The results of loosening gun restrictions

[One Brow]

1. Sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I don't get the point you're trying to make regarding marijuana use or drug use and gun use. I know earlier you said you'd want to deny people their consitutional right to a firearm if they were convicted of a drug charge? Right? Or did I not understand you?

2. I still disagree. I cycle a lot. I know that part of cycling is falling down. I mean, I know at some point I am going to fall...again. I have before. I'm not scared or fearful of falling because I know it's an inevitbaility. I just want my noggin protected. In regards to keeping armed, I know the chances of ever having to fire in self defense are pretty low but I want to be prepared. This conscious decision is not based in fear. Is there a chance that maybe your own outlook on life and the risks within it color your viewpoint?

3. That's definitely an argument to look at. That said, do you think our population aging is enough of a factor to effect the falling violent crime percentages?

1. I was referring to the position of the study author, who says that, according the data, gun deaths would go down if we made that restriction.

2. Of course my own outlook colors my viewpoint. That said, do you agree that not all fear is overwhelming and/or visceral? Can fear be mild, and when mild, controlled by rational preparations?

3. It's a gradual effect that we've seen happening for a couple of decades. You can also see the rise in crime as the first baby-boom generation becomes teenagers.

 

[LogGrad98]

I watched my cousin shoot off the end of his foot with his dad's .357 when we were deer hunting. He had it in a holster and tried to quick draw, pulled the trigger and shot off his foot. Well he lost 3 toes total I think.

 

[Nate505]

Gun control has about the same measure of success as drug prohibition has. Which is none. The law of supply and demand cannot be beat when the supply is readily available.

 

[One Brow]

Gun control has about the same measure of success as drug prohibition has. Which is none. The law of supply and demand cannot be beat when the supply is readily available.

There's a difference between control and prohibition. All states currently have alcohol controls (ages, vendors, etc.). There is not a huge boot-legging network, so it seems to be working, perhaps not perfectly.

 

[Stoked]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/new...un-revolt/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

CT passed a gun law, upheld in court, that requires assault weapons owners to register with the state. This law has been dramatically ignored (intentionally) by the populace. Estimates are that only up to 15% of people affected by this law have complied. Now the police department is in a conundrum about wether they should confiscate and charge the unregistered offenders with a class D felony as required by the law. That could lead up to 5 years in prison. Estimates are that up to 300,000 adults could be charged with this felony.

So what now? Do the police arrest these people and risk confrontation to uphold the law (police cheif says they will)? If so will people physically revolt and deny the orders of a police officer? Will there be gun fights?

Or

Do the cops refuse to comply with enforcement of this law? If the populace and police refuse to abide by this law what does that say for the power, or lack there of, for the CT (or any other states) legislature?

 

[One Brow]

Most likely, they will choose among the poorest offenders, who don't have the resources to fight back, and start making arrests there. Probably part of hoped-for response will be that, as slightly-better-off offenders see these arrests are happening, they may decide to register after all.

 

[Stoked]

Most likely, they will choose among the poorest offenders, who don't have the resources to fight back, and start making arrests there. Probably part of hoped-for response will be that, as slightly-better-off offenders see these arrests are happening, they may decide to register after all.

So your stance (what you want to happen or what you think will happen?) is that they should target the poorest gun offenders first? What about the risk that the gun owning neighbors support those individuals? Suddenly have dozens of police standoffs with armed civilians.

By targeting according to financial status would that open the police up to charges of discrimination somehow? Sincere question as I do not know.

 

[One Brow]

So your stance (what you want to happen or what you think will happen?) is that they should target the poorest gun offenders first? What about the risk that the gun owning neighbors support those individuals? Suddenly have dozens of police standoffs with armed civilians.

By targeting according to financial status would that open the police up to charges of discrimination somehow? Sincere question as I do not know.

That's what I think will happen, and how such laws are usually enforced (primarily on the backs of the poor and minorities). The police are rarely charged with discrimination today, even though drug laws are primarily enforced against the poor and minorities.

