Gun politics thread

cereal_guy_spitting.jpg
 
I don't know whether this belongs here or in the terrorist thread or in the refugee thread. Given the absurdity, I'll put it here:
NRA-Backed Legislator: We Can?t Take Syrian Refugees Because It?s Too Easy For Them To Buy Guns
Motherfuckin' post of the year.... BITCH! [/Pinkman]

Seriously, this is amazeballs. How can this not be blowed up all over the mainstream press? Have we reached such idiotic levels of stupidity and hypocrisy that now all that rates is a B-grade celeb with 3 dicks in her mouth and 2 grams of coke in her nose?
 
Hopefully the good Syrian can take a gun from the bad Syrian to stop them. :dunno:


But they make a real good argument that the rules to buy guns in many states is very lax.
 
But they make a real good argument that the rules to buy guns in many states is very lax.
Yes but, again, that doesn't correlate with gun murder rates.

MA - strict gun laws, low crime
IL - strict gun laws, high crime

LA - loose gun laws, high crime
VT - loose gun laws, low crime

Low income, poorly educated, high unemployment communities will always have more crime, regardless of laws, and vice versa.
 
They are worried that it would be to easy for them to get guns. They are the NRA. They have spent the last few decades telling the world, that the world would be a better place with more guns, yet they are worried about them getting guns too easily. How could they get guns to easily if the rules aren't too lax?
 
They are worried that it would be to easy for them to get guns. They are the NRA. They have spent the last few decades telling the world, that the world would be a better place with more guns, yet they are worried about them getting guns too easily. How could they get guns to easily if the rules aren't too lax?

Not only that, how are Syrian refugees supposed to protect themselves from the inevitable home invasion, drugged-up mugging, car jacking, etc.?
 
People tend to forget that the NRA is so influential because of it's 5+ million members. It's a nonprofit, not some giant evil corporation. I may not agree with everything they say and do but they are the only ones that have any real influence in politics, which makes them the only ones to stand up for our 2A rights.
 
Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

256553b3687382811ac37ebd37e26fcb.jpg


With two tragic rampage shootings in recent news, both the Aurora Colorado Dark Knight shooting and now the Milwaukee Wisconsin Sikh Temple Shooting, the debate rages about gun rights in the United States. One camp imagines they can save lives by passing laws and regulations so burdensome a shooter would be unable to acquire a deadly weapon. The other camp hopes to repeal laws and regulations making it easier for victims to defend themselves from the inevitable. And both camps have a wall of statistics backing up their position. But I thought of an innovative way to look at shooting rampage statistics, which I'd like to share. I compiled and analyzed 93 shootings, and these are my findings.

The average deaths in a shooting rampage when stopped by police is 14.3.

The average deaths in a shooting rampage when stopped by civilians is 2.3

It makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

BANG!
?Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.?
BANG!
?He?s just going to keep shooting people!?
BANG!

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than 3 people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. Maybe it?d have been less if one of those two men were armed.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don?t own a firearm. I?ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it?s not an issue of gun rights. It?s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn?t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ?till they?re blue in face. I frankly don?t care about people?s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast, so if you want raw numbers and my methodology you can see it here.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway, so they aren?t even part of this statistic. What that means is that police are not even in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That?s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category two thirds were stopped by unarmed civilians. What?s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. I found only one case where the heroic civilian was killed in the process, although many were wounded. In 2005, when David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire with an assault rifle from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas Mark Wilson fired back. Mark succeeded in drawing Arroyo?s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded.

If you compare the average deaths in a shooting rampage stopped by armed civilians to unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6, but that?s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive heroic civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far less people die in rampage shootings stopped by proactive civilians, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn?t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?
 
Well...get ready for another round, after this morning in San Bernadino. Hope they catch the suspects...I believe they all may have gotten away for now.
 
I'm honestly expecting this to be a terrorist act. Three mentally ill people working together to kill people is almost unheard of, and most of the time the shooter kills him/herself after its over, when the police show up, or they encounter resistance.
 
I'm honestly expecting this to be a terrorist act. Three mentally ill people working together to kill people is almost unheard of, and most of the time the shooter kills him/herself after its over, when the police show up, or they encounter resistance.

