Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I hear all the time about how us gun grabbing 2nd amendment supporters are causing mass deaths by gun violence every year. If we would just give up our guns everyone would be safer. I say BS. It's not the guns, it's the people. If you have responsible gun owners you have less murder. If you have a bunch of degenerates with guns it go's the other way.

 

I live in Idaho. We have a gun ownership rate of about 55% (compared to a national average of around 34%). We score a whopping 2 out of 100 on the Brady scale for gun control laws. You can by a firearm with no waiting period, and the background check takes about 5 min. You can carry a concealed weapon without a permit outside city limits (unless operating a motor vehicle). You can easily get a basic concealed carry permit if you have completed a hunters safety course. You can get an enhanced permit with the completion of a training course (takes about 7 hrs.). A new law allows you to carry concealed on college campuses with the enhanced permit.

 

Scared yet? We must have a murder rate 3x the national average...

 

U.S. murder rate = 5.3

Idaho murder rate = 1.5

 

Other states comparable to Idaho

 

Wyoming

Gun ownership rate = 59.7%

Murder rate = 1.6*

 

Montana

Gun ownership rate = 57.7%

Murder rate = 3

 

South Dakota

Gun ownership rate = 56.6%

Murder rate = 2*

 

North Dakota

Gun ownership rate = 50.7%

Murder rate = 2.1*

 

Utah

Gun ownership rate = 43.9%

Murder rate = 1.9

 

*self calculated (Figure does not meet standards of reliability or precision; see Technical Notes.)

 

So, all of these super dangerous gun heavy states (except Montana) are less than half the U.S. average murder rate. Why should we give up our rights to make you feel safe? Why should I listen to anything those schmucks in DC have to say about gun violence?

 

District of Columbia

Gun ownership rate = Negligible (effectively banned)

Murder rate = 19.8

 

Fix your people, leave my guns alone.

 

Sources

CDC Mortality Data http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

Gun Ownership Data http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I hear all the time about how us gun grabbing 2nd amendment supporters are causing mass deaths by gun violence every year. If we would just give up our guns everyone would be safer. I say BS. It's not

I've found that freedom almost exclusively means "people I like being able to do what I like, and people I don't like not being able to do anything."

Kurgan, you are failing to see the obvious solution to this 2nd Amendment problem. When the originalist, plain-text reading of the Amendment lends it a sort of anachronistic tone, we need to bring it

The only gun control laws we need are ones to effectively control all these anti-gun nuts. I'm a fan of an assault rifle in every house, and ammunition under the Christmas tree. I will critique your gun ownership/murder rate stats though. Almost all of the states you cited are very homogenous and don't have much in the way urban areas. I would speculate that your largest metropolitan areas rank as only second-tier cities in more populated states. Also how many black people do you have? How many Hispanics? etc. I don't say this to imply a racist "minorities kill people" attitude, but you just have a lot of cultural homogeneity spread out across vast, rural wastelands. That is not going to breed violence in the same way that a bunch of congested haves vs. have-nots living up under each other in a city like NYC or DC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will critique your gun ownership/murder rate stats though. Almost all of the states you cited are very homogenous and don't have much in the way urban areas. I would speculate that your largest metropolitan areas rank as only second-tier cities in more populated states. Also how many black people do you have? How many Hispanics? etc. I don't say this to imply a racist "minorities kill people" attitude, but you just have a lot of cultural homogeneity spread out across vast, rural wastelands. That is not going to breed violence in the same way that a bunch of congested haves vs. have-nots living up under each other in a city like NYC or DC.

I totally agree that my stats don't include any areas of high population density. I hate cities. I don't think that people were meant to live stacked like firewood. I think that it breeds violence, hate, discontent. My nearest neighbor lives over a half mile away and they are still to close. I wish Boise, Twin Falls, Idaho Falls, and Pocatello would evaporate, and only Boise could be considered even close to a city. Also totally sick of Californians moving here because they hate California, then immediately trying to turn Idaho into what they hate. If you don't like our "backward" ways don't move here.

