Notice From My Cold Dead Hands......

[SlyPokerDog]

"Disarmed" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Lanny]

"Disarmed" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Black humor.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[Phatguysrule]

The gun used in the robbery belongs to the 12 year old boy’s grandfather, who he lives with and is his legal guardian, according to Lt Prince. He had reportedly retrieved the firearm from his grandfather’s safe, where it was loaded with two magazines.

Hartford Police confirmed to News Channel 13 that the grandfather was unaware the child could access the safe.
“Every day I’m seeing something new at this job. I’ve been a full-time police officer for 38 years. What really flabbergasted me is that he showed no emotion,” Lt Prince told WZZM 13.
“He told us he didn’t do it for the money. He said he would’ve thrown the money into the sewer. He wouldn’t give us an explanation why he did it.”

Reports are that he used a crowbar to get into the locked safe

https://archive.ph/uvvPN#selection-2423.0-2435.146

 

[Phatguysrule]

 

[Phatguysrule]

The age limit to buy guns needs to go up immediately across the nation.

According to Senator Chris Murphy on The Daily podcast, they couldn't even get democrats to agree on raising the age to buy AR-15s. So they had to settle for enhanced background checks for people under 21.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Gunman killed by police at Texas summer camp after gunman exchanges fire with armed camp staff member

The armed suspect entered through the complex's main lobby doors and was confronted by a staff member who exchanged gunfire with him, Duncanville Police Department Assistant Chief Matt Stogner said at an afternoon news conference.

The alleged gunman then went to what was described as a classroom filled with children and opened fire from outside after he was unable to get in, the assistant chief said.

Beginning with the first sounds of gunfire, children at the complex were moved into a "safe area" that was then locked, steps staffers were trained to execute in active shooter situations, Stogner said.

The suspect moved to the main gym, he said, where there were still children present, but no shots were fired, at least until officers arrived and engaged in the firefight that killed him.

If you read more articles about this you'll note the pains most national media outlets go to in an effort to omit the fact that an armed staff member stopped the initial shooting and bought time for police to arrive. This is an example of why so many distrust much of the media.

ABC News: Quick-thinking staffers save camp children from suspected gunman in Texas

CNN: Police in Texas kill a man who fired his weapon inside a gym hosting a children’s summer camp

NPR: Police in the Dallas area kill a gunman who entered a summer camp for kids

 

[Shaboid]

According to Senator Chris Murphy on The Daily podcast, they couldn't even get democrats to agree on raising the age to buy AR-15s. So they had to settle for enhanced background checks for people under 21.

Supports my point of needing to pass these laws at the state and local level. And if we could get the different law enforcement agencies to communicate and share data, that would help.

On that note, where the fuck is the ATF in all this? Or Homeland Security? Can't we get some sort of national database. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but they need to be the agencies stopping people from falling through the cracks. Especially if our healthcare system can't, which has shown to be the case.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Supports my point of needing to pass these laws at the state and local level. And if we could get the different law enforcement agencies to communicate and share data, that would help.

Yeah, I totally get your argument for states to do what they can. But the problem is that you'd only get about 15-20 states doing anything, as the other 30 states have been moving toward fewer gun restrictions over the last few years, and those states who have increased restrictions have seen rises in all crime and murder rates over the last few years, including gun crime and murder rates. So it's just a tough argument to make right now.

But you're absolutely right that if all states and agencies were on the same page it could be effective.

On that note, where the fuck is the ATF in all this? Or Homeland Security? Can't we get some sort of national database. Maybe I'm just ignorant, but they need to be the agencies stopping people from falling through the cracks. Especially if our healthcare system can't, which has shown to be the case.

The database is a really tough sell to many gun owners. The argument they make is that every time a database of gun owners has been created in a country it has been followed by sweeping gun rights restrictions and confiscations. So the database of gun owners is one of the biggest things gun rights supporters fight against.

This is the main reason I have suggested a database of dangerous people, much like the sexual predator database (I would also advocate for the creation of an easily accessible and apolitical appeals court for red flag laws to help sell gun rights supporters). You could have each state maintain their own database, and have that database audited annually.

Further, you could mark the ID of dangerous people making it easier for the general public to verify if people are safe to lend/sell guns to. All states already have this capability, and no lawful gun owners would be impacted.

