patrick.net

leoj707 says

While it is not known that pirates actually cause the globe to "cool" it is a clear fact that they do somehow prevent "warming".

Ok, so I should have said something like "pirates allow the planet to establish radiative equilibrium at a lower average temperature." ;-)

lenar says

In worst genocides in resent history machetes and hoes were the tools of choice.

Not just genocides, but many-many violent crimes right here in the US are perpetrated each year without *gasp* the use of a gun. In fact in 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crimes!

wthrfrk80 says

Ok, so I should have said something like "pirates allow the planet to establish radiative equilibrium at a lower average temperature."

Ah, yes very scientific!

I went to that link to Brady's site
The situation may be misinterpreted even more than it seemed.
31,593 - what is it? They write "gun violence". "Gun violence" is a very generic term, it may include suicides, police shootings, and situations where bad guy loses. The breakdown of the paragraph seems to suggest so.
The numbers almost add up - 12,179 + 18,223 + 592 = 30,994. 599 people are missing in this math. However, it's too close to be just a coincidence.

The other number - 12,179 - is quite interesting. It says "people murdered". It doesn't say anything about circumstances. Now, Brady is a very agenda-driven resource, their other statistics included deaths from LEOs on duty (I don't know if this one does). There is exactly 0 data on justified shooting.
Statistics don't lie, omissions and interpretations do

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Histroy's greatest murders believed and pressed for gun control, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. The Jews learned a lesson about gun control in the days leading up to WW2. "Never again".

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

This fucker would have been vaporized instantly.

Except no one knows if this was the guy, or just a patsy.

wthrfrk80 says

That said, there are probably some places guns shouldn't be allowed: crowded stadiums, airplanes, busses, etc.

You can make a case about that. However, prohibition without control would be the worst possible solution. It effectively disarms law abiding and the law abiding only; it's plainly irresponsible.

Edit: Failure of TSA, on the other hand, is a prime example of why control is a very delicate matter.

Honest Abe says

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Yes, and this is some of the problem with "reasonable" gun control. It has the potential for being manipulated to prevent "undesirables" from getting guns.

However, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition.

bdrasin says

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.

Hardly. They'll shoot yours and everyone else's:

Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public:

50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
20-30+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) – concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
300,000 dead: Idi Amin (Uganda, 1971-1979)

This lone gunman thing is tragic, but it pales in comparison to the real danger: Governments ruling unarmed citizens. Without it, the U.S. sings "God Save The Queen."

leoj707 says

Honest Abe says

Gun laws have their roots in racism. Laws enacted to prevent the black man from defending himself and his family from racial attacks.

Yes, and this is some of the problem with "reasonable" gun control. It has the potential for being manipulated to prevent "undesirables" from getting guns.

However, there is a difference between gun control and gun prohibition.

Exactly. It's more elegant.

For example, the majority believes your views on guns to be those of someone with a mental disorder. Hence, you're no longer sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun.

There! Neat, tidy, and perfectly supportable!

Outlandish? There are plenty of progressives who equate those who have "outlandish fantasies of liberty" to be of unsound mind. Look it up.

thunderlips11 says

How do you stop somebody who flips out out of the blue? Either ban all guns - which is unconstitutional - or put 1984 cameras in everybody's home.

The constitution is nice and all, but let's cut to the chase. It's liberty that matters. That's what our constitution was intended to protect, and where it failed has been where it didn't extend protections to citizens because of their race or gender, etc.

Constitutional or not, the right to bear arms is one of liberty, granted not by the state and those who desire to control its power for their own human benefit /agendas. It belongs to everyone innately.

lenar says

However, prohibition without control would be the worst possible solution. It effectively disarms law abiding and the law abiding only; it's plainly irresponsible.

Agree. I was assuming there would be security checkpoints.

Leopold B Scotch says

For example, the majority believes your views on guns to be those of someone with a mental disorder. Hence, you're no longer sufficiently mentally stable to own a gun.
There! Neat, tidy, and perfectly supportable!
Outlandish? There are plenty of progressives who equate those who have "outlandish fantasies of liberty" to be of unsound mind. Look it up.

Bingo.

Example: why do you think the hard-core gay activists are trying to brand anyone who doesn't agree with "gay marriage" as "homophobic"?

Just label your opposition as "crazy" and you can do anything you want.

