The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

Eh no need. Increasing legal guns within the US with say a concealed carry implementation always seemed to show minor, albeit statistically significant, decreases in reported violent crime like rape and mugging and similar increases in homicide as altercations with firearms veer more lethal. Controlling is a pita though. So I'm sure any clever Moore or Limbaugh can put in a bad practice somewhere in the stream and divert it where they wanted it to go in the first place.
 
Licensed carry tends to be good, except for easier flow of guns to criminals. People who care about getting a license will be a better sort. It's why I don't like unlicensed carry. Licensing selects amongst people who want to carry
 
I bet it would help if we tweeted false and racist crime statistics

Yea the avatar and general attitude says it all. It’s the most ridiculous crap.
 
Public carry, of course, being public carry. While we're at it.
 
So, the US is just a worse place? That's the theory?

Not a worse place, just a bigger place. Population wise, we are on the larger end of the spectrum and I think with more people comes more violence. While I haven't looked too hard into the data to support this, it seems nations with larger populations do have some kind of reputation for being violent places or having problems with violence. This theory can kinda be supported by looking at where the murders are all taking place just within the US. Murder rates, as well as absolute numbers of murders, are much higher in the large population centers than they are in smaller communities.
 
Not a worse place, just a bigger place. Population wise, we are on the larger end of the spectrum and I think with more people comes more violence. While I haven't looked too hard into the data to support this, it seems nations with larger populations do have some kind of reputation for being violent places or having problems with violence.
I don't know about this. China, for example has a pretty low murder rate despite being three times the size of the US population-wise. According to this site the countries with the top 5 Murder rates are:
1. El Salvador
2. Jamaica
3. Venezuela
4. Honduras
5. Lesotho

These are all pretty small countries, so it doesn't follow that larger countries have the highest murder rates. The site does list a couple factors and does also state that the few countries with no murders at all are all very small countries. The site seems to pin it on relative poverty, for the most part.
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has conducted a study to identify the prominent factors that seem to result in high murder rates. Countries with the widest gaps between rich and poor are four times more likely to experience violent crimes than other countries. These inequitable societies are found most often in developing countries, where high poverty lacking infrastructure is commonplace. Poverty and crime go hand in hand; crime drives away businesses and investors, reducing available human capital and creating an insecure environment, which, in turn, leads to more poverty. Organized crime, like gangs and drug trafficking, also contribute to high murder rates. It is particularly true in countries like Jamaica, Honduras, and El Salvador. Organized crime is also more likely to be participated in by young males who, consequently, are also more likely to be a victim of murder. Drug and alcohol use is also related to high murder and poverty rates. Intoxication increases the risk of being involved (either as the guilty party or the victim) in a murder.

Countries that are experiencing political turmoil and violent conflict are also more likely to experience high murder rates, as is the case with El Salvador, which is still recovering from its civil war.
 
Relative poverty? We aren't the champions, but we do it pretty well. It's jarring even when you know it's there. The city just makes it so much more apparent than landscapes do. Out around me, the welder probably is not a wealthy man, but if he's in business and owns his own stead, he probably does o.k. His kids go to school with everybody else's kids(unless they're homeschooled). Sure, welding equipment and rusty metal looks like hell, but it's o.k. mostly. Travel on the South Side and the fences and "no access" is just so very visible. The playgrounds behind fences, petty as that may be, really trigger the snot out of me emotionally(and I'm willing to bet there are possibly even really good well meaning reasons for doing that). I can't image things like that, and on more important things than playgrounds, don't come with deep social costs swept just under the corner of the rug.
 
Yeah relative seems to be the key. It makes sense to me. If everyone you know, everyone you come into contact with on a regular basis is living in grass huts and/or tin shacks, its a lot easier to be content with a tin shack... conversely, if you live in a tin shack, but when you look out your window down the hill you can see whole neighborhoods of palatial mansions... yeah that's gonna result in some hard feelings. If you're walking around barefoot on one side of the street and on the other side there's folks with $5000 suits on... I can see how that would be a little tense for everyone involved.

Plus in an environment like that, where are the law enforcement resources gonna go? If a $5000 suit gets murdered, you better believe that squeeze is getting solved and someone's head is going to roll. But since resources are limited, who is going to investigate the barefoot kid's murder? No one, that's who... so once everyone figures that out, its open season on the barefoots… and the $5000 suits don't care, because their area is kept "safe". By contrast in a grass hut village, where the whole community is living similarly, if someone gets murdered, everyone cares, so it doesn't happen.

I'm guessing the principle works similarly if you replace grass huts and tin shacks with trailers and housing projects and palatial mansions with lush estates and glitzy high-rises.
 
The fun studies are the ones that come from walking economy through first class on planes, by definition a place of obscene material wealth in transport.

Walking through first class makes economy more cranky. Walking economy through first class makes first class more aggressive.
 