 

Idaho is about 84% white, 12% Hispanic, very little of anything else. The Hispanics get a bad wrap. A high percentage of crime is attributed to Hispanics compared to their population. They seem to get stuck with the jobs that the white guys don't want (housekeeping, landscaping, construction labor). Which of course means that they are poorer, less educated, and more angry. Still nothing like other regions in the states. They are getting more integrated all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm somewhere in between I technically agree-- it's people we need to watch, not the guns. But at the same time I don't think military grade weapons belong in the hands of the public.

See-this right here is something I'm changing my opinion on. I think. I'm THINKING about it. But then someone mentally ill goes and stabs a bunch of people and I'm back to thinking it's truly NOT a hardware issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

I am a fan of gun laws, but not banning guns. Laws will never prevent an action, only to provide consequences. SO, I want to see more drastic laws for when crimes are committed with them, and laws that make it harder for crazies to get them, in the first place. Arizona might get a lot wrong, when it comes to laws, but I think the background verification they require when purchasing a firearm should be emulated at the federal level and enforced in all 50 states.

 

 

I'm somewhere in between I technically agree-- it's people we need to watch, not the guns. But at the same time I don't think military grade weapons belong in the hands of the public.

I agree, but the problem is that literally yesterday's military firearm, is today's civilian firearm. Not to mention, many hunting rifles have calibers that exceed military issue. Some may call me hypocritical because I own firearms that could technically qualify as military or law enforcement grade, yet I also agree with your sentiment. I think a distinction should be made in that there should be laws that limit rate of fire, stopping power, and caliber. For example, why does someone need a weapon for home defense with a rate of fire of 700 rounds per minute? Or a 50 call capable of shooting an airplane down, let alone can punch through an engine block? Also, I think training and respect for firearms is a big factor, as well. I may sound a little elitist because I have had military training and security training,and feel I am more qualified to own the firearms I do own, than most people. I have gone target shooting and I see a lot of idiots out there that might have the cash to own similar weapons that I do, but I think personally (if I had my way) they should be taken away, based on their immature, unsafe and stupid actions.

 

Gun supporters need to really look at their own gun community, too. They need to be honest with themselves and realize that there ARE a lot of morons out there, that make them look bad (IE the Bundy ranch thing for example), and need to understand its not just the random shootings, but idiots like those are what people fear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control is one of those topics like abortion that have become so politicized, that it is very difficult to have rational conversation about it, and the true facts have been obfuscated and basically everyone argues loudly over misinformation. Also like abortion, it's one of those topics that annoyingly surface every few months and no one ever has anything new or interesting to say about it.

 

The problem is both conservatives and liberals are wrong. Liberals will claim gun control measures can prevent gun violence. Conservatives will claim more gun ownership can prevent gun violence. The problem is neither have any causal link whatsoever with gun violence. Gun violence is primarily linked to only two things- (a) the culture of a given area, and (b) how prevalent gang violence is. If you have a place where you have a violent culture and high gang activity, you're gonna have high amounts of gun violence and there's pretty much nothing you can do about it.

 

Here in Switzerland, there is a pretty long-standing gun culture. Basically everyone has a gun. There are large arms manufacturers here, like SIG Sauer. Heck, pretty much all males are drafted into the military, or have to pay an additional tax if they dodge the draft. And yet, gun violence, and really all violence at all, is extremely low- almost unheard of. Switzerland might be one of the safest places in the world. Why? A non-violent culture and basically no gang activity.

 

Now, in contrast, you can take a place like London. There, guns are extremely hard to come by- they are essentially banned. And, same thing as Switzerland- gun violence is very low. Compared to most large US cities, the murder rate with a firearm is miniscule. Why? Again, same reason. Non-violent culture, and little gang activity. It really doesn't matter that their policies are different than Switzerland, the culture is similarly non-violent, so you get little gun violence.

