US experienced a far more massive drop in firearms homicides in that same time period, without the need for gun laws.

Your own data shows a 65% reduction in the rate of gun deaths in Australia since their gun control programs.

In contrast, over the same time period, the rate of gun deaths in the US fell by about 17%.

You can argue about cause and effect but don't lie about the data, especially when you can read the graph you posted.

[Yaeger]

Australia is touted by the left as a success story for gun control. Here's Australia's firearms gun deaths before and after their 1996 gun control and gun buyback programs. There's almost no change in the homicide rate despite massive, restrictive new laws, and despite efforts to reduce the number of guns owned by private entities. The relatively freer US experienced a far more massive drop in firearms homicides in that same time period, without the need for gun laws.

Your own data shows a 65% reduction in the rate of gun deaths in Australia since their gun control programs.

In contrast, over the same time period, the rate of gun deaths in the US fell by about 17%.

You can argue about cause and effect but don't lie about the data, especially when you can read the graph you posted.

It's not a lie to say that the U.S. had a higher numerical reduction, and rate of change, in gun deaths per 100,000 after 1996 than Australia. However, it IS a lie to assert that Australia's reduction in gun deaths is primarily due to Gun Control. The rate change in the decline of firearm deaths, both prior to 1996 and after, doesn't support that conclusion.

[beltim]

It's not a lie to say that the U.S. had a higher numerical reduction, and rate of change, in gun deaths per 100,000 after 1996 than Australia.

That's not what you said.  You said:

Here's Australia's firearms gun deaths before and after their 1996 gun control and gun buyback programs. There's almost no change in the homicide rate despite massive, restrictive new laws, and despite efforts to reduce the number of guns owned by private entities.

65% reduction is death rate is not on the same continent as "almost no change."  Australia reduced their gun death rate almost 4 times more than the US did over the same time period.

[Northwestie]

It's rather difficult to prove that the Australia program did have an effect, or that it did not have an affect.  Correlation does not necessarily mean causation - but it depends.

We do know that the gun homicides went down along with suicides.  And we do know that after the gun law was passed mass shootings went to virtually zero.  And the public is quite happy with the program.

[JLee]

The no brainer here is what separates us out from other developed countries is access to firearms.  That's it.

Been to London or Birmingham lately?   I have, it's a pretty large mixing pot these days.  They have access to the internet, film, books, and all the other cultural trapping we do.  The only difference is that they don't have guns.  People get emboldened to act on petty slights when they have a gun (penis compensator).

Can you explain why NH and Vermont are among the safest states in the country?

http://m.aol.com/article/2010/04/07/the-15-safest-state-to-live-in-based-on-2010-crime-rankings/19430046/?gen=1

[Northwestie]

The no brainer here is what separates us out from other developed countries is access to firearms.  That's it.

Been to London or Birmingham lately?   I have, it's a pretty large mixing pot these days.  They have access to the internet, film, books, and all the other cultural trapping we do.  The only difference is that they don't have guns.  People get emboldened to act on petty slights when they have a gun (penis compensator).

Can you explain why NH and Vermont are among the safest states in the country?

http://m.aol.com/article/2010/04/07/the-15-safest-state-to-live-in-based-on-2010-crime-rankings/19430046/?gen=1

Nice cherry picking.  Can you explain why a three peer-reviewed statistical analysis shows a high correlation between states with high gun ownership and high gun violence?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

[Northwestie]

It's not a lie to say that the U.S. had a higher numerical reduction, and rate of change, in gun deaths per 100,000 after 1996 than Australia.

That's not what you said.  You said:

Here's Australia's firearms gun deaths before and after their 1996 gun control and gun buyback programs. There's almost no change in the homicide rate despite massive, restrictive new laws, and despite efforts to reduce the number of guns owned by private entities.

65% reduction is death rate is not on the same continent as "almost no change."  Australia reduced their gun death rate almost 4 times more than the US did over the same time period.

Australia must have undergone, coincidentally, a spontaneous culture change.   That can be the only reasonably deductive answer here.

[forummm]

It's not a lie to say that the U.S. had a higher numerical reduction, and rate of change, in gun deaths per 100,000 after 1996 than Australia.

That's not what you said.  You said:

Here's Australia's firearms gun deaths before and after their 1996 gun control and gun buyback programs. There's almost no change in the homicide rate despite massive, restrictive new laws, and despite efforts to reduce the number of guns owned by private entities.

65% reduction is death rate is not on the same continent as "almost no change."  Australia reduced their gun death rate almost 4 times more than the US did over the same time period.

Australia must have undergone, coincidentally, a spontaneous culture change.   That can be the only reasonably deductive answer here.

No, they also had a spontaneous and secret MASSIVE increase in guns--especially assault rifles and giant clips, and they were primarily owned by terrorists and domestic abusers and the mentally ill. That's why everything got better.

[JLee]

The no brainer here is what separates us out from other developed countries is access to firearms.  That's it.

Been to London or Birmingham lately?   I have, it's a pretty large mixing pot these days.  They have access to the internet, film, books, and all the other cultural trapping we do.  The only difference is that they don't have guns.  People get emboldened to act on petty slights when they have a gun (penis compensator).

