General Political Thread

[Tweedling]

China looks like a great place to visit. Do they allow private ownership of guns?

[KevinG]

China looks like a great place to visit. Do they allow private ownership of guns?

 

Many GOP'ers would love the business regulations of China.  

[lost highway]

Hitler took away guns, so did modern day Norway.

 

The U.S. has relatively lax gun laws, and so does Pakistan.

 

Where do you want to live?

 

All of these cheap shots at fascism, or failed states on either side are intellectually lazy.  You can find plenty of good and bad examples no matter what your argument because GUN LAWS AREN'T WHAT MAKES A GOVERNMENT.   If your strongest argument for your second amendment rights is "Hitler took away guns", then you have successfully proven how obsolete your gun privileges are.

 

(also of note is the fact that the Obama administration hasn't made a single move to take anyone's guns, yet the fringe right has answered back as if he has)

[Hixter]

Hitler took away guns, so did modern day Norway.

And they recently had one of the worst single-shooter massacres on record.

[uncool2pillow]

Hixter, would you stipulate that the tragedy in Norway is an incredible aberration?  It seems like those against gun control would do well to simply admit that there is a social cost to pay to having so many guns.  Countries with tighter laws have fewer gun murders.  Period.  You can argue liberty vs. safety and I'll listen and even support the right to own guns, but don't try to sell us on gun control leading to more gun crime.  It's a non-starter.

[Hixter]

Hixter, would you stipulate that the tragedy in Norway is an incredible aberration? 

I would say that mass shootings themselves are an aberration and absolutely unavoidable even with strict gun control laws. The population of the U.S. is more than 60 times that of Norway, so multiply that single death toll of 77 by 60 and see how rare our mass shootings really are. 

[ih8music]

Ok, let's ignore mass shootings since they're so rare.

 

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[Tweedling]

I love giving fascism cheap shots. I'm pretty sure he was an asshole.

[Hixter]

Ok, let's ignore mass shootings since they're so rare.

 

http://mobile.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

That's one of the more useless sites I've seen lately.

[uncool2pillow]

I would say that mass shootings themselves are an aberration and absolutely unavoidable even with strict gun control laws. The population of the U.S. is more than 60 times that of Norway, so multiply that single death toll of 77 by 60 and see how rare our mass shootings really are. 

Countries with tighter laws have fewer gun murders.  Period.

Any response to one of my main points?

[Hixter]

Any response to one of my main points?

Here in Texas, 500,000+ citizens licensed to carry a concealed handgun were convicted of 4 counts of murder in 2011:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

 

That's a 0.8 murder per 100,000 rate. Now look at that rate compared to the murder rate for the rest of the countries in the world and you'll find that Texans licensed to carry guns have a lower murder rate than almost every country on the planet. When you consider that (presumably) 100% of the Texans are armed while most of the citizens in many nation have been disarmed, the stats become even more damning to the "people with guns are more likely to murder people" argument.

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

[KevinG]

Here in Texas, 500,000+ citizens licensed to carry a concealed handgun were convicted of 4 counts of murder in 2011:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

 

That's a 0.8 murder per 100,000 rate. Now look at that rate compared to the murder rate for the rest of the countries in the world and you'll find that Texans licensed to carry guns have a lower murder rate than almost every country on the planet. When you consider that (presumably) 100% of the Texans are armed while most of the citizens in many nation have been disarmed, the stats become even more damning to the "people with guns are more likely to murder people" argument.

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

 

So wait a second here.  Your 0.8 murder rate figure exactly how did you get that number?  I think it is 4 who had concealed carry permit, but I can't really tell.  So then you take that number and compare that to the full murder rate for a whole country?  Do you also compare apples and oranges often?  If I am missing something here please explain.  

 

This is what I got, in 2011 Texas had a murder rate of 4.4 (and an average of 6 for the last 15 years) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRalpha.  Which is higher than Europe, Asia, and Oceania. So really higher than the rest of the world.  

 

Yeah and since Texas where everyone is armed you would obviously think that other crime would be down too.  Not so much they are at or above the national median in violent and property crime.  http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/tx/crime/   

 

Conceal carry does not equal lower crime rates.  

[lost highway]

I love giving fascism cheap shots. I'm pretty sure he was an asshole.

 

Yes, the symbolic supreme asshole of the modern era.  Also the center-piece of more impractical, emotive and illogical pieces of rhetoric than any other historical figure.  It's a pretty easy litmus test these days: Hitler comparison= full of shit. 

[Hixter]

So wait a second here.  Your 0.8 murder rate figure exactly how did you get that number?  I think it is 4 who had concealed carry permit, but I can't really tell.  So then you take that number and compare that to the full murder rate for a whole country?  Do you also compare apples and oranges often?  If I am missing something here please explain.  

