Open Carry

[gftChris]

OK here's the deal, stop the bad guys having guns (by cracking down on the black market, introducing all your favourite background checks and mental illness exclusions etc), and actually do it well, meaning that people don't feel the need to carry, either openly or concealed, a firearm of some kind. Then you can get back to actually using them for the things that you can legitimately claim as good usage - recreational things like hunting and range shooting etc., there's no problem with having guns for these IMO.

 

It's not a difficult concept, but it hinges on good execution, including having people in charge that aren't corrupt (which may be tricky to find in America ).

[gftChris]

What would you each do to reduce the killing sprees that you guys seem to have on a shockingly regular basis?

[Westside Steve]

What would you each do to reduce the killing sprees that you guys seem to have on a shockingly regular basis?

Repeal the Second Amendment which was never about hunting and target shooting in the first place. Confiscate every firearm you can find and provide harsh penalties for anyone having one. Same harsh penalties for anyone involved in smuggling or importing firearms.

It might be necessary to spot check homes on a regular basis and search for firearms.

Probably raise taxes a substantial amount and dedicate that money toward gun confiscation task forces.

 

Now before anyone gets all huffy remember that this would work eventually.

So ask yourself how serious you are reducing gun violence.

 

WSS

[gftChris]

[Westside Steve]

It actually isn't sarcasm Chris. It's something that would work. The problem is nobody really gives a fuck. It's much more fun to battle back and forth for political gain over tiny little useless pieces of legislation. A political campaign tool, but not even close to a solution. Like this kabuki dance over background checks and chanting the mantra mental health mental health mental health.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And I understand it must seem odd to someone who has basically grown up without anything like a second Amendment. It must be hard to fathom why its such a big deal to the gun lovers.

WSS

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Brits don't like guns. They remember what them unruly settlers did when they had guns.

[Westside Steve]

Anyone want to tell me why that plan wouldn't substantially cut down on gun violence? Anyone want to give me an acceptable reduction number?

Woody, Cysko, Osiris, Chris?

 

WSS

[gftChris]

OK, sorry, I assumed it was sarcasm because it sounded like an amalgamation of all the things that are typically portrayed as liberal, unamerican etc on here. 'The constitution is a god given right, you can't repeal it!' 'Just a money making scheme from the left' 'invasion of privacy' etc. - I'm sure you can understand my confusion.

 

I think it would work in it's main aim of reducing gun crime, but you're going to end up with a massively unhappy populous with regards to the spot checks and tax raises. I think if that approach was taken, as well, you'd be focussing perhaps too much on a single issue.

 

That being said, if it eliminates gun crime within 50 years, and it means that it's a lot easier to actually uphold any law banning weapons in public, then maybe it's not such a bad thing, and something that you'd look back on in 200 years as a turning point in american culture.

[Legacy Fan]

The thing that still amazes me, from those on the pro gun side, is that they seem to not understand (or choose not to) the fundamental difference between a gun and a car, knife, hammer, pressure cooker, etc. Sure, it sounds good in your head for argument's sake... but I'm not sure how it is proving any point. A gun's primary purpose is to harm something else. All of those items listed have a primary purpose that doesn't involve harming others.

No. No. No. And NOPE.

 

The reason these other "devices" are brought into the discussion, is to demonstrate that shitty people will use "normal" things to commit violence and suffering unto others when a gun isn't available.

 

Playing the numbers game (if public safety as the goal is to be believed) "deaths by gun" ranks very low on the list.

It's low enough as to not even be highlighted on this "list"

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm

 

Now talking strictly homocides: guns make up 70% of the tool of choice (9000 ish out of 13000 ish).

 

Drunk driving takes the lives of 10000 ish Americans annually. 28 each day.