 

[Shaboid]

But the problem is that you'd only get about 15-20 states doing anything, as the other 30 states have been moving toward fewer gun restrictions over the last few years, and those states who have increased restrictions have seen rises in all crime and murder rates over the last few years, including gun crime and murder rates. So it's just a tough argument to make right now.

To clarify, you believe this increase in gun crime and murder rates are BECAUSE states have increased restrictions? There are other contributing factors, far outweighing the restrictions on guns.

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[Phatguysrule]

To clarify, you believe this increase in gun crime and murder rates are BECAUSE states have increased restrictions? There are other contributing factors, far outweighing the restrictions on guns.

No not at all. Just that the increased restrictions didn't reduce rates.

My belief is that prohibition of something people want just doesn't work in general, and other factors than gun accessibility have a far greater impact on violent crime and murder.

But the argument that those increased gun restrictions didn't reduce gun violence or crime will be used.

The fact that gun crime increased supports my theory that economic and social factors are far more impactful than any possible law or restriction.

 

[andalusian]

No not at all. Just that the increased restrictions didn't reduce rates.

My belief is that prohibition of something people want just doesn't work in general, and other factors than gun accessibility have a far greater impact on violent crime and murder.

But the argument that those increased gun restrictions didn't reduce gun violence or crime will be used.

The fact that gun crime increased supports my theory that economic and social factors are far more impactful than any possible law or restriction.

I think that looking at rates of change without looking at the level of the problem is a mistake you make.

It is like saying "once there were restrictions from dropping people into pools that are 3 ft deep to 2 ft deep there was no reduction in drowning, thus there should be no advantage to restricting dropping people in the middle of the ocean". Obviously, that's an absurd idea.

The problem is that even before the restrictions in the UK or Australia, these countries had a fraction of the access to guns that this country has. Thus, this argument carries no water with me, frankly - and I specifically used the word water because without it, people will die, but if you have too much of it, you will die as well. The argument that restrictions are not beneficial is just wrong, like everything else in life, gun access is not a binary problem, it needs to be within an acceptable range - and unfortunately, the numbers show, very clearly, that the US is well outside this acceptable range.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I think that looking at rates of change without looking at the level of the problem is a mistake you make.

It is like saying "once there were restrictions from dropping people into pools that are 3 ft deep to 2 ft deep there was no reduction in drowning, thus there should be no advantage to restricting dropping people in the middle of the ocean". Obviously, that's an absurd idea.

The problem is that even before the restrictions in the UK or Australia, these countries had a fraction of the access to guns that this country has. Thus, this argument carries no water with me, frankly - and I specifically used the word water because without it, people will die, but if you have too much of it, you will die as well. The argument that restrictions are not beneficial is just wrong, like everything else in life, gun access is not a binary problem, it needs to be within an acceptable range - and unfortunately, the numbers show, very clearly, that the US is well outside this acceptable range.

I wasn't talking about other countries in this post. I was talking about the states in the US which have increased gun control over the last 5-10 years. California has enacted more gun control laws since 2019 than they did between 1900 and 2019. As has Washington and Oregon. And there are more states just like that. And every one of them have seen spikes in all crime and murder, including with guns.

However, since you brought it up, the change before and after gun control in those countries was very similar to (or even far less than, in the case of the UK and Brazil) the change we saw in the US over the same time frame. While the US was doubling the number of guns and increasing access to them our intentional homicide rates dropped as fast or faster than the UK and Australia who had enacted sweeping gun control.

I'm not ignoring anything with this point. I'm asking for before and after evidence that gun control actually makes a significant difference. I've not been able to find that evidence. In fact, the evidence I've been able to find has refuted that idea.

 

[andalusian]

I wasn't talking about other countries in this post. I was talking about the states in the US which have increased gun control over the last 5-10 years. California has enacted more gun control laws since 2019 than they did between 1900 and 2019. As has Washington and Oregon. And there are more states just like that. And every one of them have seen spikes in all crime and murder, including with guns.