Leopold B Scotch says

bdrasin says

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will accidentally shoot their own kids.

Hardly. They'll shoot yours and everyone else's:

Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public:

Oh come on; there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US, and the great majority of which are basically free democratic nation states. They haven't dissolved into fascist dictatorships so...whatever. No, it doesn't prove causality but it should make you think.

bdrasin says

They haven't dissolved into fascist dictatorships so...whatever.

Not yet. Greece might fairly soon...

bdrasin says

there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US

They also don't have 40+ million genetically less intelligent sub-saharan Africans in those European nations. The sub-saharan Africans they do have commit a disproportionately higher amount of violence when compared to the native Europeans. Where ever blacks go, high crime rates follow.

foxmannumber1 says

bdrasin says

there are forty-some democracies in Europe all of which have much stricter gun laws than the US would ever accept, and all of which have much lower levels of violent crime than the US

They also don't have 40+ million genetically less intelligent sub-saharan Africans in those European nations. The sub-saharan Africans they do have commit a disproportionately higher amount of violence when compared to the native Europeans. Where ever blacks go, high crime rates follow.

Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:

the collective republican id said

No! Their gun control laws make them LESS safe! It's just there are these other factors that completely cancel out and overwhelm the statistics in the other direction! They'd be safer if the got rid of their restrictions on guns! I just know it!

bdrasin says

Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:

You may consider it ugly, but you didn't say whether or not it was a fact.

Ask those 70+ people(98% black offender and victim) who are shot in Chicago each week how the cities de facto handgun ban is keeping them safe from gun violence.

foxmannumber1 says

bdrasin says

Wow, that was a beautiful pivot to a racist canard. Anyway, that's basically just a very ugly form of the argument:

You may consider it ugly, but you didn't say whether or not it was a fact.

Ask those 70+ people(98% black offender and victim) who are shot in Chicago each week how the cities de facto handgun ban is keeping them safe from gun violence.

Well, since it has nothing to do with the original claim (gun regulations inevitably lead to fascism and genocide), I'd rather just ignore it this time.

Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.

I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to be out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.

OK, see this is the type of distortion I am talking about.

StillLooking says

12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).

Crimes.

StillLooking says

18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).

592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).

Not crimes.

So...56,645 gun related crimes.

Not...
StillLooking says

...guns add 100,000 crimes

When you show your data your original shocking number is almost cut in half. Why would you present your data that way in your original post?

And then you are asking me to trust you that all those crimes would not have happened if there were no guns.

So what? We still have 100,000 people with nasty bullet holes in them each year. This means over the course of one's life millions get shot in the USA. This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.

Why are we taking this completely not needed risk? Why not ban guns?

StillLooking says

Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.

Leopold B Scotch says

Here’s a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always following the disarmament of the public

Actually, I have no idea what the facts are on this. I don't think its that important because, as I've mentioned above, the current state of the developed world gives lots of examples which prove that not only is freedom possible in a society with rather strict gun control, it is possible under many different systems.

-however-

If anyone does have a credible source regarding tightening/relaxing of gun laws during the rise of the Nazis in Germany (or the rise of any other totalitarian state), I'd be interested to read it. I've heard lots of claims on this matter but seen no evidence either way.

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a Gun."

Liberty belongs to whoever has the political power.

StillLooking says

Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.

I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.

So do you 'feel' safer when you walk the streets of inner city chicago, because guns are banned?

StillLooking says

This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.

Horribly wrong logic. However, I think statistics prove the odds of getting shot greatly increase by associating with blacks.

StillLooking says

Why are we taking this completely not needed risk? Why not ban guns?

You can't put the genie back in its bottle. A gun is a simple but very effective tool that when used in an uncivil manner can inflict great injury in a short amount of time.

Criminals, by definition, do not care if something is unlawful or not. By banning guns you would be arming the criminals and disarming the potential victims.

errc says

So do you 'feel' safer when you walk the streets of inner city chicago, because guns are banned?

What, you think guns are banned in Chicago? Where did you hear this, it's not true at all. Unless you have some weird NRA definition of "banned", which means "there are some regulations I don't like"...

StillLooking says

So what?

So, what? Your original assertion is that guns were causing 100,000 crimes to happen each year (on average) in the US. I was responding to that claim.

StillLooking says

This means guns add 100,000 crimes

StillLooking says

This means over the course of one's life millions get shot in the USA. This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.