Can you explain why NH and Vermont are among the safest states in the country?

http://m.aol.com/article/2010/04/07/the-15-safest-state-to-live-in-based-on-2010-crime-rankings/19430046/?gen=1

Nice cherry picking.  Can you explain why a three peer-reviewed statistical analysis shows a high correlation between states with high gun ownership and high gun violence?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

I grew up in NH and I was a police officer there for five years. Answer the question.

[forummm]

The no brainer here is what separates us out from other developed countries is access to firearms.  That's it.

Been to London or Birmingham lately?   I have, it's a pretty large mixing pot these days.  They have access to the internet, film, books, and all the other cultural trapping we do.  The only difference is that they don't have guns.  People get emboldened to act on petty slights when they have a gun (penis compensator).

Can you explain why NH and Vermont are among the safest states in the country?

http://m.aol.com/article/2010/04/07/the-15-safest-state-to-live-in-based-on-2010-crime-rankings/19430046/?gen=1

Nice cherry picking.  Can you explain why a three peer-reviewed statistical analysis shows a high correlation between states with high gun ownership and high gun violence?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

I grew up in a NH and I was a police officer there for five years. Answer the question.

Do you have data on the breakdown in gun ownership and type of gun by state? I would guess that NH and VT have less crime in part because they are incredibly rural states with very few people in a given area (fewer people to run into and be upset with or to steal from and be able to get away with it) and are so cold that people stay indoors for almost half of the year and that the guns there tend to be for hunting and not handguns and assault weapons. 8 of the 10 states in the top 10 of that list are on the northern border (i.e. cold) and are very rural (WI has one medium size city, but the rest is farms). All 10 are very rural.

[JLee]

The no brainer here is what separates us out from other developed countries is access to firearms.  That's it.

Been to London or Birmingham lately?   I have, it's a pretty large mixing pot these days.  They have access to the internet, film, books, and all the other cultural trapping we do.  The only difference is that they don't have guns.  People get emboldened to act on petty slights when they have a gun (penis compensator).

Can you explain why NH and Vermont are among the safest states in the country?

http://m.aol.com/article/2010/04/07/the-15-safest-state-to-live-in-based-on-2010-crime-rankings/19430046/?gen=1

Nice cherry picking.  Can you explain why a three peer-reviewed statistical analysis shows a high correlation between states with high gun ownership and high gun violence?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

I grew up in a NH and I was a police officer there for five years. Answer the question.

Do you have data on the breakdown in gun ownership and type of gun by state? I would guess that NH and VT have less crime in part because they are incredibly rural states with very few people in a given area (fewer people to run into and be upset with or to steal from and be able to get away with it) and are so cold that people stay indoors for almost half of the year and that the guns there tend to be for hunting and not handguns and assault weapons. 8 of the 10 states in the top 10 of that list are on the northern border (i.e. cold) and are very rural (WI has one medium size city, but the rest is farms). All 10 are very rural.

I do not have that data - it would be interesting if it was public, though I'm not sure how a study would be able to determine gang-related gun ownership (which should contribute heavily to crime statistics, though I don't have any data for that either).

NH thrives on winter tourism - if you aren't into snowmobiling or skiing, you're an outlier.  The state motto in NH is Live Free or Die and gun ownership abounds (I was shooting handguns when I was 9).  Southern NH is not particularly rural, as Massachusetts is encroaching further and further north. Vermont doesn't issue concealed carry licenses at all (none is required). NH is a shall-issue state ($10 fee). Both states (as well as Maine) allow open carry without a permit.  A lack of major cities (with the corresponding lack of gang activity) is likely a major factor; I'm quite confident that (a lack of) population density has something to do with the low crime rate.  Ultimately, my point is that there are states with incredibly lax firearms laws that are statistically the safest in the nation.  There is more to the picture than just guns. Unfortunately, I see very little focus on that from the "we just want to reduce deaths" community - the only target is guns, not the underlying societal problems that shape the root of the problem.

Regarding Alaska:

States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates (Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000):

1. Alaska — 60.6 percent, 19.59

80% of those are suicides.
http://www.adn.com/alaska-news/article/study-suggests-connection-between-alaska-suicide-rates-higher-latitudes/2013/11/23/

Study suggests connection between Alaska suicide rates, higher latitudes

For every 5 degree increase in latitude -- about 345 miles -- the suicide rate jumped 18 percent, according to the model. Alaska spans almost 20 degrees of latitude.

Blaming the Alaska firearms death rate solely on firearms is misleading at best; there are other factors at play.

[Northwestie]

The no brainer here is what separates us out from other developed countries is access to firearms.  That's it.

Been to London or Birmingham lately?   I have, it's a pretty large mixing pot these days.  They have access to the internet, film, books, and all the other cultural trapping we do.  The only difference is that they don't have guns.  People get emboldened to act on petty slights when they have a gun (penis compensator).