226 children, 122 of them riding with the offender.

http://www.madd.org/statistics/

 

Haven't we "outlawed" drinking and driving? Have we not imposed severe punishment and fines for breaking this law? There aren't any "background checks" required before you can drink a beer, or "let's do a shot!!" with some terrible Sorostitute. (Disclaimer- I'm not opposed to background checks for guns, just making a point. There was a time I was not opposed to Sorostitutes either - that has come and gone though)

 

So we can acknowledge that alcohol becomes a problem when combined with driving a motor vehicle impaired (ignoring overdoses). Banning just alcohol didn't work.

Why is it so hard to apply this logic to guns? Guns become a problem when combined with violent behavior, not on their own. Prohibition hasn't shown itself to not be effective in this country. Plinking paper or steel targets, or hunting for food/sport is not violent behavior (try to refrain from the PETA hunting is murder take - go spend a day at a Purdue chicken plant or cattle slaughterhouse).

So even though we still face a drinking and driving problem, at least we are targeting the problem: drinking and driving - nobody is targeting the beers. Because that's silly.

 

As a final note, to reference another ill-informed take from our commander-in-queef: Australia had a 7-8% firearm ownership rate when they confiscated/banned guns, not the 88% that the US has. Confiscation won't be possible here and criminals will likely continue to ignore the laws (hey, what's one more).

Since enacting the ban, Australia has enjoyed a 31.9% decrease in the murder rate. Over that same time period (with no gun ban, & increased gun ownership), the US has seen a 31.7% decrease. Australia has watched assaults increase 50%, and rapes increase by 30%.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php/index.php?Article_ID=17847

[Westside Steve]

I was being the devil's advocate but what I said was completely true. Just banning things doesn't seem to work. We have a ban on drinking and driving and dope, not to mention murder rape burglary speeding tax evasion fraud and soon politically incorrect speech. And yes sir the population would be angry. However probably only until the generation but remember having that particular right dies off. For the next generation it will just be the new reality.

 

We refuse to lock up violent criminals for long periods of time but still school and mass shooters are a completely different breed.

 

I personally own two handguns and an ancient shotgun that would explode in my face should I attempt to fire it. If I believed all guns would be eliminated I'd give them up. But I don't believe that.

 

How long did it take the british to accept the gun ban?

 

WSS

[Osiris]

I was being the devil's advocate but what I said was completely true. Just banning things doesn't seem to work. We have a ban on drinking and driving and dope, not to mention murder rape burglary speeding tax evasion fraud and soon politically incorrect speech. And yes sir the population would be angry. However probably only until the generation but remember having that particular right dies off. For the next generation it will just be the new reality.

 

We refuse to lock up violent criminals for long periods of time but still school and mass shooters are a completely different breed.

 

I personally own two handguns and an ancient shotgun that would explode in my face should I attempt to fire it. If I believed all guns would be eliminated I'd give them up. But I don't believe that.

 

How long did it take the british to accept the gun ban?

 

WSS

 

So do you think if we lifted the ban on drinking and driving that we'd have the same number of DWI-related accidents as when the ban was present? Ditto for the other crimes you listed?

[Westside Steve]

 

So do you think if we lifted the ban on drinking and driving that we'd have the same number of DWI-related accidents as when the ban was present? Ditto for the other crimes you listed?

I'm not advocating lifting any ban. I'm advocating strict enforcement, at least the devil is. What's your objection? If in fact your goal is to eliminate school shootings and gun violence then what percentage is acceptable?

What's your number?

WSS

[The Cysko Kid]

Why is it that it's always all or nothing? Why are gun people so fucking insistent that there's either no regulations, total lawlessness, wild wild west or a complete and total ban of all guns no questions asked?

 

Why not try small measures first like mandatory drug testing for gun ownership. It would keep those with the dreaded SSRIs in their systems from buying legal guns.

 

Now maybe they would seek out the Mexican gun and drug runners to buy one illegally. Maybe. Maybe they'd go to the ghetto and approach some gang banger looking for a hot gun. Maybe. Maybe they would. Or maybe they would not because those things are scary. Maybe they'd just go back down to the basement and play call of duty.