Plus in an environment like that, where are the law enforcement resources gonna go? If a $5000 suit gets murdered, you better believe that squeeze is getting solved and someone's head is going to roll. But since resources are limited, who is going to investigate the barefoot kid's murder? No one, that's who... so once everyone figures that out, its open season on the barefoots… and the $5000 suits don't care, because their area is kept "safe". By contrast in a grass hut village, where the whole community is living similarly, if someone gets murdered, everyone cares, so it doesn't happen.

If the police ignore Barefoot Boy's murder (presumably because they don't have the resources to care about it) and Barefoot's kinfolk tracks down the killer and extract retribution, the police will drop everything and spare no expense to catch and prosecute the vigilantes -- even if they don't actually kill the murderer, just break his legs or cut off his thumbs or burn his house down (or something like that.)

Not sure where that fits in the equation... ;)
 
If the police ignore Barefoot Boy's murder (presumably because they don't have the resources to care about it) and Barefoot's kinfolk tracks down the killer and extract retribution, the police will drop everything and spare no expense to catch and prosecute the vigilantes -- even if they don't actually kill the murderer, just break his legs or cut off his thumbs or burn his house down (or something like that.)

Not sure where that fits in the equation... ;)
It means the barefoot communities are encouraged/incentivised to be lawless, and the $5000 suit communities are reassured that the law has their back. Then the barefoots get jailed and/or killed because their communities are lawwless places were law enforcement "fears for their life".
 
Annoying to watch changes happen too. Income drops in an area, demographics shift, the police tax base erodes while dealing simultaneously with 2 contradictory problems. First, low income areas have higher incidence of certain types of crime, prompting calls for increased police protection and second, those calls being attempted to answer you now have the situation where the police are where they are, and those people are getting policed. Which then generates, to a certain extent, crimes that would not have been reported/generated otherwise. Left long enough, it continues trenching bias. The problem of relative poverty is upstream of police response and approach. That much is definitely agreed.
 
There's a big shift from declining to enforce federal law and preventing the ATF from enforcing laws. One is probably legal. The other implies serious felony. I'd guess there's some quantity of shitheads that would like very much an open season on West Virginians.
 
So West Virginia is mulling over the idea of making their whole state a 2nd Amendment sanctuary. Their state legislature is debating a bill that would forbid any state or local law enforcement within the state from enforcing any federal gun laws or regulations "past, present, or future". That means they aren't going to enforce things like the NFA, which means things like machine guns will be able to be purchased like any other firearms in West Virginia.

They are also going to prevent federal agencies like the FBI and ATF from enforcing those laws within the borders of West Virginia.

Needless to say I have mixed feelings about this. I think it sets a bad precedent when states and cities openly defy or threaten to defy federal law. On the other hand, this is a particular issue where I think the federal government needs to be defied.
Meh... I say go for it. West Virginia, and whatever other Red State, can let all the guns they want into the country of whatever type, with fully legal status, and New York, and whatever other Blue State can let all the people into the country they want, of whatever type, with fully legal status.

I'd make that trade.
 
So West Virginia is mulling over the idea of making their whole state a 2nd Amendment sanctuary. Their state legislature is debating a bill that would forbid any state or local law enforcement within the state from enforcing any federal gun laws or regulations "past, present, or future". That means they aren't going to enforce things like the NFA, which means things like machine guns will be able to be purchased like any other firearms in West Virginia.

They are also going to prevent federal agencies like the FBI and ATF from enforcing those laws within the borders of West Virginia.

Needless to say I have mixed feelings about this. I think it sets a bad precedent when states and cities openly defy or threaten to defy federal law. On the other hand, this is a particular issue where I think the federal government needs to be defied.

You had previously said that individual states should be responsible for legally purchased guns being illegally being transported elsewhere. AFAICT, this effort on their part would thus be "going too far" in protecting the 2A.
 
Last edited:
but once you try to leave the state with it, they won't stop the ATF from snatching you up.
But they won't assist, either. You had specifically said that individual states which protect the 2A also have a responsibility to prevent the criminal misuse of those guns elsewhere. Coordinating with agencies tasked with stopping such an outflow is essential to the process.
 
So West Virginia is mulling over the idea of making their whole state a 2nd Amendment sanctuary. Their state legislature is debating a bill that would forbid any state or local law enforcement within the state from enforcing any federal gun laws or regulations "past, present, or future". That means they aren't going to enforce things like the NFA, which means things like machine guns will be able to be purchased like any other firearms in West Virginia.

They are also going to prevent federal agencies like the FBI and ATF from enforcing those laws within the borders of West Virginia.

Needless to say I have mixed feelings about this. I think it sets a bad precedent when states and cities openly defy or threaten to defy federal law. On the other hand, this is a particular issue where I think the federal government needs to be defied.

immediately unconstitutional. Supremacy clause.
 
immediately unconstitutional. Supremacy clause.

Only in part. The Colorado State Police do not have to help raid dispensaries. The local library looked at the reporting requirements for internet usage when the Patriot Act passed and ceased collecting/retaining detailed records ofwhich.
 
which is what this is really about... which is why I just cut to the chase... unlimited guns in exchange for unlimited immigration. Sold. Where do I sign?
Pleasant mix if you buy into the white supremacy theory on race relations. ./s
 
Back
Top Bottom