Can you explain why NH and Vermont are among the safest states in the country?

http://m.aol.com/article/2010/04/07/the-15-safest-state-to-live-in-based-on-2010-crime-rankings/19430046/?gen=1

Nice cherry picking.  Can you explain why a three peer-reviewed statistical analysis shows a high correlation between states with high gun ownership and high gun violence?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

I grew up in a NH and I was a police officer there for five years. Answer the question.

I prefer science-based public health assessments to speculation.

[JLee]

The no brainer here is what separates us out from other developed countries is access to firearms.  That's it.

Been to London or Birmingham lately?   I have, it's a pretty large mixing pot these days.  They have access to the internet, film, books, and all the other cultural trapping we do.  The only difference is that they don't have guns.  People get emboldened to act on petty slights when they have a gun (penis compensator).

Can you explain why NH and Vermont are among the safest states in the country?

http://m.aol.com/article/2010/04/07/the-15-safest-state-to-live-in-based-on-2010-crime-rankings/19430046/?gen=1

Nice cherry picking.  Can you explain why a three peer-reviewed statistical analysis shows a high correlation between states with high gun ownership and high gun violence?  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/29/weak-gun-laws-and-high-gu_n_6572384.html

I grew up in a NH and I was a police officer there for five years. Answer the question.

I prefer science-based public health assessments to speculation.

So use a science-based public health assessment to tell me why NH and Vermont are among the safest states in the country.

[Northwestie]

- Because there are so little minorities
-Because there are so many cows
- Because of the per capita consumption of Ben and Jerry's
- Because of the proximity to Canada
 - Because of the distance from NYC
-  Because of the presence of the Bread and Puppet Circus


I'm sure someone with a sharp pencil and graph paper could prove these correlations.

[JLee]

- Because there are so little minorities
-Because there are so many cows
- Because of the per capita consumption of Ben and Jerry's
- Because of the proximity to Canada
 - Because of the distance from NYC
-  Because of the presence of the Bread and Puppet Circus


I'm sure someone with a sharp pencil and graph paper could prove these correlations.

NYC has super strict gun laws, though, so it should be safe there!

I've been attempting to discuss in good faith with you, but it's clear at this point that your enthusiasm lies in genitalia references and gibberish (i.e. trolling).  I do not feel that further discussion with you would be remotely productive, nor do I believe that's actually your intent anyway.

[Gin1984]

- Because there are so little minorities
-Because there are so many cows
- Because of the per capita consumption of Ben and Jerry's
- Because of the proximity to Canada
 - Because of the distance from NYC
-  Because of the presence of the Bread and Puppet Circus


I'm sure someone with a sharp pencil and graph paper could prove these correlations.

NYC has super strict gun laws, though, so it should be safe there!

I've been attempting to discuss in good faith with you, but it's clear at this point that your enthusiasm lies in genitalia references and gibberish (i.e. trolling).  I do not feel that further discussion with you would be remotely productive, nor do I believe that's actually your intent anyway.

Given that the NRA made it so there is a lack of studies, what you are requesting is not something we have.  But of the studies we do have, they show increased gun death is correlated with increased ownership.  You might be able to find some outliers but the overall facts are still there.

[Northwestie]

- Because there are so little minorities
-Because there are so many cows
- Because of the per capita consumption of Ben and Jerry's
- Because of the proximity to Canada
 - Because of the distance from NYC
-  Because of the presence of the Bread and Puppet Circus


I'm sure someone with a sharp pencil and graph paper could prove these correlations.

NYC has super strict gun laws, though, so it should be safe there!

I've been attempting to discuss in good faith with you, but it's clear at this point that your enthusiasm lies in genitalia references and gibberish (i.e. trolling).  I do not feel that further discussion with you would be remotely productive, nor do I believe that's actually your intent anyway.

Given that the NRA made it so there is a lack of studies, what you are requesting is not something we have.  But of the studies we do have, they show increased gun death is correlated with increased ownership.  You might be able to find some outliers but the overall facts are still there.

Exactly.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.  Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[JLee]

- Because there are so little minorities
-Because there are so many cows
- Because of the per capita consumption of Ben and Jerry's
- Because of the proximity to Canada
 - Because of the distance from NYC
-  Because of the presence of the Bread and Puppet Circus


I'm sure someone with a sharp pencil and graph paper could prove these correlations.

NYC has super strict gun laws, though, so it should be safe there!

I've been attempting to discuss in good faith with you, but it's clear at this point that your enthusiasm lies in genitalia references and gibberish (i.e. trolling).  I do not feel that further discussion with you would be remotely productive, nor do I believe that's actually your intent anyway.

Given that the NRA made it so there is a lack of studies, what you are requesting is not something we have.  But of the studies we do have, they show increased gun death is correlated with increased ownership.  You might be able to find some outliers but the overall facts are still there.

Almost as if certain regions of the country are not plagued with gun violence, despite lenient laws.  All I am asking is for you to consider that there may be other factors - that seems to be something nobody wants to think about.

Chicago and New York City stand in stark contrast to the northeast (NH, VT, ME). Is it culture? Population density? Gang activity? According to the studies you refer me to, it's not gun laws - so what is it?

[Northwestie]

I'm sure the Brookings Institution would pick up this topic if you gave them a call.

