Gun Control III - the Gunnening

[Big Jim P]

Which just goes to show we need more people exercising their right to carry. If anything, we should be encouraging more people to do so instead of attempting to demonize them.

But that still doesn't do very much for gun crime. While it may stop a shooting or two from time to time, it won't make a dent.

Nor does banning guns. I direct your attention to Chicago.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

When you remember that California has the highest population,

Irrelevant when accounting for per capita murder rate.

and quite a few organized, large gangs.

So the problem is organized crime :^)

[Licana]

Irrelevant when accounting for per capita murder rate.

tbh the per-capita of california is pretty close to the national average.

[Hammer Britannia]

To stop criminals from getting their hands on guns, you'd have to stop them from purchasing them from licensed dealers, and you won't know that they're criminals until they act. We'd always have criminals getting their hands on guns. Unless we just flat banned guns. But, that'd also involve taking guns from these criminals, and 'no doing that.

No, no no, flat banning guns would involve taking gun rights away from every citizen. Whether it be a hunter who needs it to survive, a collector, a person who just wants to defend his family, and the average joe who just likes guns.

[Isilanka]

Worth noticing that many european countries ban guns except for hunting and leisure practice as a whole. And they're doing quite fine overral. A ban on guns isn't necessarily absolute.

[Estanglia]

By the way, I'd like to ask how many mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.

Most. Either by armed police, good guys in the situation that are armed, or the shooter kills themselves with a gun.
Anyway, we shouldn't base gun policy on mass shootings because of how rare they are compared to other gun crimes, especially if the solution is 'remove all guns'.

[Telconi]

Worth noticing that many european countries ban guns except for hunting and leisure practice as a whole. And they're doing quite fine overral. A ban on guns isn't necessarily absolute.

I guess that'd depend on your definition of "quite fine" after all, you could argue that Iran is doing "quite fine" and so there's nothing wrong with throwing girls in prison for dancing.

[Telconi]

By the way, I'd like to ask how many mass shootings were stopped by someone with a gun.

Most. Either by armed police, good guys in the situation that are armed, or the shooter kills themselves with a gun.
Anyway, we shouldn't base gun policy on mass shootings because of how rare they are compared to other gun crimes, especially if the solution is 'remove all guns'.

Also, prevention can't be effectively measured.

[Isilanka]

Worth noticing that many european countries ban guns except for hunting and leisure practice as a whole. And they're doing quite fine overral. A ban on guns isn't necessarily absolute.

I guess that'd depend on your definition of "quite fine" after all, you could argue that Iran is doing "quite fine" and so there's nothing wrong with throwing girls in prison for dancing.

We've been over that debate already a few pages back, and people were comparing the US to actual war-torn european states in a attempt to say that banning gun was necessarily hell.
Look, i'm not arguing western european countries that do ban most guns are heavens of earth or anything like that, just that they manage relatively fine, with good civil rights and individual freedoms, without having an armed populace. That's it. The comparison stops there, I won't use it to say "see America, you should ban guns too" because 1) it would be incredibly preposterous on my part and 2) the western european culture, especially in France and Germany, is very different when it comes to guns and weapons as a whole, we don't consider them as americans do.

[Telconi]

I guess that'd depend on your definition of "quite fine" after all, you could argue that Iran is doing "quite fine" and so there's nothing wrong with throwing girls in prison for dancing.

We've been over that debate already a few pages back, and people were comparing the US to actual war-torn european states in a attempt to say that banning gun was necessarily hell.
Look, i'm not arguing western european countries that do ban most guns are heavens of earth or anything like that, just that they manage relatively fine, with good civil rights and individual freedoms, without having an armed populace. That's it. The comparison stops there, I won't use it to say "see America, you should ban guns too" because 1) it would be incredibly preposterous on my part and 2) the western european culture, especially in France and Germany, is very different when it comes to guns and weapons as a whole, we don't consider them as americans do.

And you're entitles to your opinion, just like Islamists... I'm just strongly disagreeing with you.

[Isilanka]

We've been over that debate already a few pages back, and people were comparing the US to actual war-torn european states in a attempt to say that banning gun was necessarily hell.
Look, i'm not arguing western european countries that do ban most guns are heavens of earth or anything like that, just that they manage relatively fine, with good civil rights and individual freedoms, without having an armed populace. That's it. The comparison stops there, I won't use it to say "see America, you should ban guns too" because 1) it would be incredibly preposterous on my part and 2) the western european culture, especially in France and Germany, is very different when it comes to guns and weapons as a whole, we don't consider them as americans do.

