No one is going to take your guns

[Redfish]

Notice how the far left always uses horrible events like this to push to take away the guns.

notice how this latest shooting in the school

has been dropped by the media so quickly

one where a bad guy with a gun

was stopped by a good guy with a gun

the media also dropped it because the shooters facebook postings showed him to be a raving liberal.

 

[Redfish]

Then why do we have the highest murder rate in the industrialized world?

It seems you have one gun for every citizen, and we have the highest murder rate. Not seeing how even more guns are going to ch ange that dynamic.

So guns make you safer if you TOTALLY IGNORE the rest of the world. Got it.

Kind of like saying that Billy Barty is the tallest man in the world if you ignore the entire NBA.

Because of our drug and gang banger culture. Next question...

No drugs or gangs in any other country in the world, except for the U.S.

Solid point.

other than mexico, what country has a drug and gang culture as pervasive as ours?

 

[Redfish]

Guns make you safer. More good guys with guns is the answer for bad guys with guns

-Geaux

Then why do we have the highest murder rate in the industrialized world?

It seems you have one gun for every citizen, and we have the highest murder rate. Not seeing how even more guns are going to ch ange that dynamic.

So guns make you safer if you TOTALLY IGNORE the rest of the world. Got it.

Kind of like saying that Billy Barty is the tallest man in the world if you ignore the entire NBA.

why did you leave mexico and columbia off the chart?

 

[KevinWestern]

Then why do we have the highest murder rate in the industrialized world?

It seems you have one gun for every citizen, and we have the highest murder rate. Not seeing how even more guns are going to ch ange that dynamic.

So guns make you safer if you TOTALLY IGNORE the rest of the world. Got it.

Kind of like saying that Billy Barty is the tallest man in the world if you ignore the entire NBA.

Because of our drug and gang banger culture. Next question...

No drugs or gangs in any other country in the world, except for the U.S.

Solid point.

This graph is deliberately designed to mislead. If you set the top range at 50 (instead of the microscopic "3") there would be no discernible difference between the US and other countries with regards to gun violence.

We're talking a 0.00003% (3/100,000) murder rate vs a 0.000005% (0.5/100,000) murder rate. Mathematically speaking, those two numbers are virtually the same.

11k gun homicides a year, w/ 9k are directly related to gang violence/poverty. I think we have a gang/violence poverty issue, not a gun one. Now, I'm not against throwing out ideas on limiting ways criminals obtain handguns, however when the president talks about banning so called "assault rifles" - a type of gun who's overall group (the rifle) is responsible for less than 300 deaths per year out of a population of 300 million - you can understand why I get a little skeptical about his intentions...

 

[Wry Catcher]

They're ordering someone who knowingly is breaking the law there to turn over their guns.

#2 allows the gun to remain in the custody of the owner, simply not in NYC. Call it confiscation light, you can keep your gun if you like your gun as long as you take the gun out of NYC. Seems fair to me, if guns are so important to Daveboy, and others who do not live in NYC, why are their panties twisted into a knot?

Oh yes, the slippery slope argument. Which, BTW, works two ways. If everyone has guns, more gun play will occur and more innocents will be maimed or killed.

 

[Pogo]

Notice how the far left always uses horrible events like this to push to take away the guns.

notice how this latest shooting in the school

has been dropped by the media so quickly

one where a bad guy with a gun

was stopped by a good guy with a gun

Which completely sidesteps the question

What the fuck is wrong with us

That anybody is in there

With a gun

In the first place


Hope I got this in proper haiku form...

There's nothing wrong with us.

What's wrong with YOU?

Not a thing. I'm asking the same question concerned parents ask: why do we want our kids going to school in a war zone?

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Fine--- for the moment. Do we just leave it there? Are we not concerned why any guy with a gun was necessary in the first place? What the fuck kind of world are we feeding ourselves where a good guy with a gun is necessary?

I'm also indirectly mocking Geaux's post above which says, in effect, "the answer to guns is --- more guns!". Not so much mocking that he says that, but mocking the fact that he can post that with a straight face, obvious to the obvious flaw in it.

In short ---
Let's stop sticking band aids on the symptom and attack the disease.

 

[KevinWestern]

notice how this latest shooting in the school

has been dropped by the media so quickly

one where a bad guy with a gun

was stopped by a good guy with a gun

Which completely sidesteps the question

What the fuck is wrong with us

That anybody is in there

With a gun

In the first place


Hope I got this in proper haiku form...

There's nothing wrong with us.