 

 

Or maybe it would be easier to totally reform the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry to stop prescribing pills to people. God knows that doctors aren't arrogant at all and take suggestions that maybe they're doing more harm than good really well.

[Westside Steve]

PS for the record I don't think drinking and driving laws are really meant to promote safety. I think, like most traffic infractions, are meant to provide profit for the cities and townships.

WSS

[gftChris]

PS for the record I don't think drinking and driving laws are really meant to promote safety. I think, like most traffic infractions, are meant to provide prophet for the cities and townships.

WSS

That's highly cynical, even for you Steve!

[Osiris]

I'm not advocating lifting any ban. I'm advocating strict enforcement, at least the devil is. What's your objection? If in fact your goal is to eliminate school shootings and gun violence then what percentage is acceptable?

What's your number?

WSS

 

I have no objection, I was trying to understand what you were saying when you said:

 

"Just banning things doesn't seem to work. "

 

It sounded like you were saying that you don't think bans reduce the occurrences of the crimes you listed. If that is what you really meant, then I'd have to disagree with that.

 

As for school shootings, do you mean what percentage is acceptable? Zero is acceptable, but also impossible to achieve in the USA. Nonetheless, we should strive for it while still allowing people who want guns for hunting and self-defense in their homes to have them.

[Westside Steve]

That's highly cynical, even for you Steve!

Really? I haven't got the exact numbers what do you have any idea but the repeat rate is for DUI? Any idea how much it costs in fines and legal fees and how much of that money in the pockets of the attorneys and townships?

WSS

[Legacy Fan]

Why is it that it's always all or nothing? Why are gun people so fucking insistent that there's either no regulations, total lawlessness, wild wild west or a complete and total ban of all guns no questions asked?

 

Why not try small measures first like mandatory drug testing for gun ownership. It would keep those with the dreaded SSRIs in their systems from buying legal guns.

No argument from me on this one.

 

Now maybe they would seek out the Mexican gun and drug runners to buy one illegally. Maybe. Maybe they'd go to the ghetto and approach some gang banger looking for a hot gun. Maybe. Maybe they would. Or maybe they would not because those things are scary. Maybe they'd just go back down to the basement and play call of duty.

This is kind of ridiculous and pretty far from reality. But, I know you like to use it for your "Adam Lanza is a basement dwelling nerd that would never do this" argument.

What actually happens is: it start's out with "Do you know a guy?" "Sure, I know a guy that know's a guy..." Kind of like when someone buys drugs - they don't just walk up to the cartels, or gangbangers, whatever. That's the narciest narc narc shit I've ever heard of. "Hey! Can I buy some reefer?" Sure thing officer.

 

 

Or maybe it would be easier to totally reform the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry to stop prescribing pills to people. God knows that doctors aren't arrogant at all and take suggestions that maybe they're doing more harm than good really well.

This is pretty unlikely. Most physicians aren't solo practitioners anymore (thanks insurance!!) and work for hospital conglomerates. These hospitals give each doc roughly 15 minutes per patient. Diagnose and treat. 15 minutes. When there is data supporting pill prescribing as a suitable treatment, and the hospitals will back the docs up for using this method, then guess which method the doctor uses?

Doctors arrogant? How many Doctors tell you how to install a security system, then call you arrogant because you know what you're doing?

[Osiris]

Really? I haven't got the exact numbers what do you have any idea but the repeat rate is for DUI? Any idea how much it costs in fines and legal fees and how much of that money in the pockets of the attorneys and townships?

WSS

 

Steve's cynicism is warranted. I don't think DWI laws are made for the expressed purpose of profit, but I DO think whenever money is involved, someone will subvert it's original purpose to be about making money. I read here that in Minnesota 1 in 7 drivers will be convicted for drunk driving. First time offenses lead to suspension, with a license reinstatement fee of $700. Furthermore, the insurance premium will go up, creating profit for insurance companies.

