NationStates

Posted: **Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:53 pm**

Gusdapperstan wrote:
Galloism wrote:Let me give you more reason.

So the gun that Mrs McCloskey was waving around (and practicing poor discipline) apparently wasn’t even functional. It has been used as a prop in court, and had been deliberately rendered non functional.

So uh... they had the lab staff disassemble, reassemble, and test fire the weapon and then declared to the court it was “readily capable of lethal use” to the court when filing charges.

Your actions have consequences, it doesnt matter if the gun was non functioning you cant just point any gun functioning or not at protesters.

Yes you can if they're in the process of violently destroying your stuff.

Posted: **Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:41 pm**

The Two Jerseys wrote:
Gusdapperstan wrote:
What statistics say that it did? And what makes you think it wasn't a result of California's gun laws? I don't understand why we just cant have things like gun buy backs and an incentive for people to turn in their guns and reduce the number of firearms in circulation?

Gun buybacks preventing crime

The point is to reduce the number of guns out there, that'll help reduce gun violence. Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

Posted: **Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:45 pm**

Gusdapperstan wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:Gun buybacks preventing crime

Why wouldn't it prevent crime? Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

The people turning in guns at buybacks aren't the ones committing crimes. They're the people who have no use for grandpa's old hunting rifle that's taking up space in the attic and simply want to get rid of it.

Posted: **Sun Jul 26, 2020 5:03 pm**

Gusdapperstan wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:Gun buybacks preventing crime

The point is to reduce the number of guns out there, that'll help reduce gun violence. Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

But it won't reduce violence. Your concerns are circular but not real. Besides if there was some correlation between guns and gun violence, then America simply wouldn't exist. American civilians possess more guns than the Chinese and Russian militaries put together.

Posted: **Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:31 pm**

Gusdapperstan wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:Gun buybacks preventing crime

The point is to reduce the number of guns out there, that'll help reduce gun violence. Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

Gun buybacks are ineffective at best, a complete infringement on civil liberties at worst. The reality of it errs far more to the latter. If people legally own weapons deemed "undesirable" by many, it's completely unfounded to try to buy it back.

Especially when the rhetoric surrounding gun buybacks is often less about incentivizing it and more about being quite forceful about it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:57 am**

Gusdapperstan wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:Gun buybacks preventing crime

The point is to reduce the number of guns out there, that'll help reduce gun violence. Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

The misnomer "gun buy back" is nothing more than a waste of taxpayer dollars or waste of private funds dressed up in security theater.
National Institute of Justice: buy backs have no effect
“Buy-backs” remove no more than 2% of the firearms within a community. And the firearms that are removed do not resemble guns used in crimes. “There has never been any effect on crime results seen”- Garen Wintemute
Up to 62% of people trading in a firearm still have another at home, and 27% said they would or might buy another within a year. -Jon Vernick, John Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, Sacramento and St. Louis studies
Pg. 54-55
Gun Facts

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:15 am**

Gusdapperstan wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:Gun buybacks preventing crime

The point is to reduce the number of guns out there, that'll help reduce gun violence. Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

It don't work that way.

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:15 am**

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Gusdapperstan wrote:
The point is to reduce the number of guns out there, that'll help reduce gun violence. Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

But it won't reduce violence. Your concerns are circular but not real. Besides if there was some correlation between guns and gun violence, then America simply wouldn't exist. American civilians possess more guns than the Chinese and Russian militaries put together.

I mean to be fair America is a pretty violent place but we have more guns than many Latin American countries and said countries are more dangerous than ours is.

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 10:02 am**

Rojava Free State wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:
But it won't reduce violence. Your concerns are circular but not real. Besides if there was some correlation between guns and gun violence, then America simply wouldn't exist. American civilians possess more guns than the Chinese and Russian militaries put together.

I mean to be fair America is a pretty violent place but we have more guns than many Latin American countries and said countries are more dangerous than ours is.

Laughs in CIA

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:17 am**

Kowani wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
I mean to be fair America is a pretty violent place but we have more guns than many Latin American countries and said countries are more dangerous than ours is.

Laughs in CIA

The CIA isn't responsible for all Latin Americas problems.

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:20 am**

Kowani wrote:
Rojava Free State wrote:
I mean to be fair America is a pretty violent place but we have more guns than many Latin American countries and said countries are more dangerous than ours is.