 

Now take the South Side of Chicago. One of the most violent places in the US, heck, in the world. I started a thread about it here.. the south side is literally more dangerous than Afghanistan. There have been over 5000 people there shot dead since 2001. And why? The opposite of Switzerland and London above. There, you have an extremely violent culture and high gang activity- in fact, gangs essentially run the entire south side.

 

Those are the two reasons that matter and the only two reasons. You can ban all guns tomorrow in Chicago, or give every citizen a gun, and the south side would be no safer.

 

So what would actually solve gun violence? Well you'd have to get to the root causes behind why certain areas have a particularly violent culture, and why certain neighborhoods breed gangs, and these are not easy problems to solve. Why does the US tend to have a more violent culture than Switzerland? These are not simple dilemmas, and they also end up having root causes in things like poverty and what not, and this is about the time where most Americans' eyes glaze over and they get bored. Why discuss any of that when I can just angrily yell out some half-truth that I heard on FOX News or MSNBC?

 

I, myself, am fairly indifferent about this topic. I really couldn't care less if guns were banned or you were forced to own one, makes no real difference to me. But what I hate are stupid people, and there's nothing like a gun control topic to bring stupid people out of the woodwork, where they immediately start citing made up facts and spew bullsh-t to support their fanaticism over one side of this debate. It's tiring and annoying, so I tend to try and avoid these topics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to "assault weapon" bans, I agree with the proponents on one point and totally disagree everywhere else. You do not need an AR-15 for deer hunting. That's just because I am one of those snobs that think you should not hunt big game with a semi-auto rifle. On the other hand, I know quite a few people who hunt with a M1 Garand. It is an excellent hunting rifle.

 

Assault weapon bans are pointless. They are a waste of the legislators time and taxpayer dollars. They don't prevent crime. They are simply the knee jerk reaction of people who are not familiar with firearms.

 

When I pull an AR-15 out of the gun locker my wife literally cringes. When asked why, she replies "it's creepy looking". Pull a Mini-14 out of the locker, which is pretty much identical in function (and not affected by most bans), you get no such reaction. That's basically what law makers and anti-gun proponents who try to ban them are saying, "it looks creepy".

 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

 

Assault rifles are not used to commit a statistically important percentage of crimes. Out of 12,664 homicides in 2011, 323 involved rifles. That means rifles of ALL types account for about 2.5% of homicides. There are over twice the number of people beat to death without any weapon as are killed by rifles. People don't stuff an assault rifle down their pants then run out to rob the liquor store. I can't even find good statistics about how many of those rifles were the creepy assault style, would be interesting to know...

 

I agree, but the problem is that literally yesterday's military firearm, is today's civilian firearm. Not to mention, many hunting rifles have calibers that exceed military issue. Some may call me hypocritical because I own firearms that could technically qualify as military or law enforcement grade, yet I also agree with your sentiment. I think a distinction should be made in that there should be laws that limit rate of fire, stopping power, and caliber. For example, why does someone need a weapon for home defense with a rate of fire of 700 rounds per minute? Or a 50 call capable of shooting an airplane down, let alone can punch through an engine block?

Are full auto weapons a problem? You don't just walk into Wal-Mart and buy a full auto rifle. The permit process is not like buying a "normal" firearm. I think that they are already being properly regulated. I personally think the importance of full auto in a battle rifle is overemphasized, if you want to kill something you don't spray bullets in it's general direction. You take aimed shots in semi-auto. Full auto is for suppressing an enemy to allow your side to maneuver. The exception being a purpose built machine gun that can accurately shoot in full auto. As for shooting through an engine block, The .460 Wby. Mag will do that just fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control is one of those topics like abortion that have become so politicized, that it is very difficult to have rational conversation about it, and the true facts have been obfuscated and basically everyone argues loudly over misinformation. Also like abortion, it's one of those topics that annoyingly surface every few months and no one ever has anything new or interesting to say about it.