Since 2019 means nothing because we had a pandemic and divided political population to deal with and we all know that it takes time for new restrictions to actually affect the amounts of guns on the streets - I would certainly no try to deduce anything from it about gun ownership. What we have seen in California which has enacted higher restrictions over the years is that between 2000 and 2019 violent crime rates have fallen by a 1/3 - which is a huge amount. California still stands at 28% of household gun ownership which is still more than twice as many as Australia had before their restrictions. During the same time period, Alaska's crime rate has fallen only 2% - it is clear that reducing the access to firearms in California has worked much better than the no-changes approach taken by Alaska.

If anything, looking at violent crime rates and household gun ownerships between states in the US is a good indicator that there is a correlation, especially when you look at some of the highest violent crime rate states have low population density and high household firearm ownership.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Since 2019 means nothing because we had a pandemic and divided political population to deal with and we all know that it takes time for new restrictions to actually affect the amounts of guns on the streets - I would certainly no try to deduce anything from it about gun ownership.

I'm not deducing anything from it, other than social and economic triggers are far more powerful than legal restrictions. Which is VERY clear.

I am saying the argument will be used that there can be no causal relationship shown between reduced crime and gun control.

What we have seen in California which has enacted higher restrictions over the years is that between 2000 and 2019 violent crime rates have fallen by a 1/3 - which is a huge amount. California still stands at 28% of household gun ownership which is still more than twice as many as Australia had before their restrictions.

The US as a whole saw similar drops in violent crime rates over this time frame.

If anything, looking at violent crime rates and household gun ownerships between states in the US is a good indicator that there is a correlation, especially when you look at some of the highest violent crime rate states have low population density and high household firearm ownership.

Correlation isn't enough, IMO. You need to prove a causal relationship to significant reductions in violent crime and murder rates if you want to get much movement on gun restrictions. Which will require 38 states to support amending the constitution. And to drive home how difficult that will be, 30 states are moving the exact opposite direction at this point.

 

[andalusian]

Correlation isn't enough, IMO. You need to prove a causal relationship to significant reductions in violent crime and murder rates if you want to get much movement on gun restrictions. Which will require 38 states to support amending the constitution. And to drive how how difficult that will be, 30 states are moving the exact opposite direction at this point.

Correlation is always required in a complex situation like society planning and legal work - otherwise nothing can be proven in a vacuum. What the world has shown is a strong relationship between violent crime rates and firearms access among countries with similar traits of democracy, affluence and first-world amenities. The world has also shown that there is little measurable mental health difference between these countries.

Now, I am going to separate this from the constitution and the amount of issues that are required to change it - because I am 100% certain about the fact that it will be a slow moving solution because of the fundamental problems that the constitution presents in this case. But, ignoring the biggest cause of the problem (too easy access to tools of destruction) is just amplifying the problem that that outdated document presents in our society.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Correlation is always required in a complex situation like society planning and legal work - otherwise nothing can be proven in a vacuum. What the world has shown is a strong relationship between violent crime rates and firearms access among countries with similar traits of democracy, affluence and first-world amenities. The world has also shown that there is little measurable mental health difference between these countries.

Now, I am going to separate this from the constitution and the amount of issues that are required to change it - because I am 100% certain about the fact that it will be a slow moving solution because of the fundamental problems that the constitution presents in this case. But, ignoring the biggest cause of the problem (too easy access to tools of destruction) is just amplifying the problem that that outdated document presents in our society.

This seems like you might be ignoring the fact that the US doesn't have similar access to first-world amenities like education, healthcare, and a social safety net as the countries you're comparing it to.

Violent crime isn't only committed by crazy people but desperate people. The one way to take all of this into consideration is by looking at Gini rankings. The US is not good. Countries with better Gini coefficient have less violent crime. Which is why I have repeatedly brought it up.

That can be improved without amending the constitution.

 

[Chris Craig]

According to Senator Chris Murphy on The Daily podcast, they couldn't even get democrats to agree on raising the age to buy AR-15s. So they had to settle for enhanced background checks for people under 21.

Like I said, it's a start. It's something. It's a foundation for further progress in the future. We just got past nothing being done to something being done.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Like I said, it's a start. It's something. It's a foundation for further progress in the future. We just got past nothing being done to something being done.

Agree 100%. Which is exactly what I've been advocating for. I just thought it was interesting that he made that point.

 

[Chris Craig]

Agree 100%. Which is exactly what I've been advocating for. I just thought it was interesting that he made that point.