Four of the 500,000 Texans who hold a concealed handgun license were convicted of murder (not necessarily with firearms) in 2011. Rather than being a bunch of paranoid, trigger happy maniacs only seconds away from shooting up a school or the stranger who knocks on their door, they are a group of exceedingly law-abiding citizens. I've read that a CHL holder is 13 times less likely to commit a crime than the rest of the population. They're even less likely to break the law than cops!

[KevinG]

Four of the 500,000 Texans who hold a concealed handgun license were convicted of murder (not necessarily with firearms) in 2011. Rather than being a bunch of paranoid, trigger happy maniacs only seconds away from shooting up a school or the stranger who knocks on their door, they are a group of exceedingly law-abiding citizens. I've read that a CHL holder is 13 times less likely to commit a crime than the rest of the population. They're even less likely to break the law than cops!

But you then claimed something about how that .8 % murder rate is less than most of the world, which comparing two different things entirely. So people with conceal carry are less likely to commit murder, so what? As shown by my facts conceal carry does not make it safer.

 

BTW I think conceal carry is a good thing if done properly with plenty of training etc. But if you throw out BS stats like that it ain't gonna fly.

[Hixter]

But you then claimed something about how that .8 % murder rate is less than most of the world, which comparing two different things entirely. So people with conceal carry are less likely to commit murder, so what? As shown by my facts conceal carry does not make it safer.

 

BTW I think conceal carry is a good thing if done properly with plenty of training etc. But if you throw out BS stats like that it ain't gonna fly.

There's been an attempt at portraying ardent gun rights supporters as paranoid, trigger happy and ready to massacre at the drop of a hat; statistics prove otherwise. If it will make you happy, I'll rephrase my statement:

 

If every American was as law-abiding and trustworthy as Texans who carry a pistol on them at all times, our nation's murder rate would be amongst the lowest in the world.

 

AND

 

If everyone in the world was as law-abiding and trustworthy as Texans who carry a pistol on them at all times, the world's murder rate would be lowered dramatically.

 

As for training, I underwent a background check, 8 hours of classroom instruction and testing and had to prove that I could shoot safely and accurately before I was awarded a CHL. I don't know about other states, but that seems like enough training to me; then there's 4 years in the Army and a whole lot of time spent at the range.

[uncool2pillow]

You have strayed so far from logic and the arguments presented against your POV that I think it's futile to continue, but I'll try. I think most gun control advocates recognize that most gun owners are responsible. All of us are concerned about keeping guns out of the hands of the irresponsible and insane. Comparing crime rates of a general population to the population of conceal permit holders is pretty much the definition of apples to oranges.

 

Fewer guns means fewer gun crimes. Period. That's not goings to happen here and I'm not even sure it should. Given that, I believe conceal permits provide deterrence.

[KevinG]

 

If everyone in the world was as law-abiding and trustworthy as Texans who carry a pistol on them at all times, the world's murder rate would be lowered dramatically.

 

 

If everyone was law-abiding and trustworthy we wouldn't need laws.  If wishes were assholes everyone would have one.  It is no good to deal in hypotheticals.

 

There is a segment of the gun owning population who are convinced the government is going to try to take over whatever, and they need their guns to stop them.  This is an irrational paranoia, this has been expressed (not to a huge extend, but yes expressed) in this board and more vocally in other places, often very loudly.  As a gun advocate it is something you have to deal with.  

 

I have said before and I will say it again, you sound like a very rational and responsible gun owner.  I applaud you for that, I am glad you respect firearms and use them properly.  If everyone was like you we wouldn't have a need for gun control laws, but unfortunately there is a small segment of the firearm using population who are not responsible, the laws are put into place to to stop them from doing harm.  There is a fine line between the laws infringing on your second amendment rights and merely inconveniencing your ability to use firearms in the way you want to.  

 

There is a balance that needs to be struck, it does us no good to say the only firearms we can have is bolt action .22s (or no firearms at all), nor does it us any good for us to have unfettered access assault weapons.  Both sides need to come to an agreement, everything should be on the table and willing to be discussed.  

[Hixter]

 unfortunately there is a small segment of the firearm using population who are not responsible, the laws are put into place to to stop them from doing harm. 

They're just piling additional legislation on top of existing legislation and calling it "progress." Everything the Sandy Hook shooter did was already illegal under existing laws: possessing a firearm, stealing a firearm, stealing a vehicle, breaking into a school, carrying a firearm on campus, murdering 26 people. Why add more laws to the books that only turn law-abiding citizens into criminals while rolling off the backs of the real bad guys who commit the majority of gun crime: gang members, drug dealers/users and street-level thugs?