Laughs in CIA

*Laughs in gun running to Spain to help out the Catalonian Independence Movement*

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 12:42 pm**

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Kowani wrote:Laughs in CIA

The CIA isn't responsible for all Latin Americas problems.

All? No. A very large amount? Yes.

The Chuck wrote:
Kowani wrote:Laughs in CIA

*Laughs in gun running to Spain to help out the Catalonian Independence Movement*

I cannot begin to overstate how bad an idea this is.

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:44 pm**

The Two Jerseys wrote:
Gusdapperstan wrote:
Why wouldn't it prevent crime? Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

The people turning in guns at buybacks aren't the ones committing crimes. They're the people who have no use for grandpa's old hunting rifle that's taking up space in the attic and simply want to get rid of it.

Or they're trying to make some money by turning in a .22 starter pistol (the kind used to start races, not a beginner's .22 pistol) that they just bought for $25, for $100 cash (but the police officer says they can't give out money for it, but the owner could still turn it in if they want).

So, now I'm stuck with a .22 starter pistol. >:(

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:16 pm**

Gusdapperstan wrote:In states with less gun restrictions firearm deaths are higher. Deaths from firearms in gun control states per 100,000 people are: California 7.5, New York 4.1, Massachusetts 3.5, Illinois 10.9. In low gun control states firearm deaths per 100,000 are: Louisiana 21.4, Texas 12.2, Tennessee 17.8, Missouri 21.5, Georgia 15.7. On average red states have far higher firearm deaths per 100,000.
So I think this whole myth that gun control doesnt work can be laid to rest.

Can you say "cherry picking"?

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:46 pm**

Gusdapperstan wrote:In states with less gun restrictions firearm deaths are higher. Deaths from firearms in gun control states per 100,000 people are: California 7.5, New York 4.1, Massachusetts 3.5, Illinois 10.9. In low gun control states firearm deaths per 100,000 are: Louisiana 21.4, Texas 12.2, Tennessee 17.8, Missouri 21.5, Georgia 15.7. On average red states have far higher firearm deaths per 100,000.
So I think this whole myth that gun control doesnt work can be laid to rest.

This is correlation at best, and a very poor one on top of it.
There’s a correlation between national margarine consumption and divorce rates in Maine (side note, it’s really fucking high, but that doesn’t mean that there’s a causal relationship.

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:51 pm**

Kowani wrote:
Gusdapperstan wrote:In states with less gun restrictions firearm deaths are higher. Deaths from firearms in gun control states per 100,000 people are: California 7.5, New York 4.1, Massachusetts 3.5, Illinois 10.9. In low gun control states firearm deaths per 100,000 are: Louisiana 21.4, Texas 12.2, Tennessee 17.8, Missouri 21.5, Georgia 15.7. On average red states have far higher firearm deaths per 100,000.
So I think this whole myth that gun control doesnt work can be laid to rest.

This is correlation at best, and a very poor one on top of it.
There’s a correlation between national margarine consumption and divorce rates in Maine (side note, it’s really fucking high, but that doesn’t mean that there’s a causal relationship.

I'll notice he leaves out Maryland, DC, and Puerto Rico,the most dangerous areas under US jurisdiction.
Not to mention that that's not how we measure anything useful- we use murder rate.

Posted: **Mon Jul 27, 2020 7:45 pm**

Gun Manufacturers wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:The people turning in guns at buybacks aren't the ones committing crimes. They're the people who have no use for grandpa's old hunting rifle that's taking up space in the attic and simply want to get rid of it.

Or they're trying to make some money by turning in a .22 starter pistol (the kind used to start races, not a beginner's .22 pistol) that they just bought for $25, for $100 cash (but the police officer says they can't give out money for it, but the owner could still turn it in if they want).

So, now I'm stuck with a .22 starter pistol.

Sounds like you need some cheering up.

Posted: **Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:38 am**

The Two Jerseys wrote:
Gun Manufacturers wrote:
Or they're trying to make some money by turning in a .22 starter pistol (the kind used to start races, not a beginner's .22 pistol) that they just bought for $25, for $100 cash (but the police officer says they can't give out money for it, but the owner could still turn it in if they want).

So, now I'm stuck with a .22 starter pistol.

