LGP Political Discussion Thread - Latest news at top

[shafnutz05]

It's hilarious when you look at the statistics on gun violence in the United States over the last 20 years. It has frigging plummeted. PLUMMETED. Yet the calls for stringent gun control are more rabid than ever, thanks to a couple of high-profile shootings.

My God, there are so many examples that show the utter fallacy that is thinking that strict gun control = lower rates of violent crime. It's one of the most frustrating arguments I've ever engaged in, because one side is sheer emotion and the other has the bulk of favorable statistics, examples, etc.

[Gaucho]

TX Bank Encourages Concealed Carriers to Come On In.

http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Chappell-Hill-Bank-concealed-carry_2448-1.html

From what I have heard about this bank, if you send them an email asking for a 2013 calendar this 'infamous' sign on their window is January's picture.

“But if you’ve got a policy allowing handguns, he won’t know how many people are going to be in here carrying a concealed weapon. There may be some little old lady who’s mad at the government, and she’d love to use it,” he said.

Bad attempt at humor?

[ExPatriatePen]

TX Bank Encourages Concealed Carriers to Come On In.

http://www.gunreports.com/news/news/Chappell-Hill-Bank-concealed-carry_2448-1.html

From what I have heard about this bank, if you send them an email asking for a 2013 calendar this 'infamous' sign on their window is January's picture.

“But if you’ve got a policy allowing handguns, he won’t know how many people are going to be in here carrying a concealed weapon. There may be some little old lady who’s mad at the government, and she’d love to use it,” he said.

Bad attempt at humor?

Hey, it works for me.

[Gaucho]

That's certainly true.

[ExPatriatePen]

That's certainly true.

I drove through those parts back in August when I was driving from Galveston to Austin.

It's definitely Texas.

If I were a bank robber, I think I'd pick another branch... wouldn't you?

Havng said that, carrying a gun into the branch doesn't prevent the real theives, they're upstairs sitting around the conference table in the executive board room.

[shafnutz05]

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/race.cfm

The gun violence "epidemic", if one exists, is cultural. Period. It is primarily centered around urban areas.

56% of gun offenders come from 12% of the population.

51% of gun victims come from 12% of the population.

Now, do we really think that the people that fall into the "gun offenders" group here are going to be the same kind of people that adhere to the draconian gun control laws that Sarcastic and others so strongly call for? Give me a break. This "war on guns" will be just as effective as the "war on drugs", or war on anything else.

You want to solve gun violence? Heal the culture of killing (for everyone). That's one hell of a start.

[Gaucho]

That's certainly true.

Havng said that, carrying a gun into the branch doesn't prevent the real theives, they're upstairs sitting around the conference table in the executive board room.

[Gaucho]

If I were a bank robber, I think I'd pick another branch... wouldn't you?

That is a good question. I guess if I were that desperate I wouldn't care one way or the other. Maybe I'd even hope for someone to give me a good reason to shoot him or her. I don't know.

[Sarcastic]

I would take guns away, and then make a law that says if you carry a gun on the street, you get 5 years in jail. That's it.

Under Pennsylvania law, possession of a firearm by someone who is ineligible to possess one (convicted felons, the mentally ill, etc.) is a second-degree felony, which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Carrying a concealed firearm without a license (and a license cannot be obtained by someone with a criminal record) is a third-degree felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison. A convicted criminal carrying a concealed firearm would violate both laws. So we already have laws in pace that make it illegal to carry a gun on the street (for those without permits), with penalties that are more stringent than what you are proposing. Hasn’t stopped gun violence, has it?

Shyster, all I need to do is look at the list of countries where people don't generally own guns and the rate that people are getting killed and then us. It is clear that it is the number of guns, registered and unregistered, legal and illegal is a real problem in our country. I understand there are responsible people like yourself, but if it is so easy to buy a gun for most people, smart or stupid, violent or not, then you have a problem. Carrying guys around for most people isn't a good idea, no matter how hard try to argue for it. You may believe it, that's fine, but I never will. As far as crime in Penn, well, I think that proves my point. Even guns purchased legally can be a problem. Or are you saying that most of those were done with illegal weapons -- which would only tell me the gov. needs to hit the illegal gun market much harder than it has. Do you have any stats on how many gun related murders happen with legally purchased weapons? It would be interesting to see. I would consider the thing in Conn. as such, since his mom was a gun enthusiast and legally (I assume) bought hers.

So there you go. When people say guns don't kill people, people do. That's actually wrong. It's people with guns. Can't lock up everyone, but you sure can take away their stupid weapons.

How do you propose to do that? We don’t have registration lists in this state, so the government does not know who owns guns and who doesn’t. How do you propose the government will find that out? How would you enforce a prohibition? And say I refuse to comply with any mandate to register or surrender my guns. What penalty do you think I should face? How long do you think I should spend in jail, for example?

