Welcome to 'Murica

[Stoked]

look

Whites have many more guns than blacks. They are much more likely to report(for polls) that they have a gun in their home. They are also much much much much less likely to either be murdered or commit murder. Why? Is it because they have so many guns? or Is it because it sucks a lot less to be white in America? In fact try adjusting the US homicide rate by race. When you remove poor blacks from the equation America ceases to be an outlier in terms of homicide rates. If you again adjust for income inequality low and behold America's homicide rates get even closer to Europe's. Finally adjust for median age. Low and behold there is no difference.

Solving violence isn't easy. It takes much more than you think. Starting with equalizing educational opportunities for blacks.

I'd change blacks to minorities and it helps address so much more than gun violence.

 

[NAOS]

Or how about you admit that this quote is a drastic misrepresentation of my stance, intentionally so.

Especially since I have written support of such programs in this very thread at least a half dozen times.

Should we go back to the bolded parts of your last message I quoted? You may not mean to do it, but you always get your deflated balloon in there somewhere. I certainly didn't drastically misrepresent your stance. It's in the text.

 

[Stoked]

Well, less guns or no guns. A gun ban means no guns, not less guns.

There are actually programs across the nation aimed at removing guns from society. Dozens of police departments have programs where you can turn in a gun no questions asked.

I find "less" guns worth talking about. Something realistic. I'd be OK with offering some sort of compensation for turning in firearms. Cash, gift cards, coupons...



Lol, You disagree and that's fine. But a gun ban will create a black market. Why? because nto everyone shares your views or your morals.

There is actually a lot in this post I agree with. I knew you were not arguing for a full on gun ban by your earlier posts about "less guns" instead of no guns.

I think the full on love affair in some quarters for guns is weird as well. I wouldn't really call guns a negative thing but I can see your point and don't really oppose it enough to argue against it.

Only real thing I have a problem with is "however that is accomplished". There are certain methods I simply will not support. But yes, less guns would be a good thing I think.

On this I agree and I liked your idea of a buy back program. I think that could be very useful in getting unwanted/unnecessary guns off the streets.

I think it does contribute to that. I think programs to voluntarily turn them in for monetary compensation is a great idea.

But it is only one part of the problem.

But guns are so prevalent today and the right to buy and own them is so entrenched that any measures that are allowable to remove guns, like buy back programs, will not reduce the number of guns enough.

Great 1,100. Good. Versus how many guns in America? That is what, .000000000001%?

In CA in 2012, 817,000 guns were sold. So your buy back program got .00134% of that number of the streets.

Now yes it is CA wide not just LA so it is more in favor of a higher % than .00134...

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/americas-gun-business-by-the-numbers.html

There is an estimated 270-310 million guns in America.

10,847,792 new guns made in the US in 2013. 4% were exported.

Come on man...

I'm not arguing that the 1,100 guns turn into LA are bad, that's great. 1,100 unwanted, unneeded guns of the street. Great work.

But in the REAL WORLD it is not enough. Not even close. So how do we bridge that gap? How, when gun confiscation on a societal level and restricting future gun sales in most meaningful ways are routinely shot down in court?

Should we go back to the bolded parts of your last message I quoted? You may not mean to do it, but you always get your deflated balloon in there somewhere. I certainly didn't drastically misrepresent your stance. It's in the text.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over how wrong you are on my stance. You could argue is that while I obviously support buy back programs I do not think they are enough by themselves, but you're not saying that.

 

[♪alt13]

I'd change blacks to minorities and it helps address so much more than gun violence.

yes but other minorities don't face near the same degree of a problem as blacks do.
I know I posted this in the last GC thread but the rate of homicide victimization for blacks is above 22 per 100k. (those are 3rd world numbers) For hispanics it is ~5 for whites it's less than 2. We can achieve perfect harmony for other racial groups and it will barely make a dent. American blacks really have been dealt an especially ****ty hand.

 

[Stoked]

yes but other minorities don't face near the same degree of a problem as blacks do.
I know I posted this in the last GC thread but the rate of homicide victimization for blacks is above 22 per 100k. (those are 3rd world numbers) For hispanics it is ~5 for whites it's less than 2. We can achieve perfect harmony for other racial groups and it will barely make a dent. American blacks really have been dealt an especially ****ty hand.

It is more pronounced among blacks but that does not mean that other groups, like Latinos, don't need to be addressed. It help just that much more. All I'm saying.

 

[NAOS]

Buy back programs will trim a little of the excess but never on a scale to matter enough.

Was it laziness or convenience that caused you to leave this one out?

Until the 2nd amendment is struck down (wont happen short of civil war and new constitution imo) than these discussions are all theoretical and cannot be applied.

what about this one?

I can't hear you over the mixed messages.

Is this a theoretical thought experiment? or is there more to it than that?

 

[Stoked]

Was it laziness or convenience that caused you to leave this one out?



what about this one?

I can't hear you over the mixed messages.

Is this a theoretical thought experiment? or is there more to it than that?

No, just how it was meant in light of the whole thread. A lot of ideas in here are nothing more than theoretical. they sound great but are unrealistic.

But prop of your one post that could, I can see how, be read in way that supports your characterization of my stance on buy back programs v. 5 that directly contradict your characterization over the length of the thread.

The first quote is not me arguing against buy back programs. It fits with all my quoted posts. That a buy back program by itself isn't enough.

You cannot hear me over what you want to be a mixed message. Not the same thing. But keep trying NAOS.

I bolded to help hold your hand.

 

[♪alt13]

It is more pronounced among blacks but that does not mean that other groups, like Latinos, don't need to be addressed. It help just that much more. All I'm saying.

Agreed, but we have to recognize that blacks face particularly challenging circumstances. 4 times isn't just "more pronounced" imo. It is shockingly more pronounced.

 

[Stoked]

Agreed, but we have to recognize that blacks face particularly challenging circumstances. 4 times isn't just "more pronounced" imo. It is shockingly more pronounced.

I can agree, and do, with that while still having my stance on including other affected groups. Even if it is drastically less pronounced.

 

[NAOS]

No, just how it was meant in light of the whole thread. A lot of ideas in here are nothing more than theoretical. they sound great but are unrealistic.

But prop of your one post that could, I can see how, be read in way that supports your characterization of my stance on buy back programs v. 5 that directly contradict your characterization over the length of the thread.

The first quote is not me arguing against buy back programs. It fits with all my quoted posts. That a buy back program by itself isn't enough

You cannot hear me over what you want to be a mixed message. Not the same thing. But keep trying NAOS.

I want there to be a mixed message? LINK?

 

[Stoked]

I want there to be a mixed message? LINK?

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?43489-Welcome-to-Murica/page22

I can play games as well.

 

[NAOS]

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?43489-Welcome-to-Murica/page22

I can play games as well.

can you back yourself further into a corner? Where are you now....?.... resting on the assumption that your messages are crystal clear and I'm deliberately confusing them?