And you're entitles to your opinion, just like Islamists... I'm just strongly disagreeing with you.

I think you can do better than comparing gun-grabbers (even if such a term is debatable in Europe, since there weren't many periods in history when we had guns to begin with) to islamists. It doesn't help anyone, and it's typically the kind of remark that makes both sides of the debate so agressive. It like gun control proponents shouting that all people who own guns are mass shooters in the making. It doesn't help.

[Telconi]

And you're entitles to your opinion, just like Islamists... I'm just strongly disagreeing with you.

I think you can do better than comparing gun-grabbers (even if such a term is debatable in Europe, since there weren't many periods in history when we had guns to begin with) to islamists. It doesn't help anyone, and it's typically the kind of remark that makes both sides of the debate so agressive. It like gun control proponents shouting that all people who own guns are mass shooters in the making. It doesn't help.

I think it's a solid comparison. Thanks for your concern though.

[Chernoslavia]

I guess that'd depend on your definition of "quite fine" after all, you could argue that Iran is doing "quite fine" and so there's nothing wrong with throwing girls in prison for dancing.

We've been over that debate already a few pages back, and people were comparing the US to actual war-torn european states in a attempt to say that banning gun was necessarily hell.
Look, i'm not arguing western european countries that do ban most guns are heavens of earth or anything like that, just that they manage relatively fine, with good civil rights and individual freedoms, without having an armed populace. That's it. The comparison stops there, I won't use it to say "see America, you should ban guns too" because 1) it would be incredibly preposterous on my part and 2) the western european culture, especially in France and Germany, is very different when it comes to guns and weapons as a whole, we don't consider them as americans do.

Civil rights and freedom? Bullshit.

[Great Minarchistan]

We've been over that debate already a few pages back, and people were comparing the US to actual war-torn european states in a attempt to say that banning gun was necessarily hell.
Look, i'm not arguing western european countries that do ban most guns are heavens of earth or anything like that, just that they manage relatively fine, with good civil rights and individual freedoms, without having an armed populace. That's it. The comparison stops there, I won't use it to say "see America, you should ban guns too" because 1) it would be incredibly preposterous on my part and 2) the western european culture, especially in France and Germany, is very different when it comes to guns and weapons as a whole, we don't consider them as americans do.

t. UK, Germany, France and Sweden restraining the freedom of what people can say (even on fucking twitter) and what they can do as if they were babies. In the meanwhile, Poland is packing up their S.C. and possibly starting a dictatorship in the near future. Doesn't sound like a very favorable environment for civil rights and individual freedoms, and even farther from being ever called as "good".

[Isilanka]

We've been over that debate already a few pages back, and people were comparing the US to actual war-torn european states in a attempt to say that banning gun was necessarily hell.
Look, i'm not arguing western european countries that do ban most guns are heavens of earth or anything like that, just that they manage relatively fine, with good civil rights and individual freedoms, without having an armed populace. That's it. The comparison stops there, I won't use it to say "see America, you should ban guns too" because 1) it would be incredibly preposterous on my part and 2) the western european culture, especially in France and Germany, is very different when it comes to guns and weapons as a whole, we don't consider them as americans do.

t. UK, Germany, France and Sweden restraining the freedom of what people can say (even on fucking twitter) and what they can do as if they were babies. In the meanwhile, Poland is packing up their S.C. and possibly starting a dictatorship in the near future. Doesn't sound like a very favorable environment for civil rights and individual freedoms, and even farther from being ever called as "good".

And you're going to tell me that if we had guns we would somehow be better ?
As a polite reminder, the US have states that restrict the right to abortion. You have a president who got less than 50% of the vote and still got elected because you have a political system that, for the better and for the worst, prioritizes land over population. You have a police that disproportionately shoots black people and is becoming a fucking military force in certain states.

Look, I'm open to a mindful debate but at one point, portraying Europe as a socialist hell while the US are a paradise of freedom is getting kinda old, especially in the current political climate.

[Valgora]

t. UK, Germany, France and Sweden restraining the freedom of what people can say (even on fucking twitter) and what they can do as if they were babies. In the meanwhile, Poland is packing up their S.C. and possibly starting a dictatorship in the near future. Doesn't sound like a very favorable environment for civil rights and individual freedoms, and even farther from being ever called as "good".