Really? this is your argument?

What are pretty good chances?

Obligatory:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk9wd2FGG-E

(sorry zzyzzx I beat you to it)

bdrasin says

What, you think guns are banned in Chicago? Where did you hear this, it's not true at all. Unless you have some weird NRA definition of "banned", which means "there are some regulations I don't like"...

While the Supreme Court did overturn Chicago's always illegal 28 year old handgun ban in 2010, you can't conceal carry and you will be harassed by police when carrying in public. It effectively disarms you when outside of your house, making you an easier victim.

Yes, the regulations are also made to deter people getting the permit as well.

It is much restricted than Vermont for instance. Given the demographics differences between VT and IL I agree that everyone should not have the right to carry without restriction in IL.

foxmannumber1 says

bdrasin says

What, you think guns are banned in Chicago? Where did you hear this, it's not true at all. Unless you have some weird NRA definition of "banned", which means "there are some regulations I don't like"...

There are some restrictions I don't like. And I hate black people.

*sigh*

StillLooking says

This means one's chances of being shot in one's lifetime are pretty good.

Horribly wrong logic. However, I think statistics prove the odds of getting shot greatly increase by associating with blacks.

StillLooking says

Why are we taking this completely not needed risk? Why not ban guns?

You can't put the genie back in its bottle. A gun is a simple but very effective tool that when used in an uncivil manner can inflict great injury in a short amount of time.

Criminals, by definition, do not care if something is unlawful or not. By banning guns you would be arming the criminals and disarming the potential victims.

Mass production of guns requires heavy industry so unlike drugs for instance, a prohibition of guns will be effective.

Once guns are banned the only new guns will be made by hand in a garage in small numbers. The price of guns will quickly rise to a level where a two bit punk won't have the means to get a gun.

So the genie can be put back in the bottle.

StillLooking says

Hitler armed his people to the teeth. In response to the guns bring liberty canard.

I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.

So do you 'feel' safer when you walk the streets of inner city chicago, because guns are banned?

I would feel much safer walking the streets of Chicago if guns were banned. Much much much safer.

bdrasin says

There are some restrictions I don't like. And I hate black people.

I do not hate black people. I recognize there are genetic differences between blacks and every other race on the planet that should be addressed in a fact based way so that the happiness of all races can be improved.

StillLooking says

I would feel much safer walking the streets of Chicago if guns were banned. Much much much safer.

Guns were banned in Chicago for 28 years. It did not stop violent gun crime. Once again, criminals do not care about gun bans.

And why is it all politicians are protected by agents and guards who are heavily armed???

But YOU'RE not supposed to be armed to protect YOURSELF?

More liberal "logic".

StillLooking says

I would feel much safer walking the streets of Chicago if guns were banned. Much much much safer.

Until a guy with a knife walked up to you and demanded money...

Fail.

Funny how the people who are afraid of government taking away their guns aren't afraid of government taking away all their other rights including the right not to be sexually molested by the government.

StillLooking says

The price of guns will quickly rise to a level where a two bit punk won't have the means to get a gun.

Correct. Only organized crime will be able to afford them. ;-)

Dan8267 says

Funny how the people who are afraid of government taking away their guns aren't afraid of government taking away all their other rights including the right not to be sexually molested by the government.

1. Within government sexual molestation swings both ways - Democrat and Republican. The USA Patriot Act passed the US Senate with 98 votes for, one against, and one abstaining.

2. Among the potential voters most of the pro-gun people I know have strong libertarian beliefs which have them against the TSA and Patriot Act, against the war on some drugs, for equal treatment of same-sex and other marriages, and against government controls on abortion.

StillLooking says

I am losing liberty because of guns. It is more dangerous to be out in the world because the risk of getting shot is real. This means I have less liberty because of guns.

If you actually peruse the Uniform Crime Reports you'll note that your risk of being shot isn't too out of line with "more civilized places" as long as you're not black, especially when you avoid major risk factors like joining a youth gang, involvement in the drug trade, or being in a love triangle. With a statistically average chance of having those risk factors as a non-hispanic white person in 2007 your odds of being murdered were 3.7 in 100,000 although being non-hispanic black made them 41.4 in 100,000.