Wait, the Dems wouldn't agree to raise the age limit to buy Ar-15s? I don't believe that. It sounds like maybe they just wanted more. They didn't just want the age limit to go up, they wanted a more strict process for young people buying guns. It would be interesting to here more about that.

It reads strange as Murphy himself is a Democrat.

 

[andalusian]

This seems like you might be ignoring the fact that the US doesn't have similar access to first-world amenities like education, healthcare, and a social safety net as the countries you're comparing it to.

Oh, the US certainly has access to first-world amenities like all these countries, but they are not as well distributed - I have no doubts that universal healthcare will help, and better education (although we are not that different from most first world countries in that regard).

Violent crime isn't only committed by crazy people but desperate people. The one way to take all of this into consideration is by looking at Gini rankings. The US is not good. Countries with better Gini coefficient have less violent crime. Which is why I have repeatedly brought it up.

Absolutely true, but this is the place where we show that violent crime rates in CA with a super high Gini coefficient is much much lower than the violent crime rates in Alaska which has lower Gini coefficient. The same is true for New York which has a higher Gini coefficient rate than Alaska but a much lower violent crime rate.

That can be improved without amending the constitution.

Of course they can, but unfortunately, they are somewhat like dropping a life jacket for someone dropped in the middle of the ocean. It will improve the survival rate but does not fix the fundamental problem.

Unfortunately, you keep on going back to the argument that we should not discuss the root of the problem because the constitution will make fixing it hard. I argue that this is a mistake that will just make fixing that root problem even harder.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Oh, the US certainly has access to first-world amenities like all these countries, but they are not as well distributed - I have no doubts that universal healthcare will help, and better education (although we are not that different from most first world countries in that regard).

It also has to do with the ability and willingness for those services to work together that make the big difference. Which the currently proposed legislations appears to at least try and improve on. It's also having the improved access to these services will help destigmatize mental healthcare in the US. As well as a COMPLETELY different police ideology and judicial system.

In most of Europe these services work together to focus on restitution, healing and education. Not how things work here in the US.

*edit* And having access in the country doesn't help if it's not well distributed. That's the point.

Absolutely true, but this is the place where we show that violent crime rates in CA with a super high Gini coefficient is much much lower than the violent crime rates in Alaska which has lower Gini coefficient. The same is true for New York which has a higher Gini coefficient rate than Alaska but a much lower violent crime rate.

Alaska has a very high gini coefficient, all US states do (within about .1). And Alaska has FAR less access to first world amenities than California and New York.

Of course they can, but unfortunately, they are somewhat like dropping a life jacket for someone dropped in the middle of the ocean. It will improve the survival rate but does not fix the fundamental problem.

Unfortunately, you keep on going back to the argument that we should not discuss the root of the problem because the constitution will make fixing it hard. I argue that this is a mistake that will just make fixing that root problem even harder.

If guns are the root of the problem then that means having guns will make an otherwise law abiding citizen feel the need to shoot people. Is that the claim you're making?

I am of the opinion that allowing more people to become desperate makes them more likely to make poor choices which are more likely to put them in life or death situations.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Wait, the Dems wouldn't agree to raise the age limit to buy Ar-15s? I don't believe that. It sounds like maybe they just wanted more. They didn't just want the age limit to go up, they wanted a more strict process for young people buying guns. It would be interesting to here more about that.

It reads strange as Murphy himself is a Democrat.

Listen to the podcast. He specifically said he couldn't get all the Dems to agree to that, let alone many Republicans. He didn't think they would get even 50 votes to raise the age.

 

[Chris Craig]

Listen to the podcast. He specifically said he couldn't get all the Dems to agree to that, let alone many Republicans. He didn't think they would get even 50 votes to raise the age.

Unbelievable

 

[andalusian]

Alaska has a very high gini coefficient, all US states do (within about .1). And Alaska has FAR less access to first world amenities than California and New York.

But it is still lower than California, and if you do not want to use Alaska for first world amenities, use Arizona or Tennessee - which would have the same level of access as California, with a lower Gini coefficient and higher violent crime rate. All these things you suggest can help, but the big difference between these is consistently access to firearms. consistently.

If guns are the root of the problem then that means having guns will make an otherwise law abiding citizen feel the need to shoot people. Is that the claim you're making?