What's wrong with YOU?

Not a thing. I'm asking the same question concerned parents ask: why do we want our kids going to school in a war zone?

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Fine--- for the moment. Do we just leave it there? Are we not concerned why any guy with a gun was necessary in the first place? What the fuck kind of world are we feeding ourselves where a good guy with a gun is necessary?

I'm also indirectly mocking Geaux's post above which says, in effect, "the answer to guns is --- more guns!". Not so much mocking that he says that, but mocking the obvious flaw in it to which he maintains oblivious.

In short ---
Stop sticking band aids on the sympton and attack the disease.

A "war zone"? Don't think an area with a gun murder rate of 0.003% should be called a "war zone". To put things inter perspective, about 11% of soldiers who were deployed to Vietnam never made it home. That is a war zone. Let's call things how they actually are, okay?

There will always be guns, and it's up to you to decide if you want scenario 1 or 2:

1.) Criminals and Government are the only group with guns
2.) Criminals, Government, and law-abiding citizens have guns.

I'm not sure why anyone would be threatened by a law-abiding citizen having a gun.

 

[Redfish]

notice how this latest shooting in the school

has been dropped by the media so quickly

one where a bad guy with a gun

was stopped by a good guy with a gun

Which completely sidesteps the question

What the fuck is wrong with us

That anybody is in there

With a gun

In the first place


Hope I got this in proper haiku form...

There's nothing wrong with us.

What's wrong with YOU?

Not a thing. I'm asking the same question concerned parents ask: why do we want our kids going to school in a war zone?

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Fine--- for the moment. Do we just leave it there? Are we not concerned why any guy with a gun was necessary in the first place? What the fuck kind of world are we feeding ourselves where a good guy with a gun is necessary?

I'm also indirectly mocking Geaux's post above which says, in effect, "the answer to guns is --- more guns!". Not so much mocking that he says that, but mocking the fact that he can post that with a straight face, obvious to the obvious flaw in it.

In short ---
Let's stop sticking band aids on the symptom and attack the disease.

the problem is not guns, the problem is a violent society that is fed more viiolence daily by hollywood, rap music, video games, and the hatred that is being fostered by our current president against any faction that does not buy into his rhetoric.

Our young people are frustrated by the images they are fed by TV of ridiculously rich athletes and entertainers, and their inability to find jobs and make money for themselves.

Everyone is angry at someone, we are very divided by politics, race, religion, age, sex, locality, income, etc....Guns are not creating those feelings, banning guns will not eliminate the violence and hate.

our society is sick.

 

[Pogo]

Which completely sidesteps the question

What the fuck is wrong with us

That anybody is in there

With a gun

In the first place


Hope I got this in proper haiku form...

There's nothing wrong with us.

What's wrong with YOU?

Not a thing. I'm asking the same question concerned parents ask: why do we want our kids going to school in a war zone?

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Fine--- for the moment. Do we just leave it there? Are we not concerned why any guy with a gun was necessary in the first place? What the fuck kind of world are we feeding ourselves where a good guy with a gun is necessary?

I'm also indirectly mocking Geaux's post above which says, in effect, "the answer to guns is --- more guns!". Not so much mocking that he says that, but mocking the obvious flaw in it to which he maintains oblivious.

In short ---
Stop sticking band aids on the sympton and attack the disease.

A "war zone"? Don't think an area with a gun murder rate of 0.003% should be called a "war zone". To put things inter perspective, about 11% of soldiers who were deployed to Vietnam never made it home. That is a war zone. Let's call things how they actually are, okay?

There will always be guns, and it's up to you to decide if you want scenario 1 or 2:

1.) Criminals and Government are the only group with guns
2.) Criminals, Government, and law-abiding citizens have guns.

I'm not sure why anyone would be threatened by a law-abiding citizen having a gun.

You've hung yourself up on semantics while completely ducking the inconvenient point. "War zone" is a euphemism. A child being sent to school should be having a learning experience, not learning to duck bullets. That's the point.

I'm not sure if you're an idiot or just playing one on the internets, but if the latter -- good job.

Redfish gets it. I've actually agreed with him twice in two days now. That's a start.

 

[KevinWestern]

You've hung yourself up on semantics while completely ducking the inconvenient point. "War zone" is a euphemism. A child being sent to school should be having a learning experience, not learning to duck bullets. That's the point.

I'm not sure if you're an idiot or just playing one on the internets, but if the latter -- good job.

Redfish gets it. I've actually agreed with him twice in two days now. That's a start.