Sounds like you need some cheering up.

well GM you could use that starter pistol as a target just put it down range and use a real mans gun.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:29 pm**

Gig em Aggies wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:Sounds like you need some cheering up.

well GM you could use that starter pistol as a target just put it down range and use a real mans gun.

I'm still hoping for one of those "No Questions Asked" buybacks to show up near me. You know the ones, where people turn in spent missile tubes, airsoft/bb/pellet guns, etc.

Posted: **Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:07 pm**

Remington files for Bankruptcy again.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:17 am**

Florida Couple: Oops…We Should Have Believed Everyone Who Told Us Nikolas Cruz Was Violent and Dangerous

In the letter, the Sneads said they “will forever regret” taking in Cruz, the newspaper reported..

“We did so believing we were helping a troubled young man who needed help,” the Sneads wrote. “We are profoundly sorry for the actions and inactions which may have contributed to Nikolas Cruz’s ability to carry out the murders on Feb. 14, 2018.”

The couple had told investigators they allowed Cruz to keep a collection of knives and guns at their home, including the assault-style rifle authorities said was used in the killing.

James Snead, an Army veteran, said the family had rifles in a gun safe.

In the letter, the Sneads admit that Rocxanne Deschamps, a neighbor of the Cruz family, warned them about the teen, the newspaper reported. Deschamps briefly took in Cruz after his mother died in November 2017, but kicked him out after arguments.

“Ms. Deschamps informed us of warning signs of his behavior which occurred in her home and that he had chosen to keep his rifle over continuing to live with her,” the Sneads wrote.

The letter also said they received an even more dire warning from Katherine Blaine, a New York cousin of Cruz’s mother.

“Kathy Blaine informed us that Nikolas Cruz was violent, dangerous, infatuated with guns and knives, untrustworthy and threatened to kill people on Instagram, among other things,” the letter said..

As they say no good deed goes unpunished. This kid should had been locked away in a mental institute long before that fateful day.

Tarsonis wrote:Remington files for Bankruptcy again.

Cerberus group fucked Remington by adding on additional debt at the buyout along with shitty mismanagement and declining QC.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:24 am**

Gusdapperstan wrote:
The Two Jerseys wrote:Gun buybacks preventing crime

The point is to reduce the number of guns out there, that'll help reduce gun violence. Let's just give people an incentive for turning in their weapons.

Because hardened criminals are not likely to turn in any weapons they actually have use for.
People just use them to dump old guns of a type not usually used in crimes.

How many people are murdered with boot action rifles? Basically none.
Only semiautomatic handguns actually are used in crime to any significant amount, and criminals can make far more money commuting a crime with an illegally obtained one, than using a “buyback”.

Here is one problem with gun control, those advocating usually know little to nothing about guns.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:41 am**

One interesting concept is mandatory gun ownership. For example the Second Militia Act of 1792 required that every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between 18-45 own “a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792#

And interesting idea is how that would look modernized. Obviously for equality it should not discriminate on race or sex, and instead of each owing a musket or rifle probably require they own a AR-15 or M-14 type rifle with at least 3 loaded 30 round 5.56 NATO magazines or 3 20 round 7.62 NATO mags or something to that effect.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:50 am**

Novus America wrote:And interesting idea is how that would look modernized.

It's a regressive tax, is what it is. A $500 rifle is a $500 rifle whether you're poor or rich, so if you're required to buy one... it's basically a paying for a military with a poll tax with fewer intermediate steps, and there's a reason civilised countries don't do that anymore.

Now, if the State issued firearms to every citizen at the public expense... I still don't believe that civil society really needs to be armed, but I wouldn't be against that idea.

Posted: **Thu Jul 30, 2020 11:04 am**

Plzen wrote:
Novus America wrote:And interesting idea is how that would look modernized.

It's a regressive tax, is what it is. A $500 rifle is a $500 rifle whether you're poor or rich, so if you're required to buy one... it's basically a paying for a military with a poll tax with fewer intermediate steps, and there's a reason civilised countries don't do that anymore.

Now, if the State issued firearms to every citizen at the public expense... I still don't believe that civil society really needs to be armed, but I wouldn't be against that idea.

Oh, well that is a fair point, you would have to have it be you are given a one time allowance or stipend to buy one, and that you could buy one from the government not exceeding the cost of the stipend, at least for those making below a certain amount.

NationStates

Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government