[MrDelane]

This entire thread reminds me of one of my favorite sites:

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[ShoulderThingThatGoesUp]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

[JLee]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

The apparent war on due process in this country is frightening.

[Midwest]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

The apparent war on due process in this country is frightening.

^^  This

If these people have committed crimes and are a danger, why don't we arrest them and withhold bail until trial?  Tough to buy a gun from jail.

[GuitarStv]

Can I ask, what was Cornyn's bill . . . and what was the democratic objection to it?

[Midwest]

Can I ask, what was Cornyn's bill . . . and what was the democratic objection to it?

Steve -

Here's a nice explanation of the various bills proposed -

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/20/feinstein-made-her-gun-control-bill-even

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/20/after-orlando-massacre-cornyn-gun-measure-fails-s/

[JLee]

Can I ask, what was Cornyn's bill . . . and what was the democratic objection to it?

It wasn't just the Democratic party in general - even the ACLU was opposed.

[GuitarStv]

Hmm.  I kinda see the problems with Coryn's proposal now.  If there was already enough evidence to support a terrorism charge and prevent the purchasing of a weapon, there would already be enough evidence to arrest the person . . . which makes blocking purchase of a gun moot.  His proposal effectively means no change to how things work, business as usual.  Or am I missing something?

[Midwest]

Hmm.  I kinda see the problems with Coryn's proposal now.  If there was already enough evidence to support a terrorism charge and prevent the purchasing of a weapon, there would already be enough evidence to arrest the person . . . which makes blocking purchase of a gun moot.  His proposal effectively means no change to how things work, business as usual.  Or am I missing something?

There might be a reason not to arrest a person (ongoing investigation).  I think the democrats voted against his proposal because the NRA backed it and they are bound and determined to score points with the gun control issue.

Putting people on double secret probation and not allowing them to exercise their rights is unconstitutional.  President Obama knows this.  That's why his spokesperson won't answer the question regarding constitutionality of no fly no buy.

The democrats are pushing for people under investigation by the FBI to be barred from purchasing guns (including a 5 year lookback).  The irony with Hillary (under investigation by the FBI) and running for President (control of not just guns but nuclear weapons) is fascinating. 

Can we get remove Hillary and Trump from the tickets and start over?

[dycker1978]

Of course, but so what?  You are comparing different cultures, but blaming the tools used.  The United States is a violent culture, in part, because we tolerate sub-cultures that don't tolerate each other, and sometimes these cultures clash.  Germany does not tolerate contrary sub-cultures.  Should we repeal the 1st Amendment while we are at it?  We are not Germany.  Conformity is not our way.  This event in Orlando is a perfect example of such a clash of culture.  Should we ban homosexuality in public?  Or Islam?  No, of course not.  We put up with the conflicts because we, generally, believe that freedom of self-expression is more important than safety through conformity.  Yet, that is why we still need the 2nd.  Because self-defense is also a basic human right, and to deny others the right to an effective form of self defense makes victims of the law abiding.  There is no argument, at least from me, that if our society was homogeneous, restrictions on weapons would lead to a reduction in lethal crime.  However, we have the society that we have; and when conflicts do occur, they are never so lethal in places that personal weapons are permitted as they are where they are prohibited.  Name one mass shooting that you can think of that occurred someplace that was not a gun free zone, I beg of you, because I can't remember a single one.

Obviously, during a mass shooting such as happened in Orlando recently, if there had been armed people in the crowd at the night club, one of them may have been able to subdue the shooter and end his rampage prematurely. That doesn't mean that having more guns in our society makes us safer!

Most gun violence is not a mass shooting. Even though it seems like mass shootings happen all the time now, they actually make up only a very small percentage of deaths and injuries from guns.

Around 15 years ago my dad called me from PA to tell me about an incident that had just happened on the sidewalk in front of his urban home. He had observed a man walking in front of his house throw a soda can into his front yard. My dad went outside and asked the man to not throw rubbish in his yard to which the man responded with a string of expletives as he began reaching into a bag he was carrying. My dad didn't actually see it, but he was "sure" the man was reaching into his bag to pull out a hand gun.

I advised my dad to just pick up any rubbish out of his front yard himself and keep his mouth shut, stop confronting people on the sidewalk in front of his house. Of course he didn't listen to me, though. I'm just his son.

My dad went straight out to the nearest gun shop and exercised his right to buy himself a semi automatic hand gun to "defend" himself from people who might throw rubbish into his front yard. Being a law abiding citizen of PA, my dad also applied for and received a concealed carry permit so that he could take his pistol with him everywhere he went, which he proceeded to do. I'm sorry, but my elderly father carrying a loaded semi-automatic pistol around with him everywhere that he went did not make him or anybody else safer.

If you give somebody like my dad a gun, all it does is embolden them to confront people about petty shit like throwing rubbish. Without a gun, my dad would probably be too scared to say anything and just keep his mouth shut, which would be the best and safest thing for him and everyone else. I told him if he was unhappy with something he saw somebody doing, that he should call the police and let them deal with it. That's their job. Don't go confronting strangers over things like where they throw their wrappers for their Big Macs or their empty soda cans. Just keep you mouth shut, is what I told my dad.

