Why are 2nd amendment people also champions of the police?

[Hollowway]

Well, let's try a more rational angle to the anti-regulation argument.

What are the regulations being proposed? How would we implement said regulations? In particular, how would owners of guns bought pre-implementation be effected, if at all?

Are the proposed regulations practical, or is it too late to try since so many people own guns as it is?

Yeah, but you can't bring up regulations without those being regulated getting antsy. In this case it's the NRA immediately assuming a slippery slope scenario. I get it, because there are hobbies I have that I might get antsy about if someone wanted to regulate them. But, I'd also like to think that I could stand outside myself, and judge things based on their merit, not a, "Yeah, but what's in it for me?" standpoint. In this case (gun regulations), I think the idea that the NRA wants no regulations seems so ridiculous, because the other side is trying to save lives. It's a, "We want to save lives," vs, "I like guns" argument. So, instead, the NRA has to make a pitch that gun regulations won't save lives. And while it's true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, that argument can't go very far. You could make the argument that seat belts, driver licenses, and other car regulations won't help reduce car accident fatalities because "cars don't kill people, people kill people," but we all agree that's ridiculous, and the data backs it up. Plus, imagine if the AAA started saying that requiring people to take a test to get a license, or wear seat belts, or any of that other stuff, was just an attempt to "take our cars away." Or, if they said, "Well, the break light requirement is anti-American, because Americans like cars. They're trying to take away our cars. But, it won't do any good, because there are already way too many cars out there, so we shouldn't have any regulations." It all sounds ridiculous. But it's exactly what the NRA is doing. They refuse to even discuss any regulation at all. Trump himself believed in some sort of regulation. Most Americans, most military, and most cops believe in some regulations. Why? Because, as Science Penguin said, a discussion of the regulations being proposed is reasonable, and the next step. It's how normal people communicate. The NRA doesn't want us to be normal people, so it's spinning every discussion into, "They're taking away our guns, and don't believe in the constitution."

 

[narad]

Jeez guys. Let's enact some stricter control on paragraphs.

 

[Hollowway]

There is no effective solution. We’re looking at a nation of VERY SPOILED people, (even the welfare class) in a world where social class is starting to divide in front of them. The lower class is just now starting to have to face their own decisions as evidenced by the sharp rise of substance abuse and homelessness. When entitlements come to an end, these spoiled people get PISSED!!...in different ways...A lady here in Portland threw her 6 yr old kid off the Astoria bridge because she didn’t get the amount of social program money she wanted -an extreme case, I know but more to the point that housing, food, healthcare, clothes, iphones and Air Jordan’s are an entitlement granted to the poorest of the poor in this country...now drugs, entertainment and even happiness and having an attractive sex partner is considered a “human right”, add some mental health problems, lack of education and a lot of jealousy...tack on an eager camera crew and reporters and it starts to at least make sense...I think overstimulation, lack of sense of purpose and becoming desensitized to happiness has really taken its toll on the mental health of people...especially “millennials”. The NRA is a goofy bunch, I agree but the number of members is relatively low...I think bronies outnumber them and honestly Congress could simply enact legislation with enough votes but the overwhelming votes just aren’t there. Our government doesn’t care about individual life value...they never have.

I agree with a lot of this, but there are some generalities in there about poor people that I'm not sure are accurate. But, I will grant you that there doesn't seem to be an effective solution to the poor/uneducated/substance abuse issues in the inner cities. That whole education thing that Zuckerberg did failed, so throwing money at it - even with the rest research and intentions - doesn't work. And while Air Jordans are not handed out by the government, I know full well that a lot of the people out there wearing them would be better off saving that money for just about anything else.

The one thing I'd disagree with is the "there is no effective solution." There may be no solution we can enact easily, but we have plenty of examples of what other countries have done to see what we could do, in terms of gun deaths. In Australia, after the Port Arthur Massacre, the government there enacted a buyback of hundreds of thousands of guns, and enacted a whole bunch of regulation. So, over the past 20 years the gun deaths have decreased dramatically. (I just looked it up to see, and the per 100,000 homicide rate in 95-96 was 1.6, whereas in 2013-2014 it was 1.0.) That's a pretty cool, up to date, model we could work from. But there is no way the NRA would allow that. They'd go ballistic. (Pun intended.) So, there is no easily implemented solution (which is probably what you meant). But there is a very obvious solution we could try.

