pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 6, 2016 15:17:21 GMT -5
Nobody has argued that it wasn't a complicated issue. Likewise nobody is arguing to take guns from the hands of the lunatics in this country who would sooner die than have them taken. No, you are arguing that. There is no other way to argue a national approach to gun control. We won't just exclude people from the law simply because they are too crazy to follow it. We won't go "we think you're going to fight back so we won't take your guns." There is no quicker way to completely neuter the law than to directly exclude some people from facing any penalties for breaking it. So, like I said, if we want gun control on a federal level are we willing to kill our own citizens to enact it? Because there is no other way to effect nationwide gun control.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2016 23:10:31 GMT -5
Lurking on this topic thusfar I've come to the conclusion that gun violence is a by-product of a different problem that's even more complex. We can take away guns, or guns from people who can't be responsible with them. That's something we can all agree is a good thing, but will it solve gun violence? Some. Probably enough to make a difference, but it's not the root of the cause. There are many regulations we can put forward, but like Alex said, there is so much happening under the table it's impossible to hold every gun owner accountable. Enacting more laws does not work; especially when congress has been proven incompetent on this front many times.
It may be a fallacy to compare some Scandinavian country with a top-10 worldwide Human Development Index, but that doesn't mean there isn't relevant data to be had here. What we can say instead is that there's a relation between having a high HDI and not having gun violence. We can say there's a relation between a high HDI and having more gun laws that can be enforced more easily. It's putting the cart in front of the horse to say "just have a higher HDI and gun violence will go away", but that's all we can really do. We need to get the US to up its HDI in general to make the problem of gun violence more approachable.
Of course, this is much easier said than done, but if we could interact with the problem of guns in any other way effectively I've yet to hear it. This is why social issues are so important, and why Bernie Sanders has been making such a big deal out of them.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Mar 6, 2016 23:40:25 GMT -5
It's every American's glob given right to bear an AA-12 big ammo in each hand.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 7, 2016 12:24:48 GMT -5
Who got insulted?
And most of the debate was Sanders saying something and Hillary saying, "I agree."
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 7, 2016 13:59:03 GMT -5
Realistically he lost the black vote as soon as he announced his campaign. He has and will never be able to secure the black vote so honestly his flub doesn't matter.
Sadly he doesn't fit the narrative of the BLM movement and the intersectional feminist narrative. He's too busy talking about the economy, Healthcare, college tuitions and infrastructure instead of talking about race. Which Hillary capitalized on early. Whatever Trump vs Clinton here we come, fucking burn it all down to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Mar 7, 2016 14:43:16 GMT -5
Regarding the gun debate, a few things:
1) There is absolutely no reason that the government shouldn't at least research gun violence, but unfortunately the NRA lobbied to get a law passed banning the CDC from doing any research on gun violence.
2) I always hear Vermont brought up due to being a state with a statistically lower rate of gun violence in spite having lax gun control laws. That's the exception though, not the rule. Every other state with lax gun control laws has more gun violence. Yes, a lot of the cities that have strict gun control laws have more violence, but with the way federal law currently is getting a gun outside your area of residence is extremely easy, making any attempts by individual states and cities to enact gun control ultimately useless. For gun control to work it needs to be at the federal level.
3) For those who like the idea of having a gun for self defense, keep in mind that statistically you are more likely to accidentally harm someone innocent with your gun than to successfully protect yourself with a gun.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 7, 2016 15:03:15 GMT -5
HEY BY THE WAY Did you guys see the recent Non-Farm Payroll number? PogChamp Largest decrease in wages since the statistic existed. WutFace
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 7, 2016 15:36:44 GMT -5
2) I always hear Vermont brought up due to being a state with a statistically lower rate of gun violence in spite having lax gun control laws. That's the exception though, not the rule. Every other state with lax gun control laws has more gun violence. Yes, a lot of the cities that have strict gun control laws have more violence, but with the way federal law currently is getting a gun outside your area of residence is extremely easy, making any attempts by individual states and cities to enact gun control ultimately useless. For gun control to work it needs to be at the federal level. Vermont is the rule, because everything about Vermont fits the narrative of the root cause of gun violence. No big cities, rural low density state, low unemployment etc. I also cite Vermont for your second point. Of the millions of guns the NYPD has confiscated in NYC the overwhelmingmajority of them came from across the southern boarder. And almost none of them came from Vermont, which is next door. As for point 3,only if you include suicide in that statistic, whichis a separate issue.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 7, 2016 16:41:51 GMT -5
only if you include suicide in that statistic, whichis a separate issue. The link between gun availability and suicide rates is well established. Don't pretend it's a separate issue for a minute.