As far as the uniqueness of the U.S.'s "tolerating subcultures" as an explanation for gun violence, I'm not convinced. Canada has large non-white minorities as do many European countries, especially now after millions of refugees have fled Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to seek asylum in Europe. The main difference is the strictness of our gun laws. In the U.S. guns are everywhere and easy to get, legally or illegally, whereas in Europe and Canada their gun safety laws are stricter and it's harder for people to get guns, thus the lower gun violence rates there.

The answer to occasional mass shootings is NOT to arm everyone so that they can defend themselves. The answer is to make it harder for people who don't need guns to get them. The fewer guns in our society, the fewer shootings there will be.

As far as your father is concerned, it's an anecdotal reference, and means nothing in the grand picture.  That  said, do you really think your father deserves to be in fear of some random freak who litters in his front yard?  I never claimed that Canada wasn't a tolerant society as far as immigrants & refugees are concerned, but the US is already a violent & varied culture well before Canada became such a popular refuge for the world's downtrodden.  If your goal is to reduce the murder rate, you have to deal with the violent nature of the many cultures first.  Simply outlawing firearms isn't going to work out.

Deserves to be in fear of some one who throws garbage in your yard?  Is this really a thing.  Are some people so meek and timid that they are scared of garbage being thrown in their yard?  An that "crime" deserves to pull a gun on someone?  Wow, I think we have found the issue.

[Northwestie]

That's my take.  People have become so fearful these days - the brown guy, the house invader, the government (WTF?), and the last gasp - foreign invaders.  When did folks get so chickenshit?

In that garbage example - ok - you got some loser who tosses trash in your yard - he obviously has issues about his manhood and need to shore this up with his personal stamp - which similar to a dog pissing around, means antisocial behavior.  Dumping a candy wrapper on your lawn is akin to marking territory.  Then if confronted -- well, that's more disrespect from society that needs to be avenged via the penis extender.   

Engaging in this kabuki theater for Act II is as bad, if not worse, than the low self esteem exhibited by Act I.

[forummm]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

That's not a fair analysis. Cornyn's bill does nothing to restrict gun access. Those people will already be in jail and will be unable to buy guns. And if they weren't in jail (because the feds were doing a tracking operation and get the higher ups), they wouldn't want to put the guy on the list because if he tried to buy a gun it would tip him off that he was busted. It's a stupid bill, and there isn't any reason to support it except for the express purpose of playing politics.

The reason to reject it is because if it passed, R's would be able to say "OK, we did gun control, so we're all done here and nothing else needs to be done". When nothing could be further from the truth. So voting for it would actually do harm to the effort to have any progress on the issue.

[Shane]

In the last years of my dad's life he spent a disproportionate amount of time watching shows like, "Forensic Files" and "True Crime Stories." Over and over again, he'd tell me about how "dangerous" it was. In reality, the place where we lived was really rural and there was close to zero crime.

We didn't own any guns, but our next door neighbor had about 10 rifles for hunting. I guess that's why it was so safe at our place. If it hadn't been for our gun toting neighbor putting the fear of god into all of the criminals, we'd probably have been over run by guys trying to throw their candy wrappers and soda cans on our 17 acres. :)

 

[Midwest]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

That's not a fair analysis. Cornyn's bill does nothing to restrict gun access. Those people will already be in jail and will be unable to buy guns. And if they weren't in jail (because the feds were doing a tracking operation and get the higher ups), they wouldn't want to put the guy on the list because if he tried to buy a gun it would tip him off that he was busted. It's a stupid bill, and there isn't any reason to support it except for the express purpose of playing politics.

The reason to reject it is because if it passed, R's would be able to say "OK, we did gun control, so we're all done here and nothing else needs to be done". When nothing could be further from the truth. So voting for it would actually do harm to the effort to have any progress on the issue.

Cornyn's bill was the least constitutionally objectionable.  When I agree with the ACLU (who thinks these bills are awful), there is an issue with the bill.

Setting aside our differences on the gun argument, you don't see a problem with the lack of due process in these bills?  This knee jerk type of thinking is how we ended up with patriot act and domestic spying.  We need to protect our civil liberties, not give them up. 

Why don't we just lock up US citizens for their terrorist associations?

[GuitarStv]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

That's not a fair analysis. Cornyn's bill does nothing to restrict gun access. Those people will already be in jail and will be unable to buy guns. And if they weren't in jail (because the feds were doing a tracking operation and get the higher ups), they wouldn't want to put the guy on the list because if he tried to buy a gun it would tip him off that he was busted. It's a stupid bill, and there isn't any reason to support it except for the express purpose of playing politics.

The reason to reject it is because if it passed, R's would be able to say "OK, we did gun control, so we're all done here and nothing else needs to be done". When nothing could be further from the truth. So voting for it would actually do harm to the effort to have any progress on the issue.

Cornyn's bill was the least constitutionally objectionable.  When I agree with the ACLU (who thinks these bills are awful), there is an issue with the bill.

Setting aside our differences on the gun argument, you don't see a problem with the lack of due process in these bills?  This knee jerk type of thinking is how we ended up with patriot act and domestic spying.  We need to protect our civil liberties, not give them up. 

