Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-12-2015, 12:49 PM
 
45,126 posts, read 26,303,081 times
Reputation: 24858

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate View Post
Gun crime most certainly is not down this year
The FBI disagrees with you:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/201...stats-released
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-12-2015, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7,734 posts, read 5,478,300 times
Reputation: 5968
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post

That is examining the overall violent crime. In all honesty there is a much closer correlation to alcoholism and the violent crime rate than there is with gun ownership and violence. It is the connection between illegal drugs and gun sales along corridors like the cities along I-95.

The Ex-Congressman Behind the Ban on Federal Gun Violence Research Explains His Big Regrets

The CDC receives little to no funding to research gun deaths.

American deaths in terrorism vs. gun violence - CNN.com

Gun deaths have been on the rise as the violent crime rate has dropped significantly. There are a lot less drunks killing people out of rage, but still plenty of little corrupted minds thinking their in a street war who view guns as a means to an end.

https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/...me_Decline.pdf

Last edited by thedirtypirate; 12-12-2015 at 02:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2015, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,461 posts, read 3,223,840 times
Reputation: 5269
Quote:
Originally Posted by eureka1 View Post
If ONE LIFE can be saved by stricter gun laws, we should do it. How can there be a debate?

Does that apply to abortion as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2015, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,712 posts, read 13,438,192 times
Reputation: 4317
The problem with guns is that they are opportunistic vehicles to inflict death and destruction at a moment's notice. The human brain is simply ill-prepared to rationalize first before acting impulsively. Proponents of guns may be correct in the most literal of senses by saying that it's people who kill people, and not guns. Yet, in their haste to de-anthropormphize guns, they forget that the real problem is the availability of easy to use tools that can cause a tragedy faster than a person can think about their actions.

Proponents of guns have a new classification system for people who do such things. They call them "irresponsible gun owners," and simply wipe their hands clean, pat themselves on the back for being "responsible gun owners," and go about their day. While it's true that those determined to kill will take up any means necessary (like the recent London knife attack), making gun access more difficult would be a big step forward in depriving the impulsive and irrational minded of using such weapons.

Gun enthusiasts also have a saying that goes something like, "The best thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Topically, this sounds like an awesome idea. Arm everyone, and then when a baddy breaks out with a gun, the good guys act like John McClain, and simply overwhelm him. The biggest problem with this is that your most noble and responsible gun ownera, even expert marksmen, most likely have not trained for such situations, and the confusion and panic which generally ensues. The first reaction of people is to either hide or get really quiet. People usually don't run, believe it or not, and are often frozen in fear for quite some time. Believe it or not, reaching for their weapons may not even be an instinctual thing to do. Simply put, our brains are also not well equipped to handle situations this far out of the norm. It doesn't know how to process such erroneous data. That is why police and military forces train so much and so often.

Even once the initial shock has worn off, and all the John McClain's start reaching for their weapons, the issue may then result in a big "Where's Waldo," of who the bad guy really is. Your mind has JUST NOW processed that there's a bad guy with a gun. You reach for your weapon, you look up to acquire your target, and everyone in the room has a gun. Quick: Who's the bad guy? Maybe it's easy to find out. Maybe it's not. Who do you shoot?

Finally, perhaps the biggest problem in all of this is the mentality that violence solves problem. Whether you're defending yourself against an armed shooter, or you are the armed shooter, the methodology in which we fantasize about solving problems seems to be centered around violence. We have accepted the fact that violence is a rational way to solve problems, and perhaps that is the biggest thing that needs to change in this country. We are taught from an early age to "punch the bully in the nose," rather than how to rationalize and defeat him intelligently. We mock those who generally choose peace over war (look at how we mocked the French when we wanted to go to Iraq), and we have special, flowery words in our vocabulary for those who prefer not to fight.

A carpenter may still find a way to drive home a nail without a hammer, but making it harder for him to do so will exponentially decrease the number of nails that get driven. Though body counts are a horrible thing to judge effectiveness of attacks by, I'm sure last week's knife attacker in London would have opted for an assault rifle over a knife if he could have gotten his hands on one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2015, 02:21 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,011,554 times
Reputation: 10270
It can't. They know this. This is all about more government control and disarming the citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2015, 02:33 PM
 
52,433 posts, read 26,493,847 times
Reputation: 21096
Quote:
Originally Posted by GCSTroop View Post
The problem with guns is that they are opportunistic vehicles to inflict death and destruction at a moment's notice. The human brain is simply ill-prepared to rationalize first before acting impulsively...... .......
Lot's of prose that absolutely does not explain how gun control would stop any mass shooting.

Your commentary simply boils down to the "people who disagree with me are stupid" type of argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2015, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,809 posts, read 26,394,291 times
Reputation: 25704
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate View Post
Sales from FFL licensed dealers require a background check, rather at a gun show or anywhere else. Between private individuals they do not (according to federal law, state and local ones may be different). Doesn't matter if they are at a gun show or not. Same rules apply. Those that lie and distort the truth try to pretend that's not a fact. That's how these liars come up with the gun show "loophole" story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2015, 02:52 PM
 
2,851 posts, read 3,466,843 times
Reputation: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedirtypirate View Post
Same way you don't need to buy a car through a 3rd person dealer and can sell it on craigslist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2015, 03:03 PM
 
Location: SE Asia
16,236 posts, read 5,852,196 times
Reputation: 9117
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
OK, I didn't exactly quote the OP....

Who exactly claimed that "Gun Control would have stopped any mass shooting episode in the USA"?

I mean, besides those who would seek to erect a straw man argument?
If the laws Obama wants, doesn't prevent mass shootings, then why hysteria? Why use up national airtime to try and sell them? Why reference the mass shootings as a need for these laws?
Because Obama never lets a crisis go to waste.
Obama is solidly anti-private gun ownership. He has made no secret of this. He also knows that he will never be able to ban all guns. He will settle for partial bans and restrictions. So he uses the mass shootings as a starter. The laws he proposes won't prevent many if any deaths, but it's a toe inside of the door.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2015, 03:07 PM
 
46,200 posts, read 26,966,096 times
Reputation: 11082
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf View Post
OK, I didn't exactly quote the OP....

Who exactly claimed that "Gun Control would have stopped any mass shooting episode in the USA"?

I mean, besides those who would seek to erect a straw man argument?
Typical leftist tactic.....don't like the question, just make it up.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top