|
|
|
Post by beavenge on Mar 7, 2016 17:22:28 GMT -5
Probably biased websitejaedrik link to Non-Farm Payroll number? BoLS site looked a bit time consuming, and I wants to see what all you non-farmer payrollers are numbering and you made me google pogchamp /facepalm
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 7, 2016 18:14:21 GMT -5
only if you include suicide in that statistic, whichis a separate issue. The link between gun availability and suicide rates is well established. Don't pretend it's a separate issue for a minute. It absolutely is. Britain, Australia, Japan all have comparable suicide rates to America and have much less access to firearms. Firearms aren't even the most used for of suicide for women and for men it is the most used, but the alternative methods are used quite frequently. Yeah if people have access to a firearm they'll use it, but if they don't they're not going to suddenly become not suicidal.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 7, 2016 18:36:59 GMT -5
I always hear Vermont brought up due to being a state with a statistically lower rate of gun violence in spite having lax gun control laws. That's the exception though, not the rule. Every other state with lax gun control laws has more gun violence. Yes, a lot of the cities that have strict gun control laws have more violence, but with the way federal law currently is getting a gun outside your area of residence is extremely easy, making any attempts by individual states and cities to enact gun control ultimately useless. For gun control to work it needs to be at the federal level. For gun control to work it absolutely cannot be at the federal level. The only thing that makes far right conservative gun owners angrier than the idea that someone might take their guns is the idea that politicians in Washington will be the ones to do it.
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Mar 7, 2016 18:51:49 GMT -5
Realistically he lost the black vote as soon as he announced his campaign. He has and will never be able to secure the black vote so honestly his flub doesn't matter. Sadly he doesn't fit the narrative of the BLM movement and the intersectional feminist narrative. He's too busy talking about the economy, Healthcare, college tuitions and infrastructure instead of talking about race. Which Hillary capitalized on early. Whatever Trump vs Clinton here we come, Foxtroting burn it all down to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 7, 2016 20:42:03 GMT -5
That's what I did last election. Besides it's not like it really matters for the general election where I live.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 7, 2016 22:23:13 GMT -5
The link between gun availability and suicide rates is well established. Don't pretend it's a separate issue for a minute. It absolutely is. Britain, Australia, Japan all have comparable suicide rates to America and have much less access to firearms. Firearms aren't even the most used for of suicide for women and for men it is the most used, but the alternative methods are used quite frequently. Yeah if people have access to a firearm they'll use it, but if they don't they're not going to suddenly become not suicidal. Nobody said it would prevent people from being suicidal. It's about the effectiveness of the method. Other methods fail much more often. Other methods give more time to think about it. Guns are instant and effective.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 7, 2016 22:36:06 GMT -5
No, it's about how desperately they want to actually kill themselves. That's why women have a significantly higher suicide attempt rate but men have a higher "successful" suicide rate with every method of suicide, from hangings to poison to using firearms. And using the logic that "well guns are better for suicide" then America should be the highest in suicide in industrial nations, but it's not. It's about the same.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 8, 2016 3:55:05 GMT -5
Probably biased websitejaedrik link to Non-Farm Payroll number? BoLS site looked a bit time consuming, and I wants to see what all you non-farmer payrollers are numbering and you made me google pogchamp /facepalm Oop, excuse me, I didn't listen closely enough to my source. www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/non-farm-payrollsA lot of the numbers are slightly positive or middling (look between last and previous). But, the ones my (initial) source focused on, being a 'perpetual bear,' were average hourly earnings and average hours worked in a week. -0.10% and 34.40 hours. When those are put together, the total drop in weekly earnings is .7%, which is the largest drop ever, for that very specific category. Thanks for making me re-check the stuff, it helps keep me honest. :D
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 8, 2016 14:33:20 GMT -5
It absolutely is. Britain, Australia, Japan all have comparable suicide rates to America and have much less access to firearms. Firearms aren't even the most used for of suicide for women and for men it is the most used, but the alternative methods are used quite frequently. Yeah if people have access to a firearm they'll use it, but if they don't they're not going to suddenly become not suicidal. Nobody said it would prevent people from being suicidal. It's about the effectiveness of the method. Other methods fail much more often. Other methods give more time to think about it. Guns are instant and effective. No, it's about how desperately they want to actually kill themselves. That's why women have a significantly higher suicide attempt rate but men have a higher "successful" suicide rate with every method of suicide, from hangings to poison to using firearms. And using the logic that "well guns are better for suicide" then America should be the highest in suicide in industrial nations, but it's not. It's about the same. I think both of you need to stop talking about suicide psychology because neither of you seem to have any basis for your claims other than some reading you might have done online or in an intro to psych course. Alex, the easier the method used to kill oneself, the more appealing it tends to be to suicidal people. Guns are at the top of that list if you have access to one. You're right when you say that having a gun doesn't make you suicidal and that not having one won't make you not suicidal, but you're wrong if you think that it won't make people more likely to do it just because it's easier. Also the amount of desperation has nothing to do with the disparity in success rate between the sexes. It's generally considered to be a difference in psyche between men and women. Men are significantly more likely to use violent methods when trying to take their own life (guns, cars, etc.) whereas women are much more likely to use passive methods (overdosing on pills, slitting wrists, drinking bleach, etc.) which make them much easier for EMS to save than a dude who jumped off a bridge or crashed his car into a wall at 100mph. Aphoristic, the whole "it gives people less time to think about it" argument is bullsh it. Once people resolve to kill themselves they tend to come up with the way they want to do it, and then go through with it very mechanically. The only time people hesitate is when someone else intervenes or when they aren't actually sure they want to do it. The amount of time a method takes to accomplish has little to do with whether or not they're going to change their mind unless there's significant pain involved (one reason why hanging yourself is one of the worst ways to go because nearly everyone does it wrong and spends a good amount of time in agony regretting their decision). Also other methods are not guaranteed to fail more often than shooting yourself. As a matter of fact, shooting yourself is one of the few methods that won't just kill you anyway if you fu ck up. Jumping off a bridge or building will kill you, hanging yourself will kill you, crashing your car into a wall at 100+mph without your seatbelt on will kill you. Shooting yourself in the head might kill you if you do it right. It might also just blow off a good portion of your face and leave you with a concussion but otherwise fine. And if you live in an area where your neighbor can hear the gunshot it'll likely be reported, and you'll be taken to the hospital to have your face reconstructed.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Mar 9, 2016 10:05:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Macht on Mar 9, 2016 12:36:30 GMT -5
I always hear Vermont brought up due to being a state with a statistically lower rate of gun violence in spite having lax gun control laws. That's the exception though, not the rule. Every other state with lax gun control laws has more gun violence. Yes, a lot of the cities that have strict gun control laws have more violence, but with the way federal law currently is getting a gun outside your area of residence is extremely easy, making any attempts by individual states and cities to enact gun control ultimately useless. For gun control to work it needs to be at the federal level. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho would like a word with you...