I think we all agree that children shouldn't have to duck bullets under any circumstances.

My point was by calling schools in the USA (in a general way) a "a war zone" then you are distorting reality. Kids don't face a "war zone" here in the USA when they attend school, and children who don't attend inner city schools (in 99.99% of cases) do not have to worry about gun violence.

However (perhaps I've missed earlier in the discussion) if you are talking about inner city schools (like in Chicago) then I fully agree something needs to actively be done. That is where we must start. One of my frustrations is that the President really hasn’t put forth initiatives that would actually work to keep handguns out of the hands of these gangbangers; the focus is always on the “assault weapon”.

Please don't imply I'm an idiot.

 

[Pogo]

You've hung yourself up on semantics while completely ducking the inconvenient point. "War zone" is a euphemism. A child being sent to school should be having a learning experience, not learning to duck bullets. That's the point.

I'm not sure if you're an idiot or just playing one on the internets, but if the latter -- good job.

Redfish gets it. I've actually agreed with him twice in two days now. That's a start.

I think we all agree that children shouldn't have to duck bullets under any circumstances.

My point was by calling schools in the USA (in a general way) a "a war zone" then you are distorting reality. Kids don't face a "war zone" here in the USA when they attend school, and children who don't attend inner city schools (in 99.99% of cases) do not have to worry about gun violence.

However (perhaps I've missed earlier in the discussion) if you are talking about inner city schools (like in Chicago) then I fully agree something needs to actively be done. That is where we must start. One of my frustrations is that the President really hasn’t put forth initiatives that would actually work to keep handguns out of the hands of these gangbangers; the focus is always on the “assault weapon”.

Please don't imply I'm an idiot.

Sorry, but your post just leans that way, getting all hung up on a euphemism and completely missing the whole point.

Any child in any school should not have to be concerned with dodging bullets. Period. It's not something that has some kind of threshold.

Btw I have yet to see a school shooting that has anything to do with "gangbangers". Keep your eye on the ball.

 

[Spoonman]

Not a thing. I'm asking the same question concerned parents ask: why do we want our kids going to school in a war zone?

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Fine--- for the moment. Do we just leave it there? Are we not concerned why any guy with a gun was necessary in the first place? What the fuck kind of world are we feeding ourselves where a good guy with a gun is necessary?

I'm also indirectly mocking Geaux's post above which says, in effect, "the answer to guns is --- more guns!". Not so much mocking that he says that, but mocking the obvious flaw in it to which he maintains oblivious.

In short ---
Stop sticking band aids on the sympton and attack the disease.

A "war zone"? Don't think an area with a gun murder rate of 0.003% should be called a "war zone". To put things inter perspective, about 11% of soldiers who were deployed to Vietnam never made it home. That is a war zone. Let's call things how they actually are, okay?

There will always be guns, and it's up to you to decide if you want scenario 1 or 2:

1.) Criminals and Government are the only group with guns
2.) Criminals, Government, and law-abiding citizens have guns.

I'm not sure why anyone would be threatened by a law-abiding citizen having a gun.

You've hung yourself up on semantics while completely ducking the inconvenient point. "War zone" is a euphemism. A child being sent to school should be having a learning experience, not learning to duck bullets. That's the point.

I'm not sure if you're an idiot or just playing one on the internets, but if the latter -- good job.

Redfish gets it. I've actually agreed with him twice in two days now. That's a start.

kids should also not be exposed to drugs, bullying, sexual advances and many other non learning pressures. all of which they incur on a daily basis. with the exception of and extremely small minority, this war zone created by guns does not exist. Lets put our focus on what distracts them, all of them, on a daily basis.

Has banning drugs, bullying, or anything else kept them out of our schools? what makes one thing banning guns will?

 

[KevinWestern]

Sorry, but your post just leans that way, getting all hung up on a euphemism and completely missing the whole point.

Well, again was just saying it's unfair to characterize US schools in a general way as a "warzone" because 99.999% of schools in America do not see gun violence. That was my point. It's like calling an entire office a "complete mess" because 1 cube out of 300,000 has a bunch of papers all over the place while the rest are spotless.

Btw I have yet to see a school shooting that has anything to do with "gangbangers". Keep your eye on the ball.

Yes, but when talking about ending gun violence near school zones why would you focus in on the issue that is related to less than 15 deaths annually (school shootings) vs. the scenario that leads to 9,000 deaths annually (inner city violence, gangbangers)?