I am of the opinion that allowing more people to become desperate makes them more likely to make poor choices which are more likely to put them in life or death situations.

No, I have said it before, there needs to be much better control over access to firearms, and much better enforcement. Once it is not so easy to access it for everyone at any whim, the law abiding citizens that have access to it will likely (extrapolating from other sources) need to use it less for protection and a lot of violent crimes that are easy to perform will be easier to prevent or not taken. It is really not a complicated issue. If you want to encourage something, you make access to the tools that enable it easier, if you want to discourage something, you make access to the tools that enable it harder. It's why the buy now button on Amazon works, and it's why lung cancer death rate has decreased when access to cigarettes was made harder.

 

[Phatguysrule]

But it is still lower than California, and if you do not want to use Alaska for first world amenities, use Arizona or Tennessee - which would have the same level of access as California, with a lower Gini coefficient and higher violent crime rate. All these things you suggest can help, but the big difference between these is consistently access to firearms. consistently.



No, I have said it before, there needs to be much better control over access to firearms, and much better enforcement. Once it is not so easy to access it for everyone at any whim, the law abiding citizens that have access to it will likely (extrapolating from other sources) need to use it less for protection and a lot of violent crimes that are easy to perform will be easier to prevent or not taken. It is really not a complicated issue. If you want to encourage something, you make access to the tools that enable it easier, if you want to discourage something, you make access to the tools that enable it harder. It's why the buy now button on Amazon works, and it's why lung cancer death rate has decreased when access to cigarettes was made harder.

Access to cigarettes hasn't gotten harder... What restriction caused the change shown above? Any adult can buy as many cigarettes as they want. Lung cancer rates started dropping because of education, access to care, and social pressures, not prohibition.

The numbers you're pointing out could mean anything. Otherwise California would have lower crime rates than Main, Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, and the list goes on. They all have far more guns per capita than California or New York, but lower crime rates. The things you're pointing out aren't consistent. And the differences in violent crime between them aren't enough to move the needle. You're talking about differences of .2% over 100,000 people...

Nobody is going to have their opinion changed on their personal rights based on hopes of a possible 0.2% reduced crime rate... especially when the data that claim is based on isn't consistent even here in the US.

 

[andalusian]

Access to cigarettes hasn't gotten harder... What restriction caused the change shown above? Any adult can buy as many cigarettes as they want. Lung cancer rates started dropping because of education, access to care, and social pressures, not prohibition.

Of course they have. Additional taxes and age restrictions. It was not a federal thing (until the Obama Federal cigarette tax law), but it has been proven by multiple studies that these made a big effect.

The numbers you're pointing out could mean anything. Otherwise California would have lower crime rates than Main, Vermont, New Hampshire, Ohio, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington, and the list goes on. They all have far more guns per capita than California or New York, but lower crime rates. The things you're pointing out aren't consistent. And the differences in violent crime between them aren't enough to move the needle.

That is another argument that avoids context. California and New York have much denser large urban centers - and as you can imagine the highest violent crime rates are at the densely populated areas. The fact that California's (and New York's) violent crime rates are as low as they are despite the fact that the most dense urban areas in the country are in them (NYC and the bay area) is a testament to the fact that their higher firearms regulations are working.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Of course they have. Additional taxes and age restrictions. It was not a federal thing (until the Obama Federal cigarette tax law), but it has been proven by multiple studies that these made a big effect.

State level age restrictions were in place in the 1930s. It only took 40 years for cancer and smoking rates to start dropping thanks to these restrictions? Not buying it.

That is another argument that avoids context. California and New York have much denser large urban centers - and as you can imagine the highest violent crime rates are at the densely populated areas. The fact that California's (and New York's) violent crime rates are as low as they are despite the fact that the most dense urban areas in the country are in them (NYC and the bay area) is a testament to the fact that their higher firearms regulations are working.

I've seen no evidence that would suggest that's the case. NY's crime rates have trended right along with the rest of the country except its drop was accelerated faster in the 1990s by the broken window policy the police employed (no, I'm not a fan of that racist bullshit, either).

There is no significant causal impact that can be shown as a result of their specific gun control. Same with California. Again, you're pointing out rates that differ by 0.2% over 100,000 people. This is not compelling.

 

[BigGameDamian]