You have outlined the problem. Nobody knows for sure how many or who has the guns. I would make it a national law. I would do what California did two weeks ago... a drive to get guns off the street in exchange for food, was it? Little by little, I would keep eliminating guns until there were few left. You're right on one thing. It would be really hard to take guns away from some and I would guess we would have a few gun fights with the police down south. Penalties... if you refused to give up your weapon, well, you have the penalties that Penn has on the books. I'd lower it to 3 or 5. I think most people would give away their guns, but considering so many do own, it could mean quiet a few extra people in prison. I'd let all the non-violent druggies out to make room.

Now --- understand this is just my argument from the total opposite to yours and I would be willing to meet you halfway somewhere. But the point I'm trying to make is that there are too many guns, that it is too easy to buy a gun, and that gun violence occurs because guns are available to people whether legally or illegally. Giving guns to everyone isn't going to solve this problem.

That guy from the NRA, by the way. I understand the outrage at his comments. Even Michael Steele, who's pro-gun, chided him saying it was nothing but an ad for the gun industry. Putting armed cops in all schools? What's that going to solve. You'd have to do that to every mall and movie theater and restaurant or basically put a cop on every street corner. Wow, how many guns would that take. Impractical, too costly, and we would then fully transform into a police state. It's much easier to eliminate or severely limit private ownership, IMO.

I mean, all that stuff you say leaves me feeling like you have no answer on how to tackle this problem. Another law I would consider - if we're keeping guns - is one that says you are responsible for your gun. Which means that the mother of that idiot would have been charged along with her son, as it was up to her to safely store the weapon. Maybe whoever buys a gun in a legal store, has to show once a year that he still owns that weapon. I would completely eliminate private gun sales. I would send FBI members to sniff these out and arrest people. There are ways to, if not fully eliminate, limit on who and how can purchase a gun.

I know. Americans like their right to own weapons. No matter how much gun violence happens every single day, they still like their guns. I would think that collectively this country should need to get smarter, give up this right to try to systematically eliminate the number of weapons for the good of everybody. I won't hold my breath. Not with the NRA and the business lobby.

Give me something. How would you help stop this non-stop gun violence that I'm seeing on the news. You can't leave things as they are, and giving more guns to a society that I know you feel is pretty screwed up and more to blame than presence of guns, even, isn't an answer. If it isn't then I would think the opposite is true.

[Sarcastic]

You want to solve gun violence? Heal the culture of killing (for everyone). That's one hell of a start.

How do you propose we heal this 'culture' and in a relatively quick time? You don't mean that we equip everybody with a weapon, do you?

[King Sid the Great 87]

You want to solve gun violence? Heal the culture of killing (for everyone). That's one hell of a start.

You make it sound so simple. How do we go about that?

[MRandall25]

You can't change the culture quickly, just as you can't solve gun violence and violence as a whole by taking away the guns.

[shafnutz05]

You want to solve gun violence? Heal the culture of killing (for everyone). That's one hell of a start.

You make it sound so simple. How do we go about that?

Almost as simple as just confiscating everyone's firearms to stop gun crime, eh? I have no clue how to do the above.

[MWB]

You can't change the culture quickly, just as you can't solve gun violence and violence as a whole by taking away the guns.

I think the argument by some is that you could start changing the culture by taking away more of the guns.

[King Sid the Great 87]

You want to solve gun violence? Heal the culture of killing (for everyone). That's one hell of a start.

You make it sound so simple. How do we go about that?

Almost as simple as just confiscating everyone's firearms to stop gun crime, eh? I have no clue how to do the above.

I have no dog in this fight. There is no correct answer. But ridiculing those who believe in restricting guns is funny when the proposed alternative is something as nebulous as to "heal the culture of killing."

[MRandall25]

You can't change the culture quickly, just as you can't solve gun violence and violence as a whole by taking away the guns.

I think the argument by some is that you could start changing the culture by taking away more of the guns.

But nowhere else has shown it. Yes, gun crimes go down, but as it's been mentioned 4145156 times in this debate, all other types of violent crimes rise dramatically.

[shafnutz05]

The fearmongering is silly. If you don't live in a shady urban area (like say, the Hill District or North Philadelphia), your chances of getting shot are slim to nil. The problem is, when something like Sandy Hook happens, all you hear is "OH GOD THE HORROR" for months afterwards and demands for rash overreaction.

Your chances of getting shot when going to the grocery store or doing any other of the mundane tasks in your life? Slim to nil. You have a better chance of being involved in a car accident. Or dying of heart disease. Don't go through life fearing the gun that's around the next corner.

[Sarcastic]

That's the problem we're having and why I partly agree with pro-gun people here. It is our culture and it also is the ease of getting a gun. Now, how do you combine the two, maybe make some kind of compromise, and come up with something. As I said, I'm just stating my argument to show another angle, not that I am uwilling to compromise.

[Rylan]

The oversimplification by both sides of the debate is annoying. The fear mongering is more annoying.