Why don't we just lock up US citizens for their terrorist associations?

Yeah, those bills could totally and arbitrarily trample all over the freedom to buy guns.  The lists are error prone, not well maintained, and don't have enough burden of proof/evidence to support.

That said, nobody is going to die if a dude can't buy a gun.  It's quite unlike locking someone up without due process, or even preventing them from traveling because of the no fly list.  The damage done by not being able to own a gun for a while is really just some irritation . . . so I can see how someone might consider it a reasonable freedom to give up.

[Midwest]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

That's not a fair analysis. Cornyn's bill does nothing to restrict gun access. Those people will already be in jail and will be unable to buy guns. And if they weren't in jail (because the feds were doing a tracking operation and get the higher ups), they wouldn't want to put the guy on the list because if he tried to buy a gun it would tip him off that he was busted. It's a stupid bill, and there isn't any reason to support it except for the express purpose of playing politics.

The reason to reject it is because if it passed, R's would be able to say "OK, we did gun control, so we're all done here and nothing else needs to be done". When nothing could be further from the truth. So voting for it would actually do harm to the effort to have any progress on the issue.

Cornyn's bill was the least constitutionally objectionable.  When I agree with the ACLU (who thinks these bills are awful), there is an issue with the bill.

Setting aside our differences on the gun argument, you don't see a problem with the lack of due process in these bills?  This knee jerk type of thinking is how we ended up with patriot act and domestic spying.  We need to protect our civil liberties, not give them up. 

Why don't we just lock up US citizens for their terrorist associations?

Yeah, those bills could totally and arbitrarily trample all over the freedom to buy guns.  The lists are error prone, not well maintained, and don't have enough burden of proof/evidence to support.

That said, nobody is going to die if a dude can't buy a gun.  It's quite unlike locking someone up without due process, or even preventing them from traveling because of the no fly list.  The damage done by not being able to own a gun for a while is really just some irritation . . . so I can see how someone might consider it a reasonable freedom to give up.

Steve:

i think the no-fly is questionable in it's current format and law enforcement is moving in an unconstitutional direction (see the stingray).  The no fly no buy is a continuation of that and needs to be stopped in it's tracks.  The judiciary needs to hand the executive and legislative branch their heads. 

Regarding not being able to buy a gun for a while, the lists are secret and it's quite the task to get off.  What's to prevent this from being expanded to suspected criminals?  Why stop at buying guns?  Why not just lock up the US citizens in Deerborn Michigan and deport anybody who's not, we'd all be safer.

[JLee]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

That's not a fair analysis. Cornyn's bill does nothing to restrict gun access. Those people will already be in jail and will be unable to buy guns. And if they weren't in jail (because the feds were doing a tracking operation and get the higher ups), they wouldn't want to put the guy on the list because if he tried to buy a gun it would tip him off that he was busted. It's a stupid bill, and there isn't any reason to support it except for the express purpose of playing politics.

The reason to reject it is because if it passed, R's would be able to say "OK, we did gun control, so we're all done here and nothing else needs to be done". When nothing could be further from the truth. So voting for it would actually do harm to the effort to have any progress on the issue.

Cornyn's bill was the least constitutionally objectionable.  When I agree with the ACLU (who thinks these bills are awful), there is an issue with the bill.

Setting aside our differences on the gun argument, you don't see a problem with the lack of due process in these bills?  This knee jerk type of thinking is how we ended up with patriot act and domestic spying.  We need to protect our civil liberties, not give them up. 

Why don't we just lock up US citizens for their terrorist associations?

Yeah, those bills could totally and arbitrarily trample all over the freedom to buy guns.  The lists are error prone, not well maintained, and don't have enough burden of proof/evidence to support.

That said, nobody is going to die if a dude can't buy a gun.  It's quite unlike locking someone up without due process, or even preventing them from traveling because of the no fly list.  The damage done by not being able to own a gun for a while is really just some irritation . . . so I can see how someone might consider it a reasonable freedom to give up.

If you establish the precedent that rights can be removed once you are suspected of something, how are you going to limit it to just the 2nd amendment?  Nobody is going to die if you are unreasonably searched, either.

[frugalnacho]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

That's not a fair analysis. Cornyn's bill does nothing to restrict gun access. Those people will already be in jail and will be unable to buy guns. And if they weren't in jail (because the feds were doing a tracking operation and get the higher ups), they wouldn't want to put the guy on the list because if he tried to buy a gun it would tip him off that he was busted. It's a stupid bill, and there isn't any reason to support it except for the express purpose of playing politics.

The reason to reject it is because if it passed, R's would be able to say "OK, we did gun control, so we're all done here and nothing else needs to be done". When nothing could be further from the truth. So voting for it would actually do harm to the effort to have any progress on the issue.

Cornyn's bill was the least constitutionally objectionable.  When I agree with the ACLU (who thinks these bills are awful), there is an issue with the bill.

Setting aside our differences on the gun argument, you don't see a problem with the lack of due process in these bills?  This knee jerk type of thinking is how we ended up with patriot act and domestic spying.  We need to protect our civil liberties, not give them up. 