 

[Hollowway]

Jeez guys. Let's enact some stricter control on paragraphs.

 

[NateFalcon]

Some of the stuff I write is kinda generalized, I personally agree with you...but Congress isn’t going to turn down billions per year (year after year) just to save some lives...Democrats talk big when the camera is pointed at them about compassion and “rights” but a lot of Dems make up that 1% list everyone complains about and vote differently than the public assumes. Ralph Nader is the only politician who’s dedicated his political career to others’ safety lol...again, generalizing

 

[NateFalcon]

It sounds mean to generalize poor people and other groups...but that’s exactly what our government does. They don’t see the value of the family’s grief...they see “poor kids”, or “inner city kids”, or “white, middle class” etc. and then deal with pressure from the public and their donators. Once in a while a governor will call for action, but whining senators rarely have any pull

 

[NateFalcon]

It sounds mean to generalize poor people and other groups...but that’s exactly what our government does. They don’t see the value of the family’s grief...they see “poor kids”, or “inner city kids”, or “white, middle class” etc. and then deal with pressure from the public and their donators. Once in a while a governor will call for action, but whining senators rarely have any pull

 

[Science_Penguin]

Yeah, but you can't bring up regulations without those being regulated getting antsy. In this case it's the NRA immediately assuming a slippery slope scenario. I get it, because there are hobbies I have that I might get antsy about if someone wanted to regulate them. But, I'd also like to think that I could stand outside myself, and judge things based on their merit, not a, "Yeah, but what's in it for me?" standpoint. In this case (gun regulations), I think the idea that the NRA wants no regulations seems so ridiculous, because the other side is trying to save lives. It's a, "We want to save lives," vs, "I like guns" argument. So, instead, the NRA has to make a pitch that gun regulations won't save lives. And while it's true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, that argument can't go very far. You could make the argument that seat belts, driver licenses, and other car regulations won't help reduce car accident fatalities because "cars don't kill people, people kill people," but we all agree that's ridiculous, and the data backs it up. Plus, imagine if the AAA started saying that requiring people to take a test to get a license, or wear seat belts, or any of that other stuff, was just an attempt to "take our cars away." Or, if they said, "Well, the break light requirement is anti-American, because Americans like cars. They're trying to take away our cars. But, it won't do any good, because there are already way too many cars out there, so we shouldn't have any regulations." It all sounds ridiculous. But it's exactly what the NRA is doing. They refuse to even discuss any regulation at all. Trump himself believed in some sort of regulation. Most Americans, most military, and most cops believe in some regulations. Why? Because, as Science Penguin said, a discussion of the regulations being proposed is reasonable, and the next step. It's how normal people communicate. The NRA doesn't want us to be normal people, so it's spinning every discussion into, "They're taking away our guns, and don't believe in the constitution."

As a sort of gun enthusiast myself, I can say I'd be happy with some regulations. Lord knows it's a fun hobby, and a useful skill for self-defense should it come to that, but the thing is, I don't WANT it to come to that, and I'm willing to make some sacrifices so the chances that it will are lessened.

But, of course, that's if it actually works, whiiiiich brings me to the questions I asked. Yeah, I was trying to make a point about how the NRA are a bunch of bratty children too, but, I actually did want a discussion on the subject

 

[Crash Dandicoot]

Hey @Crash Dandicoot , since you're pretty quick with the info, would that be true, that the US has the most gun-related deaths among the first-world countries? Let's call them "developed countries," or just look at a list ranking those per-capita deaths, and then figure out if the US is an outlier regarding such gun deaths among similar nations.

Ah... I just looked for myself, and found the figures.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Just food for thought.