 

The problem is both conservatives and liberals are wrong. Liberals will claim gun control measures can prevent gun violence. Conservatives will claim more gun ownership can prevent gun violence. The problem is neither have any causal link whatsoever with gun violence. Gun violence is primarily linked to only two things- (a) the culture of a given area, and (b) how prevalent gang violence is. If you have a place where you have a violent culture and high gang activity, you're gonna have high amounts of gun violence and there's pretty much nothing you can do about it.

 

Here in Switzerland, there is a pretty long-standing gun culture. Basically everyone has a gun. There are large arms manufacturers here, like SIG Sauer. Heck, pretty much all males are drafted into the military, or have to pay an additional tax if they dodge the draft. And yet, gun violence, and really all violence at all, is extremely low- almost unheard of. Switzerland might be one of the safest places in the world. Why? A non-violent culture and basically no gang activity.

 

Now, in contrast, you can take a place like London. There, guns are extremely hard to come by- they are essentially banned. And, same thing as Switzerland- gun violence is very low. Compared to most large US cities, the murder rate with a firearm is miniscule. Why? Again, same reason. Non-violent culture, and little gang activity. It really doesn't matter that their policies are different than Switzerland, the culture is similarly non-violent, so you get little gun violence.

 

Now take the South Side of Chicago. One of the most violent places in the US, heck, in the world. I started a thread about it here.. the south side is literally more dangerous than Afghanistan. There have been over 5000 people there shot dead since 2001. And why? The opposite of Switzerland and London above. There, you have an extremely violent culture and high gang activity- in fact, gangs essentially run the entire south side.

 

Those are the two reasons that matter and the only two reasons. You can ban all guns tomorrow in Chicago, or give every citizen a gun, and the south side would be no safer.

 

So what would actually solve gun violence? Well you'd have to get to the root causes behind why certain areas have a particularly violent culture, and why certain neighborhoods breed gangs, and these are not easy problems to solve. Why does the US tend to have a more violent culture than Switzerland? These are not simple dilemmas, and they also end up having root causes in things like poverty and what not, and this is about the time where most Americans' eyes glaze over and they get bored. Why discuss any of that when I can just angrily yell out some half-truth that I heard on FOX News or MSNBC?

 

I, myself, am fairly indifferent about this topic. I really couldn't care less if guns were banned or you were forced to own one, makes no real difference to me. But what I hate are stupid people, and there's nothing like a gun control topic to bring stupid people out of the woodwork, where they immediately start citing made up facts and spew bullsh-t to support their fanaticism over one side of this debate. It's tiring and annoying, so I tend to try and avoid these topics.

When I saw you had posted, I internally rolled my eyes. Was totally prepared to skim over another one of your tedious "lookit how many words can I stuff this paragraph/lookit me I smart!" posts for the usual flames and fat jokes, but it was very well constructed and actually held my attention for more than a few sentences. Well done.

 

Also: while I do care about guns being taken from the hands of ordinary (non-criminal/insane) citizens, I couldn't possibly agree with you more on every other point.

 

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrie it's true that guns are hard to come by in London, and shootings are (fairly) rare. But there are loads of gangs here, and a lot of violent crime. People here just prefer to stab each other. Stabbings are quite popular with reprobates here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aren't gangs. Those are cute little English novelties pretending to be gangs. Not like in the US, where you can find entire neighborhoods with packs of cracked out gangbangers, hopped up on PCP and shooting people for sport- it's some straight up Mogadishu sh-t.

 

In London in 2012, there were 89 homicides.

 

In Chicago in 2012, there were 516 homicides.

 

London is over three times as large as Chicago, and yet Chicago has almost six times as many murders. And Chicago isn't even considered one of the most dangerous US cities. Want me to start pulling up the Detroit stats?