Why don't we just lock up US citizens for their terrorist associations?

Yeah, those bills could totally and arbitrarily trample all over the freedom to buy guns.  The lists are error prone, not well maintained, and don't have enough burden of proof/evidence to support.

That said, nobody is going to die if a dude can't buy a gun.  It's quite unlike locking someone up without due process, or even preventing them from traveling because of the no fly list.  The damage done by not being able to own a gun for a while is really just some irritation . . . so I can see how someone might consider it a reasonable freedom to give up.

Not that I really want to get in on the debate, and I have no dog in the fight, but you can make the exact same argument for any other right.  No one will die if the police illegally search you without a warrant*.  No one will die if your right to free speech is temporarily suspended because it's convenient for the government/cops.  Etc.  And yet as a society we have determined that those things absolutely cannot happen and specifically drafted a written list to prevent those things from happening.

I don't own a gun, and have no plans to ever own a gun, but I don't like the idea of violating someone's rights no matter how good the intentions are.  Even if it's only a "minor irritation" from your perspective (and mine too), I still don't like the idea on principle.   


*It's possible, but most likely will be no big deal.

[Midwest]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

That's not a fair analysis. Cornyn's bill does nothing to restrict gun access. Those people will already be in jail and will be unable to buy guns. And if they weren't in jail (because the feds were doing a tracking operation and get the higher ups), they wouldn't want to put the guy on the list because if he tried to buy a gun it would tip him off that he was busted. It's a stupid bill, and there isn't any reason to support it except for the express purpose of playing politics.

The reason to reject it is because if it passed, R's would be able to say "OK, we did gun control, so we're all done here and nothing else needs to be done". When nothing could be further from the truth. So voting for it would actually do harm to the effort to have any progress on the issue.

Cornyn's bill was the least constitutionally objectionable.  When I agree with the ACLU (who thinks these bills are awful), there is an issue with the bill.

Setting aside our differences on the gun argument, you don't see a problem with the lack of due process in these bills?  This knee jerk type of thinking is how we ended up with patriot act and domestic spying.  We need to protect our civil liberties, not give them up. 

Why don't we just lock up US citizens for their terrorist associations?

Yeah, those bills could totally and arbitrarily trample all over the freedom to buy guns.  The lists are error prone, not well maintained, and don't have enough burden of proof/evidence to support.

That said, nobody is going to die if a dude can't buy a gun.  It's quite unlike locking someone up without due process, or even preventing them from traveling because of the no fly list.  The damage done by not being able to own a gun for a while is really just some irritation . . . so I can see how someone might consider it a reasonable freedom to give up.

If you establish the precedent that rights can be removed once you are suspected of something, how are you going to limit it to just the 2nd amendment?  Nobody is going to die if you are unreasonably searched, either.

You mean like stop and frisk?

[GuitarStv]

i think the no-fly is questionable in it's current format and law enforcement is moving in an unconstitutional direction (see the stingray).  The no fly no buy is a continuation of that and needs to be stopped in it's tracks.  The judiciary needs to hand the executive and legislative branch their heads. 

Regarding not being able to buy a gun for a while, the lists are secret and it's quite the task to get off.  What's to prevent this from being expanded to suspected criminals?  Why stop at buying guns?  Why not just lock up the US citizens in Deerborn Michigan and deport anybody who's not, we'd all be safer.

I agree with you.  The no fly lists are ridiculous, and they need to be scrapped or massively overhauled.

There is a difference between being arrested and detained, and buying a gun.  They're not really comparable.  I can see your slippery slope argument though.

If you establish the precedent that rights can be removed once you are suspected of something, how are you going to limit it to just the 2nd amendment?  Nobody is going to die if you are unreasonably searched, either.

Precedent has already been established by the existence of the no fly list.

Again, there is a difference between being picked out at random by the police, stopped and searched . . . and not being able to make a retail purchase.

I'm not a fan of the law as it was written, but I get why someone might feel it's worth supporting.

[Curbside Prophet]

Hmm.  I kinda see the problems with Coryn's proposal now.  If there was already enough evidence to support a terrorism charge and prevent the purchasing of a weapon, there would already be enough evidence to arrest the person . . . which makes blocking purchase of a gun moot.  His proposal effectively means no change to how things work, business as usual.  Or am I missing something?

I think you are missing the fact that they are trying to take away a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT without the due process of law.  That's a MAJOR precedent to set.

[forummm]

Constitutional rights are not absolute and universal. They are subject to conflict with other constitutional rights, for example. Free speech is great. But not when you yell fire in a crowded theater. Or libel. You also aren't allowed to have a gun and murder people with it. There comes a reasonable restriction where person A's rights conflict with person B's (like their right to life). And the relative harms and reversability of the restrictions come into play. Delaying someone's ability to acquire a gun is reversible and causes little harm. Letting someone be murdered is neither.

[Midwest]

Constitutional rights are not absolute and universal. They are subject to conflict with other constitutional rights, for example. Free speech is great. But not when you yell fire in a crowded theater. Or libel. You also aren't allowed to have a gun and murder people with it. There comes a reasonable restriction where person A's rights conflict with person B's (like their right to life). And the relative harms and reversability of the restrictions come into play. Delaying someone's ability to acquire a gun is reversible and causes little harm. Letting someone be murdered is neither.