This is why I was asking if it was the focus of your conversation - inner city schools..

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

notice how this latest shooting in the school

has been dropped by the media so quickly

one where a bad guy with a gun

was stopped by a good guy with a gun

Which completely sidesteps the question

What the fuck is wrong with us

That anybody is in there

With a gun

In the first place


Hope I got this in proper haiku form...

There's nothing wrong with us.

What's wrong with YOU?

Not a thing. I'm asking the same question concerned parents ask: why do we want our kids going to school in a war zone?

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Fine--- for the moment. Do we just leave it there? Are we not concerned why any guy with a gun was necessary in the first place? What the fuck kind of world are we feeding ourselves where a good guy with a gun is necessary?

I'm also indirectly mocking Geaux's post above which says, in effect, "the answer to guns is --- more guns!". Not so much mocking that he says that, but mocking the fact that he can post that with a straight face, obvious to the obvious flaw in it.

In short ---
Let's stop sticking band aids on the symptom and attack the disease.

Correct.

And ‘assault weapons’ bans, magazine capacity restrictions, and unwarranted, burdensome regulatory measures such as gun registration also constitute Band-Aides.

Gun violence is primarily a mental health issue, it’s also an issue of facing difficult facts concerning the nature of our society, where violence is perceived to be a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Which completely sidesteps the question

What the fuck is wrong with us

That anybody is in there

With a gun

In the first place


Hope I got this in proper haiku form...

There's nothing wrong with us.

What's wrong with YOU?

Not a thing. I'm asking the same question concerned parents ask: why do we want our kids going to school in a war zone?

A good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun? Fine--- for the moment. Do we just leave it there? Are we not concerned why any guy with a gun was necessary in the first place? What the fuck kind of world are we feeding ourselves where a good guy with a gun is necessary?

I'm also indirectly mocking Geaux's post above which says, in effect, "the answer to guns is --- more guns!". Not so much mocking that he says that, but mocking the fact that he can post that with a straight face, obvious to the obvious flaw in it.

In short ---
Let's stop sticking band aids on the symptom and attack the disease.

Correct.

And ‘assault weapons’ bans, magazine capacity restrictions, and unwarranted, burdensome regulatory measures such as gun registration also constitute Band-Aides.

Gun violence is primarily a mental health issue, it’s also an issue of facing difficult facts concerning the nature of our society, where violence is perceived to be a legitimate means of conflict resolution.

That's because, in some cases, it is.

 

[Pogo]

Throwing more laws at the problem of gun violence is a band-aid.
Throwing "good guys" with guns at a means of conflict resolution is another band-aid.
Neither addresses the disease.

Recognize that these are simultaneously true. Because dividing into camps of more guns versus more laws accomplishes nothing but to ensure both sides ignore the root causes.

 

[KevinWestern]

Throwing more laws at the problem of gun violence is a band-aid.
Throwing "good guys" with guns at a means of conflict resolution is another band-aid.
Neither addresses the disease.

Recognize that these are simultaneously true. Because dividing into camps of more guns versus more laws accomplishes nothing but to ensure both sides ignore the root causes.

Agree completely. I think the politics of it all has led to some pretty absurd positions on both sides.

At the core (I believe) the root of gun violence (focusing on homicides) is linked largely to poverty. People in Wisconsin can carry guns everywhere, yet you don't see them killing each other in significant numbers like you do on the south side of Chicago. Why? Because if you have the things you need; a good upbringing, a good education, some money in the bank, etc, there is absolutely no reason to find comfort in a violent street gang, kill another human, etc.

I think we fix that in a few different ways:
1.) Improve the education system, and improve the "outreach" programs (probably most complex out of three)
2.) Make marijuana legal, which will eliminate 50-70% of revenue streams of these street gangs.
3.) Figure out new ways to prevent handguns from illegally making their way to our most affected cities.

 

[Pogo]

Throwing more laws at the problem of gun violence is a band-aid.
Throwing "good guys" with guns at a means of conflict resolution is another band-aid.
Neither addresses the disease.

Recognize that these are simultaneously true. Because dividing into camps of more guns versus more laws accomplishes nothing but to ensure both sides ignore the root causes.

Agree completely. I think the politics of it all has led to some pretty absurd positions on both sides.

At the core (I believe) the root of gun violence (focusing on homicides) is linked largely to poverty. People in Wisconsin can carry guns everywhere, yet you don't see them killing each other in significant numbers like you do on the south side of Chicago. Why? Because if you have the things you need; a good upbringing, a good education, some money in the bank, etc, there is absolutely no reason to find comfort in a violent street gang, kill another human, etc.