 

Sorry dude. London is not a violent city. You can say it as many times as you like, but it's not true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a house whose former owner had a daughter that was murdered with a samurai sword (not in the house). That's how we do things in Maine, sort of Japanese-redneck style. Guns are too crude a weapon and are prone to jamming as temperatures approach absolute zero. Besides, we're like 98% white and probably 70% rural. I couldn't tell you the last time I heard of a gun homicide happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those aren't gangs. Those are cute little English novelties pretending to be gangs. Not like in the US, where you can find entire neighborhoods with packs of cracked out gangbangers, hopped up on PCP and shooting people for sport- it's some straight up Mogadishu sh-t.

 

In London in 2012, there were 89 homicides.

 

In Chicago in 2012, there were 516 homicides.

 

London is over three times as large as Chicago, and yet Chicago has almost six times as many murders. And Chicago isn't even considered one of the most dangerous US cities. Want me to start pulling up the Detroit stats?

 

Sorry dude. London is not a violent city. You can say it as many times as you like, but it's not true.

Those are some ****ing terrifying statistics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest El Chalupacabra

 

Are full auto weapons a problem? You don't just walk into Wal-Mart and buy a full auto rifle. The permit process is not like buying a "normal" firearm. I think that they are already being properly regulated. I personally think the importance of full auto in a battle rifle is overemphasized, if you want to kill something you don't spray bullets in it's general direction. You take aimed shots in semi-auto. Full auto is for suppressing an enemy to allow your side to maneuver. The exception being a purpose built machine gun that can accurately shoot in full auto. As for shooting through an engine block, The .460 Wby. Mag will do that just fin

Absolutely. No reason at all for full auto for home defense, and most civilians who would be prone to buy a full auto is either a gang banger up to no good or a hyuck, hyuck redneck militia POS Glenn Beck listener from Montana or Idaho for no other reason than "just becuz." Sorry, you can't convince me of a logical, well thought out justification for anyone other than law enforcement or military to EVER possess full auto. If you believe that fully auto weapons should be open to the public, then fine, but I am just going to have to agree to disagree and write you off as an effing hillbilly militiaman running around in a forest with a gigantic beer gut and ZZ Top beard, trying to add some meaning to their otherwise worthless existence. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

There are devices that can be installed on civilian versions of fully auto, military grade weapons like the AK47 and AR15s, that enhance what is called bump firing. In effect, it converts these weapons into nearly fully automatic weapons. As far as I am concerned, it should be a felony just touching one of those products, and someone who actually owns one should be locked up. For 20 years minimum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason at all for full auto for home defense, and most civilians who would be prone to buy a full auto is either a gang banger up to no good or a hyuck, hyuck redneck militia POS Glenn Beck listener from Montana or Idaho for no other reason than "just becuz." Sorry, you can't convince me of a logical, well thought out justification for anyone other than law enforcement or military to EVER possess full auto. If you believe that fully auto weapons should be open to the public, then fine, but I am just going to have to agree to disagree and write you off as an effing hillbilly militiaman running around in a forest with a gigantic beer gut and ZZ Top beard, trying to add some meaning to their otherwise worthless existence. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

I have only been able to find 2 cases of murders committed with legally owned automatic weapons since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. One of those was by a law enforcement officer.

 

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

 

I only know 1 person with a class 3 weapon. He is more like a historian than a "hillbilly militiaman". He can discuss the virtues of the old Mauser actions for hours on end. His house is like a museum. What harm is caused by a person like that owning a Thompson?

 

The process for purchasing a class 3 weapon is far more involved than anything a military recruit goes through. I just don't see a problem with legal ownership as currently regulated. I personally have no desire to own one, but each to his own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who lives in a country where owning fire arms is extremely uncommon, I find the concept of owning fire arms as a necessity for "freedom" as completely bizarre. I mean, I have only lived in western democracies my whole life and owning a gun has never been a part of the national psyche no matter where I have lived. I can only gather that the argument for and against firearms is only symbolic now. But surely more regulation on the ownership of tools designed to kill other human beings can only be a good thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.