And you're going to tell me that if we had guns we would somehow be better ?
As a polite reminder, the US have states that restrict the right to abortion. You have a president who got less than 50% of the vote and still got elected because you have a political system that, for the better and for the worst, prioritizes land over population. You have a police that disproportionately shoots black people and is becoming a fucking military force in certain states.

Look, I'm open to a mindful debate but at one point, portraying Europe as a socialist hell while the US are a paradise of freedom is getting kinda old, especially in the current political climate.

Both Europe and the United States have issues while being better than the other at something.

America has show a tendency to care more about freedom of speech compared to Europe. And it places importance on the right to bear arms, which Europe does not.
However, Europe actually seems to care more about people's right to healthcare. And America has an issue with police brutality while, as far as I'm aware, is not a big issue in Europe.

[Isilanka]

And you're going to tell me that if we had guns we would somehow be better ?
As a polite reminder, the US have states that restrict the right to abortion. You have a president who got less than 50% of the vote and still got elected because you have a political system that, for the better and for the worst, prioritizes land over population. You have a police that disproportionately shoots black people and is becoming a fucking military force in certain states.

Look, I'm open to a mindful debate but at one point, portraying Europe as a socialist hell while the US are a paradise of freedom is getting kinda old, especially in the current political climate.

Both Europe and the United States have issues while being better than the other at something.

America has show a tendency to care more about freedom of speech compared to Europe. And it places importance on the right to bear arms, which Europe does not.
However, Europe actually seems to care more about people's right to healthcare. And America has an issue with police brutality while, as far as I'm aware, is not a big issue in Europe.

That's...actually a very sane answer which I totally agree with.

[Licana]

And you're going to tell me that if we had guns we would somehow be better?

The government wouldn't have a clear and decisive monopoly of force over the public, so probably.

As a polite reminder, the US have states that restrict the right to abortion.

I thought grabbers wanted to save the lives of children.

You have a president who got less than 50% of the vote and still got elected because you have a political system that, for the better and for the worst, prioritizes land over population.

Neither candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote, so this is kind of a stupid thing to say. Also the states deciding federal elections is a far superior system to just letting LA and NYC rule the country.

You have a police that disproportionately shoots black people

Black people disproportionately commit crime.

[Great Minarchistan]

And you're going to tell me that if we had guns we would somehow be better ?

Not sure about Europeans since they don't have an extensive gun culture associated with freedom, but in the US it really works out nicely. Especially against dictatorships, there has been no dictatorship in America during its 242 years of existence, probably only losing to Switzerland -- that is also a heavily armed country with gun culture associated with the protection of freedom.

As a polite reminder, the US have states that restrict the right to abortion.

Technically neutral on regards to individual rights, as babies can be argued to be individuals regardless of your stance on the matter.

You have a president who got less than 50% of the vote and still got elected because you have a political system that, for the better and for the worst, prioritizes land over population.

No candidate got more than 50% of the vote. Hillary had 48% and Trump had 46%, it's not like the 2016 election would be divisive anyway.

You have a police that disproportionately shoots black people and is becoming a fucking military force in certain states.

FBI would like to chat with you. Blacks compose 13% of the US' population, yet they answer for 52.5% of the homicide offenders (4.04x overrepresented) and for 38% of the murders (2.92x overrepresented) -- however, under 29.1% of the cases the race is unknown, so given that white offenders answer for 31.1% of the cases, if you split half of the unknown cases for blacks you end up with black offenders answering for, coincidentally, 52.5% of the cases either (4.04x overrepresented. In the meanwhile, while 84% of the white victims are killed by whites, 93% of the black victims are killed by blacks.

Not that the UK police isn't getting authoritarian either, arresting or detaining people that are carrying literal knives.

Look, I'm open to a mindful debate but at one point, portraying Europe as a socialist hell while the US are a paradise of freedom is getting kinda old, especially in the current political climate.

Implying I said so.

[Valgora]

And you're going to tell me that if we had guns we would somehow be better?

The government wouldn't have a clear and decisive monopoly of force over the public, so probably.

Agreed.

As a polite reminder, the US have states that restrict the right to abortion.

I thought grabbers wanted to save the lives of children.

It's not the same thing.

You have a president who got less than 50% of the vote and still got elected because you have a political system that, for the better and for the worst, prioritizes land over population.

Neither candidate got more than 50% of the popular vote, so this is kind of a stupid thing to say. Also the states deciding federal elections is a far superior system to just letting LA and NYC rule the country.

