Welcome to 'Murica

[VINYLONE]

More guns (concealed or not) does not mean less crime.

https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2015/09/legal_concealed_guns_dont_dete.html

Ok. You might be right but there are conflicting studies that fall on both sides of the argument. The important thing to remember is that for many the right to carry concealed stems from a philosophical standpoint and that's where many of you hoplophobes fall short in your argument. The 2A is clear in it's use of the words "keep" and "carry." The inalienable right to life inherently gives a person the right to defend themselves. Whether said person chooses to or not is besides the point.

Furthermore, in regards to concealed carry or open carry many if not all of the hoplophobes on the left cry visions of the wild west. The reality is that this is never the case with states that allow either of the aforementioned scenarios.

Florida is a great example. They started issuing in 1987 and as of 2012 were close to 1 million CC owners.

https://politics.heraldtribune.com/...e-home-of-1-million-concealed-weapons-owners/

Here is Florida's crime rate:

https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/FSAC/Menu/Crime-Trends/Total-Index-Crimes.aspx

Here's an interesting anecdote...

As I stated earlier, FL started issuing CC licenses in 1987. In the early 1990's Florida started having a big problem with car jackings. The people that were getting car jacked were tourists to the state because at the time, rental cars from the airport had these stickers on them that stated they were rental cars. If you were a criminal why would you car jack a Florida resident, especially in a state where residents could be armed. So, the criminals started jacking the tourists. Obviously, tourism suffered so Florida passed legislation to get these stickers off the car. The car jackings stopped. Yes, correlation is not causation but like you and I, most criminals want to continue living. It's just something to think about.

 

[VINYLONE]

when you run out of insightful things to say, you can always run to that bastion of generalizing hogwash: blame "the media."

I am not completely on board the Trout train when it comes to him referencing the media and the effect it has on the these awkward and socially misfitted individuals but with many of them the screeds they've left behind have been filled with clinical examples of narcissistic personality disorder. I think it's a mistake to NOT take the media's affect on these deranged individuals especially when many complain of being ignored in their daily lives.

 

[VINYLONE]

People blamed novels for corrupting the youth around the beginning of the 20th century. NOVELS.

You're right but to compare the early 20th century to the now "always on" media both in the terms of social connection and news aggregation, I think it's ludicrous to think that the media DOES NOT have a discernible influence on the populace. I guess, a chicken vs egg argument can be made in regards to who influenced who but in the end, I think we walk hand in hand.

 

[VINYLONE]

Do we have a substantially different media environment from, for example, european countries with substantially lower gun violence? Did anybody say "the media" had ZERO role?

I don't know. I want to say that I once heard that certain countries do NOT publish the names of folks that have committed crimes but I can't find anything to substantiate that claim. I will say that what is of importance here is the culture and how different we are from our European brothers and sisters.

Also, no, no one said media had zero role but, then again, no one said that the media was completely to blame, well, other than Trout.

 

[VINYLONE]

I really don't think media attention is much of a factor for most of these mass killers - I don't think their motivation for doing it is to get their 15 minutes of fame

How can we know since most of these killers either end up dead by their own devices or killed by LE? Only a few have been captured and of those the common thread has been SSRI's.

 

[VINYLONE]

There have also been plenty of mass shootings at other places like hospitals, office buildings, churches etc. I think it's more a case of the demographics of who's doing the shooting and what places they have associations to.

Most if not all of these mass shootings have taken place in areas that have been deemed "gun free zones" which in mass killer parlance is basically, "unarmed civilian target practice." The hoplophobes have yet to see the failure in their policies. Furthermore, in this most recent mass shooting, the shooter obtained his guns legally and in a state that recently tightened it's gun laws.

 

[VINYLONE]

Judge Judy thinks you should be required to take a psychiatric test before being allowed to own guns....


Agree? Disagree?

Judge Judy is a legalistic simpleton.

The problems I see right off the top of my head:

Who pays for this? If the answer is the gun owner, than you've just added another "tax" to the ownership of a firearm which is regressive as it affects the poor and minorities more than it does the wealthy and non-minorities. I don't think I have to explain that the poor and minorities are MORE likely to live in crime ridden areas than the wealthy and non-minorities.

What's the baseline? Meaning, what condition bars you from owning a firearm? Who decides that baseline? Do you have to have a current condition or what if you had depression a decade ago, does that bar you? There are so many problems with this idea it's laughable.

How long will the test take? Who'll administer it? What's the waiting time?

Are you going to tell this woman that she does NOT have a right to defend herself because she's hasn't taken a psych test?

https://www.wafb.com/story/30207162/sheriff-woman-pulls-gun-on-ex-boyfriend-to-defend-herself

Will you tell all of these folks that they don't have a right to stop violence because they haven't taken a test yet?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...er-stop-mass-shootings/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

Or will you tell this woman and her kids that they should have just dealt with their situation because Mr. Ragakus had not been tested?

Every single day, there are people defending themselves. And like in the last instance, many times, not a single shot has to be fired. Deterrence is very much a factor.

 

[VINYLONE]

How many people do you think he could have shot WITHOUT a gun?

None.

Could this woman have defended herself in the middle of the night without her force multiplier/ equalizer?

https://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Police-Overbrook-woman-shoots-intruder-overnight-331406542.html

 

[gandalfe]

Most if not all of these mass shootings have taken place in areas that have been deemed "gun free zones" which in mass killer parlance is basically, "unarmed civilian target practice." The hoplophobes have yet to see the failure in their policies. Furthermore, in this most recent mass shooting, the shooter obtained his guns legally and in a state that recently tightened it's gun laws.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that any mass shooters have made their choice of location because of the lack of armed citizens, and, in fact, most of the mass shootings have NOT taken place in gun-free zones.

https://www.armedwithreason.com/the...ip-between-gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings/

And, just out of curiosity, how is the fact that the shooter obtained his guns legally supposed to make us feel? Like the laws should be LOOSENED? Really?

As far as I recall (and I'm not doing any research on this right now because it's late), most of the mass shootings recently have been done with guns that were purchased legally, either directly by the shooter or by someone close to them.

 

[gandalfe]

Every single day, there are people defending themselves.

And every single day, hundreds of people are killed with guns. Over 11000 by homicide in 2010 (I think the year was on the stats I pulled earlier) and 21000 by suicide. That is nearly 1000 a day combined. Until you can provide evidence that more people are saved by private firearms, all you're doing is telling us that those people's lives are the cost of you being able to hold your gun wherever and whenever you want.

 

[gandalfe]

None.

Could this woman have defended herself in the middle of the night without her force multiplier/ equalizer?

https://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Police-Overbrook-woman-shoots-intruder-overnight-331406542.html

Would this little girl still be alive if the boy hadn't had a gun? Or do you then advocate for HER walking around strapped?

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/us/tennessee-girl-killed-puppy/

Trust me, you don't want to make this a war of anecdotes. Also, if you stop trying to brand guns as "force multiplier/equalizers," I won't start calling them "portable death machines," which is just as valid a description.

 

[NAOS]

I am not completely on board the Trout train when it comes to him referencing the media and the effect it has on the these awkward and socially misfitted individuals but with many of them the screeds they've left behind have been filled with clinical examples of narcissistic personality disorder. I think it's a mistake to NOT take the media's affect on these deranged individuals especially when many complain of being ignored in their daily lives.

I've never claimed that the media played ZERO role in the problem. It's definitely down the list a ways, though.