Instead of figuring how to fix something so meaningless like the so called "gun control" we work on figuring out other social issues like childhood obesity or cyber bullying. Prohibition creates crime, not stop it.

[Rylan]

The fearmongering is silly. If you don't live in a shady urban area (like say, the Hill District or North Philadelphia), your chances of getting shot are slim to nil. The problem is, when something like Sandy Hook happens, all you hear is "OH GOD THE HORROR" for months afterwards and demands for rash overreaction.

Your chances of getting shot when going to the grocery store or doing any other of the mundane tasks in your life? Slim to nil. You have a better chance of being involved in a car accident. Or dying of heart disease. Don't go through life fearing the gun that's around the next corner.

Sandy Hooks is a big deal because little white kids got killed.

[mac5155]

That's the problem we're having and why I partly agree with pro-gun people here. It is our culture and it also is the ease of getting a gun. Now, how do you combine the two, maybe make some kind of compromise, and come up with something. As I said, I'm just stating my argument to show another angle, not that I am uwilling to compromise.

Honest question - have you ever tried to get a gun personally? You say its "easy" to get one. You must pass a background check. You must register the gun. You think every single gun used in every single crime is registered to its lawful purchaser/owner?

[Sarcastic]

That's the problem we're having and why I partly agree with pro-gun people here. It is our culture and it also is the ease of getting a gun. Now, how do you combine the two, maybe make some kind of compromise, and come up with something. As I said, I'm just stating my argument to show another angle, not that I am uwilling to compromise.

Honest question - have you ever tried to get a gun personally? You say its "easy" to get one. You must pass a background check. You must register the gun. You think every single gun used in every single crime is registered to its lawful purchaser/owner?

No, I don't want a gun. And that's the question I asked Shyster to see if he knows how many guns used in crimes are with legal or illegal weapons. Which wouldn't really change a thing, simply shift focus on where the problem with gun availability exists.

I like the regulations they have in Japan. You need to pass a mental exam, have yourself and your family and friends checked out, all bunch of other stuff. They make it a real pain to get a gun there. It isn't only the legal gun purchase that we're talking about here, it is also the illegal ones at private sales that I posted several articles about a few weeks ago. It seems like if you go to one of those private sales, you can buy a gun with no problem. And no background check. Like I said, I would send undercover FBI agents to those and arrest people for illegal sales, and eventually outlaw these sales altogether.

[Shyster]

It would be really hard to take guns away from some and I would guess we would have a few gun fights with the police down south. Penalties... if you refused to give up your weapon, well, you have the penalties that Penn has on the books. I'd lower it to 3 or 5. I think most people would give away their guns, but considering so many do own, it could mean quiet a few extra people in prison. I'd let all the non-violent druggies out to make room.

As I posted earlier, non-compliance with gun registration and confiscation efforts has generally been over 90%. That would mean that 45 million of the 50 million gun owners in this country would refuse to comply, which assuming you arrested all of them would create a prison population 72 times the current one. That’s also approximately 14% of the entire population of the United States. Let’s say we manage to track down and arrest 10,000 of those gun-owning scofflaws every single month. It would take law enforcement 375 years to arrest everyone. Even if you got 10,000 a week, that’s still 87 years. I don’t think you have a good grasp of the magnitude of what you are proposing.

And let me be clear here. I own guns, and I appreciate that you consider me a responsible and reasonable owner. But I will neither register my guns nor surrender my guns, regardless of what laws are passed or what penalties may be threatened. Never. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

Now --- understand this is just my argument from the total opposite to yours and I would be willing to meet you halfway somewhere.

But I am not willing to meet you. I will oppose any new gun laws, and I will not comply with any registration or confiscation laws. Let me make an analogy. Say we’re neighbors. One day you come home to discover I’ve built a fence 10 feet on your side of the property line. I’m relaxing in a hammock on what a day ago was your flower garden. Outraged, you demand that I remove my fence from your land. Would you be willing to “meet me halfway” and agree to move the fence back five feet? Or would you recognize that it’s not a “compromise” when only one side is giving up anything?

[ExPatriatePen]

The fearmongering is silly. If you don't live in a shady urban area (like say, the Hill District or North Philadelphia), your chances of getting shot are slim to nil. The problem is, when something like Sandy Hook happens, all you hear is "OH GOD THE HORROR" for months afterwards and demands for rash overreaction.

Your chances of getting shot when going to the grocery store or doing any other of the mundane tasks in your life? Slim to nil. You have a better chance of being involved in a car accident. Or dying of heart disease. Don't go through life fearing the gun that's around the next corner.

Sandy Hooks is a big deal because little white kids got killed.

STOP! Now... Please, just stop yer nonsense. PLEASE



Does their color matter to you? It sure doesn't to me.

[Rylan]

It was tongue in cheek EPP. But my point is that a lot of kids will die in 2013 but there will be no media or political outrage. That seems hypocritical and bothers me. Sandy Hook was sad, but those kids' deaths are no more important than any other kid that dies.