I think we fix that in a few different ways:
1.) Improve the education system, and improve the "outreach" programs (probably most complex out of three)
2.) Make marijuana legal, which will eliminate 50-70% of revenue streams of these street gangs.
3.) Figure out new ways to prevent handguns from illegally making their way to our most affected cities.

Poverty and lack of opportunity is certainly a contributing factor. That's going to set up conditions conducive to crime and violence.

But why guns? As opposed to, say, knives?

We have a culture that celebrates firearms -- not just historically and Constitutionally, but in every cop show on the boob tube right now, in any so-called "action" movie, in endless video games. Is it harmful to infuse the mind with these images? Debatable. But more to the point, they represent a fantasy, not a reality. There's a near-zero chance that on my next trip to the post office I'm going to witness Batman square off against The Joker. Or a bank robbery or even somebody running a stop sign. But the relentless torrent of violent images poured into our collective psyche creates the impression that not only does this sort of thing go on everywhere all the time, but that hey it's not that big a deal.

Couple that sort of romanticism with the violent domination attitude we collectively use as a worldview -- that our challenges must be met by overpowering them, that might makes right -- and we get our perfect storm. So poverty contributes, social ills, lack of opportunity, overcrowding, education... but these factors are in no way unique to the U.S.

The difference is cultural/philosophical values.

Here's a good spot to repost this:


I give you two cities, split by a river, kinda like Minneapolis and St. Paul are but this is a different pair of cities.

Obviously being next to each other, these cities have much in common regionally, climatically, industrially and so on. They are less than a mile apart, connected by a bridge and a tunnel. But the two cities show a stark difference in one area.

The city to the west recorded 377 total homicides in 2011 and 327 in 2010, according to police statistics(1), carrying a homicide rate of around 50 per 100,000 people
Across the bridge in the same time period, there was a total of one. For both years put together. A rate of 0.30. From September 27, 2009 to November 22, 2011 in that city, there were no murders at all. Zero.

What's going on here?

One of them is in Canada. The cities are Detroit and Windsor.

I haven't determined how many of those homicides were committed by firearm, but for a guide, out of 386 Detroit homicides in 2012, 333 were by firearm. Over 86%. (1)

And the one murder that finally broke the 2011 streak in Windsor? It was a stabbing.

People in his city of about 215,000 have a saying, Blaine said Friday afternoon: "In Windsor, when a 7-Eleven is held up, it usually is a knife. In Detroit, it is an Uzi."
It's not that there's no crime in Windsor, an industrial city that has seen its own economic challenges. "We're no different than any other major metropolitan area," Corey said. (here)

704 to 1 in homicide; several hundred to zero in gun deaths.
Detroit: at or near the highest murder rate in its country; Windsor: lowest in its country.
Less than a mile apart.

What's driving the difference? Gun control? Or gun culture?

Resources/further reading:
(1) 2012 Crime/Homicide Stats

(2) Freep.com 1/3/13

A Tale of Two Cities

Murder-Free Two Years

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

 

[KevinWestern]

The fault lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our values we are underlings.

Interesting stuff indeed. I agree with most everything.

I'd like to make a few notes, though. First is that without the element of extreme poverty, you would see a significantly reduced number of gun deaths. There are towns all over (especially in the southern half of the United States) with an extraordinary amount of guns, a praise for the gun culture, and little to no gun murders. So we cannot downplay this element.

Second, I don't believe it's the "tea-party", Constitutional, 2nd amendment sort of pro-gun literature/culture that drives these kids in the inner cities to pick up a gun and shoot another human being. It's more so the gun culture associated with (what I loosely want to describe as) the "gangsta rap culture" that is so prevalent today. I like hip hop, but there is indeed a lot of garbage out there (ie Chief Keef who proclaimed his next album would "raise the murder rate").

I think there's a difference between the gun culture of the hunter who supports Ron Paul, and the 13 year old kid who looks up to some 17 year old who proves "he's a man" by shooting a rival gang member. Perhaps they're irrevocably tied together in some way, but I'm saying they're two different things in a lot of ways.

I think the left unfairly focuses in too much on the Constitutional sort of gun culture. They're looking in the wrong place.

Any thoughts?

 

[JoeB131]

Notice how the far left always uses horrible events like this to push to take away the guns.

Yes, when someone does something horrible WITH A GUN, it's a good time to question whether people should HAVE GUNS.