Semiautomatic rifles to be Assault Weapons in CA

[Occupied Deutschland]

O--kayyy. That came outta nowhere and has nothing to do with what I said.
There's some nuttery here, but I don't think it's got anything to do with guns. I'll just back up slowly.

It was the height of the Republican Party, damn it.

Yeah, it's popularity sank afterwards like a ton of bricks because people woke the fuck up, but it's probably what got that bullshit through SCOTUS.

Or do you have a goddamn memory problem?

...
I think you have a dramatic misunderstanding of the way the Supreme Court functions.

[Salandriagado]

Well, they do now.
Go launch an appeals process on the ruling if you so wish.

As I recall, the argument in the case was that Chicago citizen's 2nd Amendment rights were being unduly infringed by restrictive firearms regulations that prevented citizens from acquiring firearms for personal defence and defence of property, and the 2nd Amendment was interpreted thusly in the ruling.

I'll wait until Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are either dead or caught up in a sex scandal. Speaking of which, where's my camera...

What, one sex scandal involving all four of them? That's one hell of a party.

[The Rich Port]

It was the height of the Republican Party, damn it.

Yeah, it's popularity sank afterwards like a ton of bricks because people woke the fuck up, but it's probably what got that bullshit through SCOTUS.

Or do you have a goddamn memory problem?

...
I think you have a dramatic misunderstanding of the way the Supreme Court functions.

... Are you implying George Bush DIDN'T appoint, say, Scalia, and \ confirmed by a dominant Republican Party in the Senate?

[Salandriagado]

...
I think you have a dramatic misunderstanding of the way the Supreme Court functions.

... Are you implying George Bush DIDN'T appoint, say, Scalia, and \ confirmed by a dominant Republican Party in the Senate?

Confirmed unanimously, actually.

[The Rich Port]

... Are you implying George Bush DIDN'T appoint, say, Scalia, and \ confirmed by a dominant Republican Party in the Senate?

Confirmed unanimously, actually.

ECH.

The hell was wrong with the country that year?

[Occupied Deutschland]

...
I think you have a dramatic misunderstanding of the way the Supreme Court functions.

... Are you implying George Bush DIDN'T appoint, say, Scalia, and \ confirmed by a dominant Republican Party in the Senate?

Not at all.

[Imperializt Russia]

...
I think you have a dramatic misunderstanding of the way the Supreme Court functions.

... Are you implying George Bush DIDN'T appoint, say, Scalia, and \ confirmed by a dominant Republican Party in the Senate?

Are you implying that George Bush orchestrated the District of Columbia and Chicago firearms laws to irritate people such that they would challenge them in the Supreme Court and then use Scalia to strategically shift the vote balance?

Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court a quarter century before either ruling on Heller or McDonald, by Reagan.

[Uieurnthlaal]

You just think it's bad because it's thrown all over the news

not i, kiddo. you'll note i explicitly agreed that gun violence is down. i even mentioned the actual cause of that interesting turn of events.

i think its bad because it objectively is, when compared to other countries on a similar level - and even compared to our rather violent cousins back in england, let alone the rest of the english-speaking world. the difference in rates between here and the rest of the developed world should shock the conscience of anyone with an ounce of humanity. it can't be handwaved away.

You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None. That's not to say that there's no murders, sure there are, but a whole lot less, even accounting for England's smaller population.
That's because, guess what: it's a whole lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

[Uieurnthlaal]

... Are you implying George Bush DIDN'T appoint, say, Scalia, and \ confirmed by a dominant Republican Party in the Senate?

Confirmed unanimously, actually.

At least we only let Scalia in, and not Bork. Bork would have been even more of a disaster than Scalia, if that's even possible.

[Kernen]

not i, kiddo. you'll note i explicitly agreed that gun violence is down. i even mentioned the actual cause of that interesting turn of events.

i think its bad because it objectively is, when compared to other countries on a similar level - and even compared to our rather violent cousins back in england, let alone the rest of the english-speaking world. the difference in rates between here and the rest of the developed world should shock the conscience of anyone with an ounce of humanity. it can't be handwaved away.

You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None. That's not to say that there's no murders, sure there are, but a whole lot less, even accounting for England's smaller population.
That's because, guess what: it's a whole lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

I believe we disproved the notion that there is less violent crime in England then the US when accounting for populations. We also proved that the odds for being a victim in either number, at best, at one in tens of thousands. These were determined from raw numbers of crime and population.

It's also a whole lot easier to defend yourself with a gun then a knife. That alone is enough to convince many people to keep a firearm, mine included. I have a 9mm that lives in a drawer in my bedstand, or either at my knee in my vehicle or concealed on my person when I feel its necessary. Note that it is all done in a completely legal fashion. It hasn't ever been used in a crime, nor has it ever been used to coerce or threaten anybody. If ever it is to be utilized in either fashion by me, it will be in the defense of human life, namely my own. Why, then, should it be removed from my possession?

