The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

Well, it's part of the collective defense. If guns are hurting people, then it makes a lot of sense to figure out what is causing the guns to hurt people. Like any unknown system, there could be a few obvious tweaks that make a big difference

I get it, generally. But they don't seem to be thought of when the question of, say, reducing the rates of rape and sexual assault in our society comes up, or, if one is more focused on the objects being the problem, of reducing DUI/DWI rates. Calling it and treating gunshot wounds as a public health issue when there's no other sorts of assaults - other than perhaps STDs - that qualify for the same treatment would seem to make it as ideological a move as framing the issue itself as "gun safety" versus "gun control".

Personally I'd suggest starting with better data collection, though; has the CDC had much luck in working with the FBI and state and local law enforcement on such things previously? Data that everyone (or anyway, everyone without an axe to grind, and neither Lott nor Bellesiles seems to qualify) could trust would be a great starting point.
 
That is kind of whataboutism. If you have good ideas on how to conduct research along those other dimensions, then it's worth looking at those data. But without looking at the data, you just don't know if there are good any ideas available.

As I said, homeowners insurance providers have incentive to reduce the number of gun incidents that they are on the hook for. And since I was talking about low-hanging fruit, one could presume that maybe they have already looked 4 for them.

With regards to other safety threats, there are constant experiments with regards to early family intervention, improved nutrition access, and other things that affect criminality. I've long stated that people who want to protect their second amendment rights should probably be donating to mental health research organizations. Because it's the occasional mixing of mental health concerns with a firearm incident that creates most of the political momentum.

It's a well-spent dollar. Worst case, you're helping people. Best case, you're decreasing the frequency in the long run of events that politically grind down the Second Amendment tolerance
 
And it's entirely reasonable too. Government agencies should not be in the business of advocating for policies that would limit Constitutional rights.

Also, I never liked the idea have having the CDC involved in this issue anyway. It implies that gun ownership is some sort of disease and gun owners are somehow "sick" and need to be "cured". Studies of gun violence would be more appropriately handled by law enforcement agencies such as the FBI or ATF.
I guess we should leave that up to the paid lobbyists. :p
 
Personally I'd suggest starting with better data collection, though; has the CDC had much luck in working with the FBI and state and local law enforcement on such things previously? Data that everyone (or anyway, everyone without an axe to grind, and neither Lott nor Bellesiles seems to qualify) could trust would be a great starting point.

We've already tried this. "Gun rights advocates" will not allow the collection of good data because it will inevitably show that gun ownership is the main determinant of gun violence; thus, reducing gun violence means reducing gun ownership.
 
We've already tried this. "Gun rights advocates" will not allow the collection of good data because it will inevitably show that gun ownership is the main determinant of gun violence; thus, reducing gun violence means reducing gun ownership.

I don't know who "we" is. Because you get into that, and you start hearing about the likes of Switzerland and Vermont having high rates of gun ownership and low rates of gun violence, while large cities with theoretically low rates of gun ownership have lots of gun violence. And I don't want to reignite that debate here, but just point out that maybe it's that they're objecting to the collection of data - good or otherwise - by any organization that ideologically is predisposed to not take a right of self-defense into account when coming up with a solution.
 
it will inevitably show that gun ownership is the main determinant of gun violence; thus, reducing gun violence means reducing gun ownership

Except as IglooDude pointed out this logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the reason you want to take guns away has nothing to do with "reducing gun violence"?
 
Except as IglooDude pointed out this logic doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Why is it so hard for you to admit that the reason you want to take guns away has nothing to do with "reducing gun violence"?

Actually I don't doubt that he does want to reduce gun violence, and simply sees taking guns away as the most efficient and effective way to do it.
 
And sidenote, it occurs to me that having an avatar where I appear to be pointing a pistol at you while you read my posts is not the most polite thing in the world, so I'm going to look for a new one.
 
Gotta love how AOC compares a completely peaceful gun rights rally in Virginia to a violent riot in Baltimore. Her statement:

“When we go out and march for the dignity…of the lives of people like Freddie Gray and Eric Garner, the whole place is surrounded by police in riot gear without a gun in sight [among protesters],” Ocasio-Cortez said at a Monday event. “And here are all of these people [in Richmond], flying Confederate flags with semiautomatic weapons, and there are almost no police officers at that protest.”

Did she ever stop to think the reason there aren't any cops present at the gun rights rally is that the people at the rally aren't flipping over cars and burning down shops?

Also, I'd like to point out that last year there was a similar rally in PIttsburgh that also didn't have a single instance of violent action. In both Pittsburgh and Virginia, everyone at the rally was armed. Meanwhile, hardly anyone was armed at these protests AOC speaks of, and they were plagued with violence and civil disorder. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that guns do prevent violence. Amazing how polite everyone can be when there is a legitimate fear they will be shot if they cause any trouble.
 
Amazing how polite everyone can be when there is a legitimate fear they will be shot if they cause any trouble.

I refuse to live in this world. You want to make America the wild west again. Its mentally forked.
 
I refuse to live in this world. You want to make America the wild west again. Its mentally forked.

The wild west isn't well represented by spaghetti westerns.

That aside... you prefer to live in the neighborhood with the violent riots, rather than the one with the people standing around holding signs?
 
The wild west isn't well represented by spaghetti westerns.