The way it's been lately is that if they are not brown they are not terrorists. As far as multiple troubled people working together, Columbine or the knife attack that happened in China.

On the topic of gun politics though it is worth noting that CA has some of the toughest laws, on par with NY/NJ/CT.
 
Low income, poorly educated, high unemployment communities will always have more crime, regardless of laws, and vice versa.
And compared to low income, high unemployment areas in other first world nations we've got far higher murder rates.

Damn, what could possibly be the difference? I can't put my finger on it.

... which makes them the only ones to stand up for our 2A rights.
The NRA doesn't give a flying fuck about your "2A rights" and you're a fucking sucker if you think they do. The NRA exists to sell guns. They're a lobby for gun manufacturers.

The way it's been lately is that if they are not brown they are not terrorists. As far as multiple troubled people working together, Columbine or the knife attack that happened in China.

On the topic of gun politics though it is worth noting that CA has some of the toughest laws, on par with NY/NJ/CT.
Yup, the white guy who shot up the Planned Parenthood in CO? Just a crazy bastard. Not a good white Christian terrorist! Just a crazy fuck.

And an individual states gun laws are meaningless when you can drive a couple hours out of state and buy whatever the fuck you want. We need real federal gun control, but that ain't never gonna happen.

We had an elementary school get shot up and nothing changed. If that doesn't make the gun humpers change their mind nothing well.
 
Gun politics thread

And compared to low income, high unemployment areas in other first world nations we've got far higher murder rates.

Damn, what could possibly be the difference? I can't put my finger on it.

Do keep in mind that other first world nations have much more comprehensive social safety nets and generally better education system along with cheaper higher education as compared to us. There are also cultural differences to consider when it comes to attitudes towards violence and society. Take extreme example of Japan where the entire focus is good of society over your own.

Thing that bothers me personally is that people tend to only focus on guns but disregard all other aspects of the issue.
And an individual states gun laws are meaningless when you can drive a couple hours out of state and buy whatever the fuck you want. We need real federal gun control, but that ain't never gonna happen.
That gets into state's rights though, individual states are no more willing to give up their rights to the Feds anymore than any of us want to give ours up to any government.
 
Last edited:
prizrak said:
Do keep in mind that other first world nations have much more comprehensive social safety nets and generally better education system along with cheaper higher education as compared to us. There are also cultural differences to consider when it comes to attitudes towards violence and society. Take extreme example of Japan where the entire focus is good of society over your own.
Yes, most other first world nations have a much better approach to social policy than we do. Easy access to firearms is still a huge contributor to homicide and suicide. We're by far the loosest in that regard. A policy choice that can't be ignored.

I don't really buy into big cultural differences. While the right wing in this nation has actively campaigned against almost any notion of civic duty, the primary driver of homicides is simply access to small arms.

We just saw it in in Paris, CO and CA right now. Easy access to guns makes mass killings easy. That is a simple fact.

prizrak said:
Thing that bothers me personally is that people tend to only focus on guns but disregard all other aspects of the issue.
Because without access to small arms this shit wouldn't happen. Yes, there are other more minor factors. But the ridiculous ease with which anyone can get a gun anywhere in this country is the bulk of the problem.

prizrak said:
That gets into state's rights though, individual states are no more willing to give up their rights to the Feds anymore than any of us want to give ours up to any government.
That's fucking irrelevant. The whole "state's rights" Confederate canard is wrong. The right to gun ownership is a matter of interpretation of the constitution. Which falls solely to the federal gov't.
 
Do keep in mind that other first world nations have much more comprehensive social safety nets and generally better education system along with cheaper higher education as compared to us. There are also cultural differences to consider when it comes to attitudes towards violence and society. Take extreme example of Japan where the entire focus is good of society over your own.

Thing that bothers me personally is that people tend to only focus on guns but disregard all other aspects of the issue.

That gets into state's rights though, individual states are no more willing to give up their rights to the Feds anymore than any of us want to give ours up to any government.
Is tiggy still replying to me? That's cute. Too bad our resident hurr-durr-I-am-a-gun-owner-too military badass doesn't realize that you CANNOT simply go buy a gun in another state. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of ignorance profanities, and personal insults.

Also, lol federal gun control... Because fuck your constitution!
 
Top