The condition of first-world status wasn't previously mentioned, without that as context the phrase: "America has more gun related deaths per person that any other country." is categorically false and in some instances could be interpreted as deceitful. Now that the notion of first-world / developed nation is a part of the situation, the statistics obviously change, as @narad pointed out.

The source you provided has objective data, though it doesn't help anyone's argument to use a biased news network that frequently frames a story or article in the perspective that best serves their borderline extreme-leftism narrative (as I believe has happened in this circumstance) as a source (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/). Having said that, if you compare the population densities versus the gun-related homicides of the top 5 countries in the info-graphic in your article titled "Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries", you may feel differently about the statistics it's trying to frame -- let's do some math. Please bear in mind these population numbers are approximate, not actual. For the sake of this discussion I will not be counting the unintentional / suicide / undetermined portion of the statistics (as I don't think that's the primary concern for the gun control argument, though if you prefer we can redo the numbers and include them).

US: 325.7 million * 36 gun-related homicides = 11725 (Out of the entire population)
Finland: 5.5 * 3 = 17
Austria: 8.7 * 2 = 17
France: 66.9 * 2 = 134
Canada: 36 * 5 = 180

Dividing that by the total population to get a ratio:

11725 / 325,700,000 = 3.6 e-5
17/ 5,500,000 = 3.4 e-6

Using this information, it could be more accurately said that the US has 10x (plus a little bit) per year average more the gun homicide rates than the next highest country on the list, not 25.2x (If my math is wrong feel free to correct me). I'm not saying that's a good thing or a number to be proud of, but it is factually more accurate and not misleading. This would also substantiate the well known bias CNN has in its presentation of statistics.

Indeed, you did "just look". Processing and actually verifying the information presented to you is another step -- food for thought?

 

[narad]

Using this information, it could be more accurately said that the US has 10x (plus a little bit) per year average more the gun homicide rates than the next highest country on the list, not 25.2x (If my math is wrong feel free to correct me).

I'm just a little unsure of what the complete calculation you want to do is. Is the CNN article not doing
... well ... no math mode here, I don't know how to say this:

other_sum = 0
for all c in countries-not-us:
other_sum += death-per-capita(c) / population(c)

where those other countries are those listed? So how could you stop at just Finland? In other words, their point of comparison is an average over all other countries, not just the 2nd-highest, and that's the basis of the title stat.

The stat you calculated is actually already in the bar plot -- Finland's 3 vs. US's 36 gun murders per million -- that's actually more terrifying to me than the one CNN chose to focus on for the title (as the larger comparison has some big normalizers like Japan that have like non-existent gun crime and large populations, but are culturally so different that we probably couldn't learn any policy lessons). 10x the next nearest country is ...not great.

 

[Crash Dandicoot]

I'm just a little unsure of what the complete calculation you want to do is. Is the CNN article not doing
... well ... no math mode here, I don't know how to say this:

other_sum = 0
for all c in countries-not-us:
other_sum += death-per-capita(c) / population(c)

where those other countries are those listed? So how could you stop at just Finland? In other words, their point of comparison is an average over all other countries, not just the 2nd-highest, and that's the basis of the title stat.

The stat you calculated is actually already in the bar plot -- Finland's 3 vs. US's 36 gun murders per million -- that's actually more terrifying to me than the one CNN chose to focus on for the title (as the larger comparison has some big normalizers like Japan that have like non-existent gun crime and large populations, but are culturally so different that we probably couldn't learn any policy lessons). 10x the next nearest country is ...not great.

You are absolutely correct, I misunderstood it's meaning. I never disagreed with the sentiment we share about the reality of the truth -- 10x the nearest next country is indeed terrifying. I was more focused on the objectivity of the numbers in the discussion when they were brought into play. I would be interested to see and compare the statistics of the next highest populated countries as well.

 

[narad]

You are absolutely correct, I misunderstood it's meaning. I never disagreed with the sentiment we share about the reality of the truth -- 10x the nearest next country is indeed terrifying. I was more focused on the objectivity of the numbers in the discussion when they were brought into play. I would be interested to see and compare the statistics of the next highest populated countries as well.