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 9, 2016 14:19:36 GMT -5
Nobody said it would prevent people from being suicidal. It's about the effectiveness of the method. Other methods fail much more often. Other methods give more time to think about it. Guns are instant and effective. No, it's about how desperately they want to actually kill themselves. That's why women have a significantly higher suicide attempt rate but men have a higher "successful" suicide rate with every method of suicide, from hangings to poison to using firearms. And using the logic that "well guns are better for suicide" then America should be the highest in suicide in industrial nations, but it's not. It's about the same. I think both of you need to stop talking about suicide psychology because neither of you seem to have any basis for your claims other than some reading you might have done online or in an intro to psych course. Alex, the easier the method used to kill oneself, the more appealing it tends to be to suicidal people. Guns are at the top of that list if you have access to one. You're right when you say that having a gun doesn't make you suicidal and that not having one won't make you not suicidal, but you're wrong if you think that it won't make people more likely to do it just because it's easier. Also the amount of desperation has nothing to do with the disparity in success rate between the sexes. It's generally considered to be a difference in psyche between men and women. Men are significantly more likely to use violent methods when trying to take their own life (guns, cars, etc.) whereas women are much more likely to use passive methods (overdosing on pills, slitting wrists, drinking bleach, etc.) which make them much easier for EMS to save than a dude who jumped off a bridge or crashed his car into a wall at 100mph. Aphoristic, the whole "it gives people less time to think about it" argument is bullsh it. Once people resolve to kill themselves they tend to come up with the way they want to do it, and then go through with it very mechanically. The only time people hesitate is when someone else intervenes or when they aren't actually sure they want to do it. The amount of time a method takes to accomplish has little to do with whether or not they're going to change their mind unless there's significant pain involved (one reason why hanging yourself is one of the worst ways to go because nearly everyone does it wrong and spends a good amount of time in agony regretting their decision). Also other methods are not guaranteed to fail more often than shooting yourself. As a matter of fact, shooting yourself is one of the few methods that won't just kill you anyway if you fu ck up. Jumping off a bridge or building will kill you, hanging yourself will kill you, crashing your car into a wall at 100+mph without your seatbelt on will kill you. Shooting yourself in the head might kill you if you do it right. It might also just blow off a good portion of your face and leave you with a concussion but otherwise fine. And if you live in an area where your neighbor can hear the gunshot it'll likely be reported, and you'll be taken to the hospital to have your face reconstructed. Even the non violent such as overdosing and whatnot men still have a higher mortality rate. But I get what you're saying.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Mar 10, 2016 9:07:36 GMT -5
Gun suicide is the most popular method with men but surprisingly one of the least effective.
Source: Final Exit, a well researched book probably banned in most of your countries
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Mar 11, 2016 3:14:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 13:11:25 GMT -5
Because he can.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 12, 2016 14:56:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 12, 2016 19:49:32 GMT -5
WhatTheFuckAmIReading.png
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 12, 2016 20:38:22 GMT -5
WhatTheFoxtrotAmIReading.png "I don't know where money comes from"
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Mar 12, 2016 20:39:17 GMT -5
WhatTheFoxtrotAmIReading.png I normally try to stay out of politics (both here and elsewhere), but... Really?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2016 21:53:11 GMT -5
Maybe Jaedrik intended to say he wanted to eliminate all sales tax? I mean, even then I'm not entirely sure how that argument would work.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 12, 2016 22:04:11 GMT -5
wacky anarcho-capitalist answers If property rights arise from the natural law, and are not a positive right from legal institutions, then unconsenting taxation is literally theft.
|
|