That was never the point of the Electoral College. The point of the Electoral College was so the population didn't elect an idiot because it was thought that the common man wouldn't know enough about the President and such.

You have a police that disproportionately shoots black people

Black people disproportionately commit crime.

Where does the chart say that Blacks disproportionately commit crime?

That statement also doesn't also ignores that black people are disproportionately poor.

And it's not a reason for the police to disproportionately shoot blacks.

[Great Minarchistan]

That statement also doesn't also ignores that black people are disproportionately poor.

And it's not a reason for the police to disproportionately shoot blacks.

Tit for tat, highly violent people tend to suffer highly violent reaction from the police. You don't get to receive "socioeconomic quotas" to indulge people on crime committing.

[Licana]

It's not the same thing.

Of course not. One is a life cut short, the other is a life cut very short.

That was never the point of the Electoral College.

But that is, effectively, its current function.

Where does the chart say that Blacks disproportionately commit crime?

Right there in the percentage distribution column.

That statement also doesn't also ignores that black people are disproportionately poor.

I don't give poor people a pass for violent crimes, especially ones that don't tend to be of fiscal benefit to them (i.e. assault, rape, and murder). A criminal act is a criminal act regardless of one's income bracket.

And it's not a reason for the police to disproportionately shoot blacks.

Police officers have every right to defend themselves from violent criminals, same as any other US resident. So yes, it kind of does.

[Valgora]

It's not the same thing.

Of course not. One is a life cut short, the other is a life cut very short.

Again. They're not the same thing. And it's not a good argument when it comes to gun control, because it can be turned right back around to you.

That was never the point of the Electoral College.

But that is, effectively, its current function.

Is it really? It basically makes almost any state considered "safe" or with too small of a population worthless.
And it is undemocratic and outdated. And how do you know that it keeps LA and NYC from ruling the country? It sure as hell lets them rule CA and NY. And CA already has the most Electoral College votes.

Where does the chart say that Blacks disproportionately commit crime?

Right there in the percentage distribution column.

Total Number of arrests for blacks from that same thing: 26.9%

That statement also doesn't also ignores that black people are disproportionately poor.

I don't give poor people a pass for violent crimes, especially ones that don't tend to be of fiscal benefit to them (i.e. assault, rape, and murder). A criminal act is a criminal act regardless of one's income bracket.

My point was that economics and poverty is more of a cause of crime than ethnicity.

And it's not a reason for the police to disproportionately shoot blacks.

Police officers have every right to defend themselves from violent criminals, same as any other US resident. So yes, it kind of does.

"There's a black person."
*Shoots black person*
*unarmed*
"I was.... I was... defending myself. They commit more crimes. I was defending myself. I feared for my life."

Your statement basically says that police can just shoot blacks because they commit crimes.

What about Philando Castile?

[Kramanica]

Mass shootings are also the last thing we should be basing our gun policy off of given how few people are impacted by such things. If anything gun control advocates should be going after handguns in the inner city but I guess that isn't too viable because of Heller.

Most cops very rarely ever have to even pull their weapon. They aren't soldiers.

[Licana]

Again. They're not the same thing.

You're right. There's also the scale to consider. So many more kiddos get cut down by an abortionists vagina vacuum than they do by bullets.

And it's not a good argument when it comes to gun control, because it can be turned right back around to you.

Go for it.

Is it really? It basically makes almost any state considered "safe" or with too small of a population worthless.

Other way around, it ensures that the smaller states have a notable voice in all branches of the government.

And it is undemocratic and outdated.

America was never a democracy.

And how do you know that it keeps LA and NYC from ruling the country? It sure as hell lets them rule CA and NY. And CA already has the most Electoral College votes.

>EC renders small states unimportant
>california has the most EC votes
>EC allows small states to rule larger states

Some of your statements seem contradictory.

Total Number of arrests for blacks from that same thing: 26.9%

Yep, that's pretty disproportionate.

My point was that economics and poverty is more of a cause of crime than ethnicity.

I never claimed that ethnicity was the cause of criminality.

"There's a black person."
*Shoots black person*
*unarmed*
"I was.... I was... defending myself. They commit more crimes. I was defending myself. I feared for my life."

I'm sure this is a regularly occurrence in FantasyLand. Over in reality though, the vast majority of police shootings (regardless of race) are justified.

Your statement basically says that police can just shoot blacks because they commit crimes.

Now you're just lying.