Yea, I mean the title was a bit sensationalist and never tied in explicitly to the plot, so I see where you're coming from.

 

[Unslaved]

You mean stats that you disagree with, right? Because you had no problem bringing up stats previously, and I presume you wouldn't have used skewed or misleading stats to prove your own point?



There's "citing references" and then there's citing references. It seems like everyone except you has gone out of their way to avoid posting references that are biased, whether obviously or no. Throwing up an article that you have to page through (presumably to view the ads) to view the entire thing doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence (and as I type this, the website asked to send me push notifications...most citation-worthy references don't typically do that). The only thing to be taken with a grain of salt when citing actual sources is the methodology by which they arrived at the stats in question. It's like the wage gap argument; if you ignore all factors that might affect the result, you do indeed end up with a 20+% disparity....but it's a meaningless number because it doesn't account for anything.



Not trying to be an ass, but it's "a lot," not "alot." And I don't doubt you're correct that certain political sources do skew things one way or the other. I'd say those sources mentioned here by others aren't among them. Also, you just showed another way in which your bias is absolutely ridiculous. Wikipedia is always asking for money just to stay afloat based on the fact they operate a free and open-source compendium of information. You honestly think that "they" are paying people round the clock to continually edit articles that hide the truth from us about certain things?! I don't disagree that it's a possibility that there are probably people out there, hell, even funded networks of people, that could potentially be doing exactly what you claim, but to imply that it's Wiki themselves doing it, or that it's even being done on as trivial a platform as Wiki reveals how driven you seem to be to accept conspiracy theories most wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.



Again, I hate to have to correct you, but it's "you're," not "your." I think you've missed that several times in this thread now. And I don't see why you thought this was necessary to say, especially since I'd wager that most of the people who disagree with you would be perfectly willing to have a beer with you. The only reason we're getting salty with you is because you say something outlandish without much hard evidence and then evade when people press you on it, not to mention peppering in little snarky remarks like "I could do without your condescending attitude." It doesn't help your case, especially when you seem to be exhibiting that very behavior on occasion...

If you've got a better argument, let's hear it. If you're right in a way that's supported by objectively true evidence that came from a legitimate source, then you're right. So far, it's been a lot of "I believe this because I do," and not much "I believe this because the data provided by this organization, via an unbiased study conducted in this objective manner, supports my conclusion."

You mean stats that you disagree with, right? Because you had no problem bringing up stats previously, and I presume you wouldn't have used skewed or misleading stats to prove your own point?



There's "citing references" and then there's citing references. It seems like everyone except you has gone out of their way to avoid posting references that are biased, whether obviously or no. Throwing up an article that you have to page through (presumably to view the ads) to view the entire thing doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence (and as I type this, the website asked to send me push notifications...most citation-worthy references don't typically do that). The only thing to be taken with a grain of salt when citing actual sources is the methodology by which they arrived at the stats in question. It's like the wage gap argument; if you ignore all factors that might affect the result, you do indeed end up with a 20+% disparity....but it's a meaningless number because it doesn't account for anything.



Not trying to be an ass, but it's "a lot," not "alot." And I don't doubt you're correct that certain political sources do skew things one way or the other. I'd say those sources mentioned here by others aren't among them. Also, you just showed another way in which your bias is absolutely ridiculous. Wikipedia is always asking for money just to stay afloat based on the fact they operate a free and open-source compendium of information. You honestly think that "they" are paying people round the clock to continually edit articles that hide the truth from us about certain things?! I don't disagree that it's a possibility that there are probably people out there, hell, even funded networks of people, that could potentially be doing exactly what you claim, but to imply that it's Wiki themselves doing it, or that it's even being done on as trivial a platform as Wiki reveals how driven you seem to be to accept conspiracy theories most wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.



Again, I hate to have to correct you, but it's "you're," not "your." I think you've missed that several times in this thread now. And I don't see why you thought this was necessary to say, especially since I'd wager that most of the people who disagree with you would be perfectly willing to have a beer with you. The only reason we're getting salty with you is because you say something outlandish without much hard evidence and then evade when people press you on it, not to mention peppering in little snarky remarks like "I could do without your condescending attitude." It doesn't help your case, especially when you seem to be exhibiting that very behavior on occasion...