[Rawrckia]

Calm down, it's just California.

They're like a different country.

[Rawrckia]

not i, kiddo. you'll note i explicitly agreed that gun violence is down. i even mentioned the actual cause of that interesting turn of events.

i think its bad because it objectively is, when compared to other countries on a similar level - and even compared to our rather violent cousins back in england, let alone the rest of the english-speaking world. the difference in rates between here and the rest of the developed world should shock the conscience of anyone with an ounce of humanity. it can't be handwaved away.

You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None. That's not to say that there's no murders, sure there are, but a whole lot less, even accounting for England's smaller population.
That's because, guess what: it's a whole lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html
"If we ban guns criminals will never get a hold of them!"

Sure it's less than gun violence in the United States. But that's probably because Britbongs are just nicer people than 'Murricans.

[Kernen]

You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None. That's not to say that there's no murders, sure there are, but a whole lot less, even accounting for England's smaller population.
That's because, guess what: it's a whole lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports ... ce-uk.html
"If we ban guns criminals will never get a hold of them!"

Sure it's less than gun violence in the United States. But that's probably because Britbongs are just nicer people than 'Murricans.

There was something of a consensus on the fact that the UK's strict gun control successfully limiting gun crime. The followup question to that is why is there a higher rate of total violent crime in the UK vs the US? It stands to reason that gun control doesn't necessarily have a strong impact on violent crime if we only take the US and UK into account.

[Rawrckia]

There was something of a consensus on the fact that the UK's strict gun control successfully limiting gun crime. The followup question to that is why is there a higher rate of total violent crime in the UK vs the US? It stands to reason that gun control doesn't necessarily have a strong impact on violent crime if we only take the US and UK into account.

I'm not sure if it was the gun control itself that limited crime - Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the country and it's more dangerous there than in Iraq.

I'm sure gun control is effective in the UK simply because it's an island - it's harder to get firearms into the country because they must be by ship or plane (which are inspected thoroughly).

The United States borders Canada and Mexico, both of which have lots of guns for sale, on the black market or otherwise (Mexico actually doesn't allow guns for its citizens iirc but the cartels are extremely powerful right now). It's too easy to get them in and out of the country.

[ALMF]

Making excuses. Typical.

Whatever you say left-wing utopia

Ad hominim: the sine of someone who's ready lost!

[ALMF]

weird, the definition and the reality don't' seem to match up

That is because you are using it incorrectly.

I get tired of correcting this froud: thanks for covering.

[ALMF]

That is because you are using it incorrectly.

Actually...they aren't using it correctly, otherwise Liberalism wouldn't be the monument of regulating the fun out of the world.

The American libertarian party (the only US libral party) isn't: if your caling the Democratic party "liberal" your using it wrong!

[Nazeroth]

That is because you are using it incorrectly.

I get tired of correcting this froud: thanks for covering.

Hey it's not my fault progressive is a nice way of saying regulate your fun out of your life.

Liberalism is basically where everyone is having fun on the playground and one kid does something stupid then everyone can't play anymore. That's basically liberalism in the modern era.

Now classical liberalism...that's pretty good I suppose.

[Uieurnthlaal]

Actually...they aren't using it correctly, otherwise Liberalism wouldn't be the monument of regulating the fun out of the world.

The American libertarian party (the only US libral party) isn't: if your caling the Democratic party "liberal" your using it wrong!

It's liberal compared to the only alternative, the GOP; but then again, that's not saying much.

[Norjagen]

There was something of a consensus on the fact that the UK's strict gun control successfully limiting gun crime. The followup question to that is why is there a higher rate of total violent crime in the UK vs the US? It stands to reason that gun control doesn't necessarily have a strong impact on violent crime if we only take the US and UK into account.

I'm not sure if it was the gun control itself that limited crime - Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the country and it's more dangerous there than in Iraq.

I'm sure gun control is effective in the UK simply because it's an island - it's harder to get firearms into the country because they must be by ship or plane (which are inspected thoroughly).

The United States borders Canada and Mexico, both of which have lots of guns for sale, on the black market or otherwise (Mexico actually doesn't allow guns for its citizens iirc but the cartels are extremely powerful right now). It's too easy to get them in and out of the country.

If you look back at the FBIs statistics through the various periods of gun control in the United States; namely passing and repeal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and the expansion of concealed carry to all 50 states, you'll notice that gun control (and lack thereof) has a negligent impact on violent crime rates. You will, however, notice a spike in the 1990s, when the war on drugs hit its peak, followed by a steady decline. The overall violent crime rate nation-wide has reached a 3-decade low on average, and even this is despite the fact that the crime rates in large urban centers such as Chicago, DC and New York City have weighted that average towards the high side.