That aside... you prefer to live in the neighborhood with the violent riots, rather than the one with the people standing around holding signs?

Thats a false choice and you know it and from what I've seen of your posts its beneath you to do that.

You are right about spaghetti westerns but the impression of it is what I meant. This world in which we idolize the church security officer, or the security officer last night that stopped the mass shooting in Kansas City after almost 20 people were shot. Its jacked. We were better than this, and we will be again someday.
 
Thats a false choice and you know it and from what I've seen of your posts its beneath you to do that.

You are right about spaghetti westerns but the impression of it is what I meant. This world in which we idolize the church security officer, or the security officer last night that stopped the mass shooting in Kansas City after almost 20 people were shot. Its jacked. We were better than this, and we will be again someday.

Gah! How did you know self-respect is my achilles heel!! It's a false choice, but it's late, I'm tired, and dealing with a network outage. I withdraw the question.
 
I refuse to live in this world

And yet here you are living in it and not making any progress in changing it. So much for refusing to live in this world...

Anyway. That last line was more in jest than a serious point. Interesting though that's the part of my post you chose to address rather than address the part talking about the obvious lies a politician you support and agree with spouted in an attempt to demonize those she disagrees with and draw attention away from the fact that there was no violence at this event. When's the last time a protest for a typical Democrat cause went off without some kind of violence occurring?

Thats a false choice

I don't think it is. You are being asked which world sounds more desirable to live in: one where people protest in an orderly and peaceful manner, or one where people can run riot in the streets because they believe there's nothing that can really stop them from doing so?

And seeing as how a lot of protests nowadays seem to result in rioting, I think that is a very real choice all of us have to make.
 
And yet here you are living in it and not making any progress in changing it. So much for refusing to live in this world...

Anyway. That last line was more in jest than a serious point. Interesting though that's the part of my post you chose to address rather than address the part talking about the obvious lies a politician you support and agree with spouted in an attempt to demonize those she disagrees with and draw attention away from the fact that there was no violence at this event. When's the last time a protest for a typical Democrat cause went off without some kind of violence occurring?



I don't think it is. You are being asked which world sounds more desirable to live in: one where people protest in an orderly and peaceful manner, or one where people can run riot in the streets because they believe there's nothing that can really stop them from doing so?

And seeing as how a lot of protests nowadays seem to result in rioting, I think that is a very real choice all of us have to make.

Man Idk what you are talking about but the last real riot was the Rodney King riots. These little baby ones with a shop or two burnt out and a couple of cars pushed over don't even rise up to philly or detriot winning a sports championship.

I prefer to generally live in the world where people don't start shooting randos because it sounds like something fun to do in their gun crazed mania. I prefer to live in a world where we don't idolize vigilante justice to a disgusting murderous degree. The only to say about random security officers shooting down mass shooters is that our culture is sick.

If shooting started happening in Virginia during a gun rights rally it would be disastrous PR for gun rights, completely disastrous. The premise conservatives are meme spamming is stupid. As for AOC and her support of violent protests? Honestly I would have to know more than a stupid tweet. I didn't read her tweet closely or give it much attention even. There is something to be said about the reality that a few thousand white dudes armed to the teeth go marching and there is almost no police presence, meanwhile and black lives matters people go marching with no visible weaponry and they are completely quarantined by our lovely police state. I'm pretty sure that's the kind of duplicity she was trying to point out. In that she is correct.
 
why didn't Antifa show up to protect us?

Pretty sure the FBI rounded up the Nazis who were openly planning to show up to this rally right?

It should be pointed out that had both sides of that coin openly showed up here the police would have gone after antifa because they always do no matter who starts the violence. Of course that's the point of antifa its goal is to stop the liberal world from falling into fascism which as this gun rally proves is never very far from happening. Add some nazis to this stupidity and they might have tried to burn down the capital in Virginia. I mean it is Richmond after all, it is dear to their hearts.
 
Last edited:
Also, I'd like to point out that last year there was a similar rally in PIttsburgh that also didn't have a single instance of violent action. In both Pittsburgh and Virginia, everyone at the rally was armed. Meanwhile, hardly anyone was armed at these protests AOC speaks of, and they were plagued with violence and civil disorder. I'd say that's pretty good evidence that guns do prevent violence. Amazing how polite everyone can be when there is a legitimate fear they will be shot if they cause any trouble.

I mean, it's different people in different situations marching for different reasons. Too many variables to really back up a claim that "guns prevent violence" I think. Also two more points:

1) Are you claiming that the "peaceful" crowd in the latter march would have happily unloaded on anyone causing trouble? What level of trouble would it take to trigger that? Do you really think that's a good thing?

2) "People will behave if they fear for their lives" isn't the cheery, wholesome message you seem to think it is.
 
Last edited:
Ok Este, which is it. Were there no cops or the the FBI pre-police the event? The way I'm reading it, you're finding it a problem that there weren't enough police. And that it's a problem when police are there because Nazis would have made Richmond descend into violence and fascism, the police wouldn't have rounded up the Nazis if they were there, but they already rounded up the Nazis before they were there.

Been at a lot of random events where lots of people have guns. Big sporting clay shoots. Good high school sport, that. They aren't normal events because of a primal fear for life maintain manners, they're normal events because they're normal events.
 
Top Bottom