Since the charges wouldn't be announced until after the arrest, I think the chance of interference by neighbors is no greater than usual.

 

[VINYLONE]

1. I was referring to the position of the study author, who says that, according the data, gun deaths would go down if we made that restriction.

2. Of course my own outlook colors my viewpoint. That said, do you agree that not all fear is overwhelming and/or visceral? Can fear be mild, and when mild, controlled by rational preparations?

3. It's a gradual effect that we've seen happening for a couple of decades. You can also see the rise in crime as the first baby-boom generation becomes teenagers.

1. Could you please link me to this data you're referring to...

2. Can fear be mild? Sure. Can mild fear be controlled by rational preparations? Again, sure. But you would agree that not all rational preparations are based in fear, right?

3. Just read this...pretty interesting stuff: https://www.orthocuban.com/2011/09/baby-boomers-and-the-crime-rate/

 

[One Brow]

1. Could you please link me to this data you're referring to...

2. Can fear be mild? Sure. Can mild fear be controlled by rational preparations? Again, sure. But you would agree that not all rational preparations are based in fear, right?

3. Just read this...pretty interesting stuff: https://www.orthocuban.com/2011/09/baby-boomers-and-the-crime-rate/

1. I apologize for my lack of clarity. I meant that the author had summarized the data this way, not that I had seen the data. Certainly, the author may have his own agenda. In any case, I don't remember exactly which paper, but it was on this site:

https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent...s-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/


2. If I am preparing to write pseudo-code for a long stored procedure, I would grant that I probably am not in fear of that procedure. What emotion would you attach to the desire to not suffer traumatic brain injury?


3. The first 3 1/2 paragraphs seem accurate, the rest seems to me to be a wild leap beyond the facts into emotional sludge.

 

[♪alt13]

Many would have us believe that gun control is a predictor of murder rates in America but it is not. Race, age, sex, income and culture are the factors upon which one can predict murder rates. These factors are what cause our murder rates to be higher than those in most of Europe.

I am not going to cover age, sex, or income inequality because I don't really think I need to. I am also not going to make a statistical argument showing that gun control does not decrease violent crime(though I may later). This is just to show that if we want to do anything to decrease the number of homicides in this country we are going to have to take an honest look in the mirror and ask ourselves if this is the type of society we want to live in.

Race is by far the most telling factor one can look at. I am not saying that black people are inherently violent. Black people tend to get the short end of the stick more often than not and are imho the most disenfranchised members of our society.

According to the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics.

While making up only 12.6% of the Us population are 52.5% of the homicide offenders.

The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost
8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf


Culture is a very subjective thing to try and measure. So I have compiled a short list of states with similar population to try and illustrate it. I wanted to get a state in New England but they all fall further outside these population numbers so I included CT an ME as an above and a below.

Murder numbers are according to the Wall Street Journal and are between 2000 and 2010. Population and % Black is according to wikipedia.
[table="width: 475, align: right"]
[tr]
[td]State[/td]
[td]Population[/td]
[td]%Black[/td]
[td]Murders[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Connecticut[/td]
[td]3,574,097[/td]
[td]10.34[/td]
[td]1,216[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Mississippi[/td]
[td]2,967,297[/td]
[td]37.30[/td]
[td]1,959[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Arkansas[/td]
[td]2,915,918[/td]
[td]15.76[/td]
[td]1,833[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Kansas[/td]
[td]2,853,118[/td]
[td]6.15[/td]
[td]1,053[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Utah[/td]
[td]2,763,885[/td]
[td]1.27[/td]
[td]635[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Nevada[/td]
[td]2,700,551[/td]
[td]8.10[/td]
[td]2,128[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Maine[/td]
[td]1,328,302[/td]
[td]1.03[/td]
[td]247[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

 

[DutchJazzer]

I watched my cousin shoot off the end of his foot with his dad's .357 when we were deer hunting. He had it in a holster and tried to quick draw, pulled the trigger and shot off his foot. Well he lost 3 toes total I think.

natural selection.
when people do stupid **** there need to be consequences