If you've got a better argument, let's hear it. If you're right in a way that's supported by objectively true evidence that came from a legitimate source, then you're right. So far, it's been a lot of "I believe this because I do," and not much "I believe this because the data provided by this organization, via an unbiased study conducted in this objective manner, supports my conclusion."

No you love to be an ass and correct my grammar, dont lie. I'm on my cell phone typing with two thumbs (which is alot of work, im not a tween) so youll have to excuse my grammar please.

About wikipedia, they have "volunteer gatekeepers" who may remove what they dont agree with. People have been banned from wiki that didnt deserve it just because they hold different viewpoints that threatened peoples convention wisdom and couldnt possibly entertain anything other than that, because it might make them question their conditioning. But thats another story and off topic. Point is, its not a conspiracy theory like you say. Its the truth.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

No you love to be an ass and correct my grammar, dont lie. I'm on my cell phone typing with two thumbs (which is alot of work, im not a tween) so youll have to excuse my grammar please.

About wikipedia, they have "volunteer gatekeepers" who may remove what they dont agree with. People have been banned from wiki that didnt deserve it just because they hold different viewpoints that threatened peoples convention wisdom and couldnt possibly entertain anything other than that, because it might make them question their conditioning. But thats another story and off topic. Point is, its not a conspiracy theory like you say. Its the truth.

What does any of that have to do with you refusing to use any source with valid citations?

Have you ever thought of why certain sites don't cite thier work?

We're not giving you Wikipedia links because we think Wikipedia is in and of itself a reliable source but because it's properly cited and gives links to where you can find the raw data. That's what those little numbers are on a Wikipedia article.

 

[MFB]

Stats are either skewed or dont tell the whole story.....the only reason i posted the link above is because im tired of people here saying I never cite any references......but everything is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Like I mentioned in another thread, there is alot of blind eye turning in politics where alot of crime doesn't even get reported. Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.

 

[Lemonbaby]

Just to stop the "do these figurers include suicides" discussion: there also a site that shows intentional homicide rates where the USA is only 94th place with 4.88 per 100.000 inhabitants. Doesn't look that bad after all, although I was a little surprised...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[narad]

Just to stop the "do these figurers include suicides" discussion: there also a site that shows intentional homicide rates where the USA is only 94th place with 4.88 per 100.000 inhabitants. Doesn't look that bad after all, although I was a little surprised...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Really? Every higher-ranked country is like in the grips of a drug cartel, or political turmoil, except for Russia. I mean, I'm just eyeballing here so I could have missed one, but I think the highest first world country on the list apart from the US is Belgium, at 149.

Basically any country I'd willingly solo travel to starts around 150 (Canada, France, Finland, all start popping up around there). In that view, the US again looks like a crazy outlier given all the usual things we'd like to about it -- land of the free, defender of democracy, peace keeper for the world etc... Like hey, figure out how to keep the peace at home first!

 

[Lemonbaby]

Really? Every higher-ranked country is like in the grips of a drug cartel, or political turmoil, except for Russia. I mean, I'm just eyeballing here so I could have missed one, but I think the highest first world country on the list apart from the US is Belgium, at 149.

Basically any country I'd willingly solo travel to starts around 150 (Canada, France, Finland, all start popping up around there). In that view, the US again looks like a crazy outlier given all the usual things we'd like to about it -- land of the free, defender of democracy, peace keeper for the world etc... Like hey, figure out how to keep the peace at home first!

Fully agree - never felt the urge to travel to Namibia, Guatemala or El Salvador either.

However, I found the figures to look odd when comparing the two WIKI pages "firearm-related death rates" vs. "intentional homicide rates". USA is on rank 12 in the first table (sorted by column "homicides") while it's rank 94 in the other. E.g. Peru/Nicaragua score 75th/36th in the "intentional homicides", but are ranked lower than the US in "firearm-related deaths".