 

Stricter gun control laws simply won't work in this nation. Washington, DC -- a mere 68 square miles -- has a murder rate almost 5 times that of the rest of the country, despite having some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation. If the feds can't legislate their own back yard into safety then it's foolish to think that the solution will work elsewhere.

 

DC's gun laws per Wikipedia:

In Washington, D.C., all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.

 

The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

 

Following the Heller decision, the Washington D.C. City Council enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns in citizens' homes. In addition to each handgun being registered with the police, the rules require that D.C. residents undergo a background check and submit fingerprints. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Residents must take an online gun safety course, and pass a written test on the District's gun laws. Residents must also declare where it will be kept.

[Tweedling]

Yes, the symbolic supreme asshole of the modern era.  Also the center-piece of more impractical, emotive and illogical pieces of rhetoric than any other historical figure.  It's a pretty easy litmus test these days: Hitler comparison= full of shit. 

I listed a couple of dictators that have history with taking away private ownership of guns. I'm sorry you've taken it as a shot at Hitler or any of the other evil, fascist, Nazi or communist leader. But seriously, I'm certainly not comparing Barack to hitler. I am, however, noting that there are a number of government leaders and politicians who have shown a desire to remove and disarm its citizens and through history, some have been quite successful. To take note of this (history) and be on the defense of such actions is what I'm thinking about. I may be mistaken, but didn't most of these leaders take away the citizens guns stating it would make a safer civilization for them and their children? I may be getting my history all screwed up....

[lost highway]

I'm sorry you've taken it as a shot at Hitler or any of the other evil, fascist, Nazi or communist leader.

 

You clearly do not understand what I'm saying.

[Tweedling]

You clearly do not understand what I'm saying.

Yeah you're probably right.

[KevinG]

They're just piling additional legislation on top of existing legislation and calling it "progress." Everything the Sandy Hook shooter did was already illegal under existing laws: possessing a firearm, stealing a firearm, stealing a vehicle, breaking into a school, carrying a firearm on campus, murdering 26 people. Why add more laws to the books that only turn law-abiding citizens into criminals while rolling off the backs of the real bad guys who commit the majority of gun crime: gang members, drug dealers/users and street-level thugs?

 

Because some people break laws, why should we even try to enforce them, or strengthen them?  I think that is what you are saying.  I previously posted a segment from John Stewart addressing what the problem with current gun laws are and why there is so much trouble with enforcing them in the first place, I suggest going back and watching that piece.  

 

You bring up good points about the Sandy Hook shooter, but you are refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room, the weapon (AR15).  If the federal assault weapon ban were still in place the mother could have never bought said weapon.  The weapon could not have been used in the shooting.  So he would have gone in with something else.  Would it have been as bad, who knows.

 

 

Stricter gun control laws simply won't work in this nation. Washington, DC -- a mere 68 square miles -- has a murder rate almost 5 times that of the rest of the country, despite having some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation. If the feds can't legislate their own back yard into safety then it's foolish to think that the solution will work elsewhere.

 

 

DC has a lot of other problems that contribute to the high crime rate, to equate this to their gun laws is specious reasoning.  Also DC is not run by the Federal Government, the President and Congress really have no more input into what goes on in DC then say Austin Texas.

 

Also our gun laws are a mishmash of Federal, State and local which can present a problem, people can bring in guns from other areas.  

[Hixter]

Because some people break laws, why should we even try to enforce them, or strengthen them?  I think that is what you are saying.

No, I'm saying that piling additional useless legislation on top of existing laws is pointless and serves only to enable politicians to claim that they are "doing something." As for Jon Stewart, I prefer to get my information from news organizations, not comedians or other celebrities.

You bring up good points about the Sandy Hook shooter, but you are refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the room, the weapon (AR15).

The nation's worst single-shooter attack (Virginia Tech) killed 32 people and only two handguns were used. The shooter carried multiple magazines and managed to shoot more than 50 people before turning the gun on himself. The only thing the VT shooting had in common with the Sandy Hook shooting is that they both took place in schools which were gun-free zones. An armed attacker is going to be able to shoot an awful lot of people if they are unarmed, no matter what type of weapon/ammunition/magazine he carries.

 

As far as I know, Connecticut already had an "assault" rifle ban in place at the time of the Sandy Hook shootings.

[lost highway]

 As for Jon Stewart, I prefer to get my information from news organizations, not comedians or other celebrities.

 

Is it that comedians can't be right, or that other news organizations won't have celebrities?