 

None of this means the laws don't work. According to the same link, "DWI activists say [they work], and point to a 38 percent drop in the number of alcohol-related fatalities on Minnesota roads in the last 25 years."

[Westside Steve]

http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/dui-the-10000-dollar-ride-home.aspx

 

A little more than 700 bucks? And 38%. Is that the number you would be happy with?

WSS

[gftChris]

Perhaps that's a difference between the countries. Here, any money raised from fines related to motoring - speeding, parking, DUI etc - can only be reinvested in things related to motoring, like road maintenance and things like that. So you can't really skim very much if any off the top.

[BrownsKidd]

I'm curious, what do our resident gun enthusiasts think about this? Do you support open carry? What do you think of dudes walking into restaurants and shit with big ass rifles on their back?

 

I think it goes with the saying, just because you can doesn't mean you should. Right? There are idiots on both sides of the coin. In the middle are law abiding liberals and republicans that own and carry guns and are responsible. You can't throw the baby out with the bath water. I saw a video of two young guys who were toting around semi-auto rifles. Someone called the police. At first, the guys wielding the guns thought that the police were going to be dicks. But the officer was actually very calm and advised that as police they have the right to inspect the guns to be sure that they are not automatic rifles, because they could have been. After inspecting the rifles he thanked them for exercising their first amendment right the police left without incident. I think the two guys were actually surprised by the encounter.

 

First, the guys were douche bags for going out and trying to elicit a reaction from law enforcement. Second, the cop did a fantastic job in not creating what could have been an ugly incident.

 

Here's the video.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

 

Why is it that it's always all or nothing? Why are gun people so fucking insistent that there's either no regulations, total lawlessness, wild wild west or a complete and total ban of all guns no questions asked?

 

Why not try small measures first like mandatory drug testing for gun ownership. It would keep those with the dreaded SSRIs in their systems from buying legal guns.

No argument from me on this one.

 

Now maybe they would seek out the Mexican gun and drug runners to buy one illegally. Maybe. Maybe they'd go to the ghetto and approach some gang banger looking for a hot gun. Maybe. Maybe they would. Or maybe they would not because those things are scary. Maybe they'd just go back down to the basement and play call of duty.

This is kind of ridiculous and pretty far from reality. But, I know you like to use it for your "Adam Lanza is a basement dwelling nerd that would never do this" argument.

What actually happens is: it start's out with "Do you know a guy?" "Sure, I know a guy that know's a guy..." Kind of like when someone buys drugs - they don't just walk up to the cartels, or gangbangers, whatever. That's the narciest narc narc shit I've ever heard of. "Hey! Can I buy some reefer?" Sure thing officer.

 

 

Or maybe it would be easier to totally reform the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry to stop prescribing pills to people. God knows that doctors aren't arrogant at all and take suggestions that maybe they're doing more harm than good really well.

This is pretty unlikely. Most physicians aren't solo practitioners anymore (thanks insurance!!) and work for hospital conglomerates. These hospitals give each doc roughly 15 minutes per patient. Diagnose and treat. 15 minutes. When there is data supporting pill prescribing as a suitable treatment, and the hospitals will back the docs up for using this method, then guess which method the doctor uses?

Doctors arrogant? How many Doctors tell you how to install a security system, then call you arrogant because you know what you're doing?

1. Yeah you may be right about the hot gun issue. Problem is with Lanza, loughner, and Holmes types is reportedly they didn't HAVE any friends. Kind of makes it a tough jumping off point to go to an acquaintance who probably already thinks you're weird and start asking for guns. That's why these guys all went or at least tried the legal route. Apparently only Lanza was denied as the store owner apparently felt there was something wrong with him and declined the sale and good for him.

 

2. Come on. You know doctors are arrogant. Right this very second I'm at the Cleveland clinic's Lorain FHC facility. I spend roughly 30% of my working time at Cleveland Clinic facilities and if you don't think doctors are arrogant I'd invite you to spend a little time dealing with them here.