 

[Unslaved]

What does any of that have to do with you refusing to use any source with valid citations?

Have you ever thought of why certain sites don't cite thier work?

We're not giving you Wikipedia links because we think Wikipedia is in and of itself a reliable source but because it's properly cited and gives links to where you can find the raw data. That's what those little numbers are on a Wikipedia article.

Because my argument supercedes any kind of "stats". I really don't care if America supposedly has the most gun deaths per capita. I agree with the following unverified quote....

"Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would I really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."

This is why I dont care to get into a "reference link war". (I shouldn't have but I did). Its people literally throwing links at each other as their absolute truth.

"This thread doesn't care about your feelings". No. The Constitution doesn't care about your feelings either......."I never said I want to take guns away completely". No, but starting with restrictions is what starts to the slow process of dissolving your own rights. It will not end. You give an inch, they take a mile. People are literally marching to have their own rights restricted/taken away in the name of feeling safe. Those same people from the left even want certain speech to be taken away/censored. Those same people on the left dont want privacy anymore, they want cameras everywhere they look in order to "feel safe". Do you want this country to be like China where they have facial recognition surveillance? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-total-surveillance/?utm_term=.ffdb06f68031

It scans your face and gives a reading of a level of "severity"....so if you look happy you get a 1 on the scale, for example...if your angry for whatever reason you may get an 8 on the scale, for example. That 8 may trigger an automatic warning where now they send an AI bot to your house to see what the fuck your angry about. That type of shit is happening, and that type of society is one with little freedom and one that I dont wish to be in.

Is "freedom" more important than safety? Yes, yes it is. This is what I believe, but I guess it doesnt matter what I believe because I cant post a link to back up what I believe... Human rights have been practiced at every age with the prevailing technology. You would be calling for a ban or restriction on swords 1000 years ago....ala (no one should have a blade longer than 4 inches!!), or bows and arrows or whatever we could have used for defense against tyranny. Heck, you would have been on the Red Coat side of the Concord Bridge I'd imagine.

Dont care if anyone thinks its ridiculous or stupid. You can rebut my post with whatever holy stat you want. I don't care. There it is.

Besides, Max I wasnt talking to you I was responding to Watty.; and Watty, I wasnt even talking to you earlier i was responding to Drew.

 

[Drew]

We dont call it a "cliff" crime when someone jumps off a cliff......but we call it a gun crime when someone shoots themselves. That term can lead people to think that all gun crime is homicide murder. Which yes technically it is considered a crime to shoot yourself, it is still very misleading, and give people the wrong impression. So yes it absolutley matters.

Stats are either skewed or dont tell the whole story.....the only reason i posted the link above is because im tired of people here saying I never cite any references......but everything is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Like I mentioned in another thread, there is alot of blind eye turning in politics where alot of crime doesn't even get reported. Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.

1) Jumping off cliffs. One, I'm talking about gun violence, not gun crime, and there's a strong correlation between higher gun control and lower gun violence in ALL shades, but looking past that... If enough people start jumping off a cliff, we put fences or barriers up, and if necessary put guards in place to stop people from leaping. Same with tall buildings - how many skyscrapers cann you get up on the roof of these days, and how many have exterior windows that open? Yet, somehow, if it's a gun involved, it's "there isn't anything we could have done." One dog dies in an overhead barrier on a commercial flight and within days a Senator proposes a bill banning dogs from overheads, but a couple thousands of deaths a year, and it's such a shame nothing could be done.

2) You cite stats, I point out the stats don't tell you what you think they do... "Oh, but that's cool because a whole bunch of crime never gets reported." One, hey, we're talking about statistical relationships that YOU claimed, and how they don't actually bear up. If you can't draw a valid conclusion from a dataset, don't blame US for that, you own that. Two, I'll agree that some crime goes unreported. But, people tend to notice when someone dies. Other classes of crime, hey, I'd at least hear you out... But, it's REALLY tough to argue some major conspiracy theory with unreported violence (self- or other-directed) when the form of violence is death.