When you dig deeper you find evidence suggesting that "black" is a proxy for other socio-economic factors which should exclude black members of the middle class from and include white urban lower class individuals in the population of frequently murdered people.

The United States doesn't have a gun problem. We do have an educational gap which leads to economic disparity and subsequently high murder and other crime rates.

If our murder rate had anything to do with the availability of guns, blood would have run red in the streets of small rural towns where boys kept rifles and shotguns in their vehicles so they could hunt on the way to and from school. It did not.

If our murder rate had anything to do with the availability of guns, it would have been higher before the Gun Control Act of 1968 than after when it became illegal to sell guns through the mail. It was not.

If our murder rates had anything to do with the availability of guns, they'd be higher where adults without criminal records can carry concealed than in places where handguns are effectively illegal. They are not.

Our murder rates are/were not higher in those situations because they don't go up with more ready access to guns. They're high among some subpopulations due to economic and social issues that are unpopular to admit and a lot more difficult to fix compared to passing another gun-control law.

People like to cite _Handgun Regulations, Crime, Assaults, and Homicides: A Tale of Two Cities_ (Sloan at el) as an example showing how American access to guns makes us less safe than Canadians where similar cities (size, geography, etc) are compared although this is incorrect.

Although Seattle and Vancouver are similar cities on opposite sides of the border they have radically different demographics.

At the time of the study white people on both sides of the border had similar economic circumstances and were safer in Seattle with 6.2 murders per 100,000 versus 6.4 per 100,000 in Vancouver.

In Vancouver the minorities were more affluent than average and their murder rates were not out of line with those of the white population. In Seattle the black and Hispanic per-capita incomes from the 2000 census were about half the white population's ( $18,328 and $17,216 respectively vs $35,641) and murder rates consequently many times higher at 36.6 and 26.9 per 100,000.

People's income generally comes from their educational attainment and there's a huge gap there.

Part of the education gap is due to how we run our schools. Public schools are paid for (through property taxes) and controlled (as in the curriculum) by the local populations. Students generally attend local schools. Black children are more likely to live in statistically poor neighborhoods. White children are more likely to live in statistically affluent neighborhoods where professional parents insist the schools provide college level courses so their kids can get into name-brand universities. Black children are therefore less likely to have the same educational opportunities as white ones.

Part of it is social. Children tend to follow in their father's footsteps when it comes to education and earnings.

Poor people living among the relatively wealthy will continue to kill each other until we deal with this regardless of the legal situation involving firearms just like they do in other countries with high economic disparity but strict gun laws. For example, Jamaica decided in 1974 that only the police and military can legally own handguns with illegal possession carrying a life sentence. Following the ban the murder rate skyrocketed past 60 per 100,000 inhabitants although at only 41 per 100,000 in 2012 it's near the post-ban low and matches the US black rate in 2007 but remains over 10X worse than our white rate.

The facts don't support gun-control and the only good which comes out of it is in the voting booth.

It's _MUCH_ easier to vote when one candidate has an anti-gun history and the other contender does not.

When voting I don't care much about abortion law. I doubt the Republicans would be stupid enough to do anything substantial although if they did I can afford to fly my family's women outside the country if they want an abortion.

When voting I don't care too much about public schools. Our kids have under graduate degrees so it doesn't affect me personally. I also don't think the problems with many public schools won't be fixed by more money or that less money will make things worse except as a side effect of the teachers' unions' reaction (like school library closures because the union won't allow parent volunteers to serve as librarians)

Both parties have affected my tax bill for better and worse so that's a wash.

Candidates' attempts at gun control have had significant effects on how I participate in shooting sports and what that costs me. For instance I had to keep my rifles which weren't legal in California in an out-of-state storage facility until they were stolen. Some regular capacity magazines were five times as expensive between 1994 and 2004 as they were before and after.

A disproportionate number of Democrats have actually done something which would offend me enough to vote for (almost) whoever the Republicans care to run against them. A few Republicans have crossed that threshold or said something to suggest they would in the future like Meg "tough gun laws like assault weapon bans and handgun control are appropriate for California" Whitman who is not appropriate for California.

In other states this was less of an issue since many politicians learned their lesson and are no longer as stupid as the Democrats were when they passed HR3355 in 1994 and lost both House and Senate; although in California the anti-gunners are very virulent. It'll be interesting to see what happens in California as we undo the Gerrymandering with things like Prop 20.