[Osiris]

Perhaps that's a difference between the countries. Here, any money raised from fines related to motoring - speeding, parking, DUI etc - can only be reinvested in things related to motoring, like road maintenance and things like that. So you can't really skim very much if any off the top.

 

That's how it should be, and in some cases, how it is here in USA. The key difference is in USA since we have states with their own governments, much of it is left to the individual state. Here is an article on it, which also states $3 billion dollars per year are raised in the USA due to traffic violations.

 

https://exploreb2b.com/articles/where-does-your-traffic-ticket-money-go

[Westside Steve]

 

Steve's cynicism is warranted. I don't think DWI laws are made for the expressed purpose of profit, but I DO think whenever money is involved, someone will subvert it's original purpose to be about making money. I read here that in Minnesota 1 in 7 drivers will be convicted for drunk driving. First time offenses lead to suspension, with a license reinstatement fee of $700. Furthermore, the insurance premium will go up, creating profit for insurance companies.

 

None of this means the laws don't work. According to the same link, "DWI activists say [they work], and point to a 38 percent drop in the number of alcohol-related fatalities on Minnesota roads in the last 25 years."

Let's say it is a year in jail for first offense and make it zero tolerance. What percentage do you think it might be then?

Maybe 95% as opposed to 38?

Now I have no idea as to how many human lives that would equal but why wouldn't that be an acceptable goal? Lack of profit?

WSS

[gftChris]

http://money.msn.com/auto-insurance/dui-the-10000-dollar-ride-home.aspx

 

A little more than 700 bucks? And 38%. Is that the number you would be happy with?

WSS

The law was introduced in the UK in 1965. They began keeping records in 1979, for some reason, meaning we can't accurately measure the impact since inception, but I'm willing to bet the number was higher in 1965 than 1979. Anyway...

 

Drink-Drive Deaths (UK)

1979 - 1,640

2012 - 290

 

That's a reduction of 82% in a little over 30 years - that's probably an acceptably fast rate. In fact, taking a simple line of regression (using the intermediary data I haven't shown, but will if you want) puts it at declining around 36 deaths per year - to zero by 2020. Obviously it won't ever be zero, it won't decline linearly, it'll approach zero asymptotically, eventually, but the point stands. In 2012, there were slightly over half the deaths by drink driving than in 2006.

[Osiris]

Let's say it is a year in jail for first offense and make it zero tolerance. What percentage do you think it might be then?

Maybe 95% as opposed to 38?

Now I have no idea as to how many human lives that would equal but why wouldn't that be an acceptable goal? Lack of profit?

WSS

 

That would probably reduce the amount of DWI crime and increase general unrest (leading to other crimes) because the punishment has to fit the crime. A first time DWI offense, assuming nobody was injured, shouldn't be punished by taking away a year of someone's life. Maybe make them spend a night in jail and perform a week of community service. Like I suggested earlier, I don't think these laws are created with profit in mind, but rather opportunists find ways to later make money off of them.

[Osiris]

The law was introduced in the UK in 1965. They began keeping records in 1979, for some reason, meaning we can't accurately measure the impact since inception, but I'm willing to bet the number was higher in 1965 than 1979. Anyway...

 

Drink-Drive Deaths (UK)

1979 - 1,640

2012 - 290

 

That's a reduction of 82% in a little over 30 years - that's probably an acceptably fast rate. In fact, taking a simple line of regression (using the intermediary data I haven't shown, but will if you want) puts it at declining around 36 deaths per year - to zero by 2020. Obviously it won't ever be zero, it won't decline linearly, it'll approach zero asymptotically, eventually, but the point stands. In 2012, there were slightly over half the deaths by drink driving than in 2006.

 

Pretty remarkable considering the UK population has grown by about 10 million people in that span of time.

[gftChris]

 

Pretty remarkable considering the UK population has grown by about 10 million people in that span of time.

Yeah, we did ok on that one!