The fact that the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities, indicates a problem specific to those areas. A combination of poverty, poor education, widespread, subsidized, even encouraged unemployment, as well as drug problems and gang activity have made veritable war zones out of certain cities; or, more specifically, individual neighborhoods or regions within those cities.

Gun control, more than anything else, is a means of claiming to "do something" about a cultural problem, without offending the people who make up that culture. Because "get your shit together, stop killing each other, and do something productive with your time" is racist or something like that.

[Nazeroth]

I'm not sure if it was the gun control itself that limited crime - Chicago has some of the strictest gun control in the country and it's more dangerous there than in Iraq.

I'm sure gun control is effective in the UK simply because it's an island - it's harder to get firearms into the country because they must be by ship or plane (which are inspected thoroughly).

The United States borders Canada and Mexico, both of which have lots of guns for sale, on the black market or otherwise (Mexico actually doesn't allow guns for its citizens iirc but the cartels are extremely powerful right now). It's too easy to get them in and out of the country.

If you look back at the FBIs statistics through the various periods of gun control in the United States; namely passing and repeal of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and the expansion of concealed carry to all 50 states, you'll notice that gun control (and lack thereof) has a negligent impact on violent crime rates. You will, however, notice a spike in the 1990s, when the war on drugs hit its peak, followed by a steady decline. The overall violent crime rate nation-wide has reached a 3-decade low on average, and even this is despite the fact that the crime rates in large urban centers such as Chicago, DC and New York City have weighted that average towards the high side.

The fact that the entire country seems to be becoming safer, with the exception of those big cities, indicates a problem specific to those areas. A combination of poverty, poor education, widespread, subsidized, even encouraged unemployment, as well as drug problems and gang activity have made veritable war zones out of certain cities; or, more specifically, individual neighborhoods or regions within those cities.

Gun control, more than anything else, is a means of claiming to "do something" about a cultural problem, without offending the people who make up that culture. Because "get your shit together, stop killing each other, and do something productive with your time" is racist or something like that.

I think this is actually a pretty good explanation.

[Rich and Corporations]

There are several correlations I have noticed.
Poor cities have Democratic leaders.
Cities with Democratic leaders have strong gun control.
I'm guessing either poor cities or democratic leadership or gun control causes crime?

[Nazeroth]

There are several correlations I have noticed.
Poor cities have Democratic leaders.
Cities with Democratic leaders have strong gun control.
I'm guessing either poor cities or democratic leadership or gun control causes crime?

they sort of go hand in hand

[Norjagen]

There are several correlations I have noticed.
Poor cities have Democratic leaders.
Cities with Democratic leaders have strong gun control.
I'm guessing either poor cities or democratic leadership or gun control causes crime?

There are so many overlapping issues plaguing this nation's problem areas that no one cause or solution can possibly encompass the full scope of the problem. If the problem were strictly guns, you'd think that the entire nation would be under siege by violence, yet for the most part, it's only these specific cities and neighborhoods. The rest of the nation seems to be doing just fine, and improving every year.

Add in that rifles in general, not just AR-15s, accounted for only 323 murders in 2011, out of a total 12,664, and banning them in order to "curb violence" seems more and more like a cop-out by people who refuse to address the real issues plaguing their constituents, or accept any responsibility for failed policies that have gotten their cities and states into the mess they're in. Hell! Chicago alone has already suffered 317 murders thus far for 2013, with more than 500 in 2012.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2013-chicago-murders/explore-data

And, in true blame-shifting fashion, lawmakers in Illinois insist that their crime problem comes from gun-lax states like Indiana, without addressing why criminals from Indiana would want to commute into their state to commit crimes.

[Imperializt Russia]

The logic is not that criminals come from Indiana to commit crime in Illinois, but that the Indiana firearms market supplies the Illinois criminal gangs.

not i, kiddo. you'll note i explicitly agreed that gun violence is down. i even mentioned the actual cause of that interesting turn of events.

i think its bad because it objectively is, when compared to other countries on a similar level - and even compared to our rather violent cousins back in england, let alone the rest of the english-speaking world. the difference in rates between here and the rest of the developed world should shock the conscience of anyone with an ounce of humanity. it can't be handwaved away.

You clearly have never been to England. There is literally no gun violence in England. None. That's not to say that there's no murders, sure there are, but a whole lot less, even accounting for England's smaller population.
That's because, guess what: it's a whole lot easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife.

In the last year there have been two shootings within a hundred yards of my street in Liverpool. My housemate was mugged at gunpoint at the bottom of our street. There are gangs of both young kids and adults who fight areas of the city for control and dominance, just like in Manchester and London.

Handguns, outright banned and seized since 1997 make up 44% of our firearm homicides. Because they're either walked off Army bases or smuggled in from the States.

fwiw, armed robbery is "gun violence" and is surprisingly frequent.