Putting suspected terrorists in prison or internment camps is reversible as well.  Maybe we should go that direction.  Who cares about the constitution.

How will any of this prevent the bulk of the shootings/killings (ie Chicago)?

[forummm]

Constitutional rights are not absolute and universal. They are subject to conflict with other constitutional rights, for example. Free speech is great. But not when you yell fire in a crowded theater. Or libel. You also aren't allowed to have a gun and murder people with it. There comes a reasonable restriction where person A's rights conflict with person B's (like their right to life). And the relative harms and reversability of the restrictions come into play. Delaying someone's ability to acquire a gun is reversible and causes little harm. Letting someone be murdered is neither.

Putting suspected terrorists in prison or internment camps is reversible as well.  Maybe we should go that direction.  Who cares about the constitution.

How will any of this prevent the bulk of the shootings/killings (ie Chicago)?

Putting someone in prison is MUCH higher on the relative harm scale than delaying or preventing a gun purchase.

BTW, being in prison is another way that people's rights are curtailed. We don't let people have the right to assemble, have guns, avoid having their belongings searched without warrant, etc. Rights are not absolute.

And it may not reduce the Chicago shootings much. But Republicans would kill any bill that would. It's such a sad state of affairs where the only way that maybe, possibly, some bill could be passed is if it's to keep terrorists and suspected terrorists from getting a gun. And even then, it hasn't passed for years.

[Curbside Prophet]

Constitutional rights are not absolute and universal. They are subject to conflict with other constitutional rights, for example. Free speech is great. But not when you yell fire in a crowded theater. Or libel. You also aren't allowed to have a gun and murder people with it. There comes a reasonable restriction where person A's rights conflict with person B's (like their right to life). And the relative harms and reversability of the restrictions come into play. Delaying someone's ability to acquire a gun is reversible and causes little harm. Letting someone be murdered is neither.

Straw man.  I never said they are absolute, I said we have a right to due process of law.  If you yell fire in a theater you may be arrested but you are still innocent until proven guilty.  It should never be the other way around.

And as for "reversible and causes little harm" look no further than the civil forfeiture laws and how they are abused and often times not reversible.  Property can be taken, forever, without any charges filed and never be returned.   

By the way, free speech is not "great" it is a right.  There's a rather big difference. 

[Metric Mouse]

Well, the Democrats could have voted for Cornyn's bill - a gun control measure that nearly every Republican voted for - but they couldn't compromise. So, I don't want to hear about how serious Democrats are about gun control anymore.

As a bonus, they also lost all credibility on civil liberties issues. What a banner week for the country.

That's not a fair analysis. Cornyn's bill does nothing to restrict gun access. Those people will already be in jail and will be unable to buy guns. And if they weren't in jail (because the feds were doing a tracking operation and get the higher ups), they wouldn't want to put the guy on the list because if he tried to buy a gun it would tip him off that he was busted. It's a stupid bill, and there isn't any reason to support it except for the express purpose of playing politics.

The reason to reject it is because if it passed, R's would be able to say "OK, we did gun control, so we're all done here and nothing else needs to be done". When nothing could be further from the truth. So voting for it would actually do harm to the effort to have any progress on the issue.

Cornyn's bill was the least constitutionally objectionable.  When I agree with the ACLU (who thinks these bills are awful), there is an issue with the bill.

Setting aside our differences on the gun argument, you don't see a problem with the lack of due process in these bills?  This knee jerk type of thinking is how we ended up with patriot act and domestic spying.  We need to protect our civil liberties, not give them up. 

Why don't we just lock up US citizens for their terrorist associations?

Yeah, those bills could totally and arbitrarily trample all over the freedom to buy guns.  The lists are error prone, not well maintained, and don't have enough burden of proof/evidence to support.

That said, nobody is going to die if a dude can't buy a gun.  It's quite unlike locking someone up without due process, or even preventing them from traveling because of the no fly list.  The damage done by not being able to own a gun for a while is really just some irritation . . . so I can see how someone might consider it a reasonable freedom to give up.

Not that I really want to get in on the debate, and I have no dog in the fight, but you can make the exact same argument for any other right.  No one will die if the police illegally search you without a warrant*.  No one will die if your right to free speech is temporarily suspended because it's convenient for the government/cops.  Etc.  And yet as a society we have determined that those things absolutely cannot happen and specifically drafted a written list to prevent those things from happening.

I don't own a gun, and have no plans to ever own a gun, but I don't like the idea of violating someone's rights no matter how good the intentions are.  Even if it's only a "minor irritation" from your perspective (and mine too), I still don't like the idea on principle.   


*It's possible, but most likely will be no big deal.

Good point. And easier police searching would allow them to catch more criminals and greatly reduce the crime levels in some areas of the country. Broken Window theory and all that - worked wonders for NYC. If suspects haven't done anything wrong, they shouldn't have anything to fear.

[MoonShadow]

You guys are really starting to scare the crap out of me.