Total posts: 2,472
-->
@dustryder
This isn't about general gun laws or homicide. It's about AR-15s and mass shootings.
It's about (general gun laws and homicide). If you want to focus in on how to prevent mass shootings, I say let the teachers be armed if they have legal guns. If advertised on a school that they allow their teachers to be armed, that would scare would be shooters from killing people.
Ok. And how many people per year are robbed by a crowd of robbers? That is, say 3+?
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm states that around 320,000 people were robbed in 2017. A majority of these had multiple robbers. Home Alone had 2 robbers. Mean girls I think was the title had 3 robbers. Robbers get into packs.
But we don't care about robberies with only 1 or 2 robbers. A simple handgun can deal with such situations.
A handgun can maybe deal with 1 robber. But not 2 robbers who are armed. You shoot on of them in self defense, the other robber shoots you in retaliation.
1. There are a number of robberies that occur with a large amount of robbers all at once. For example, the amount of such events per year2. That in such scenarios, an AR-15 was successfully used to defend the victim and hence this is a good application of the gun3. And to argue that a handgun or other firearm would've not been sufficient in such situations
I think I have argued why numerous times.
I mean really, at the very least would a gun license and a gun registration be too much to ask for?
I'm fin with these as requirements. I hope that people who have autism are allowed to get autism because the vast majority of autistic people don't want to shoot up schools. I know I have autism, and I don't want to shoot up schools. You can prevent criminals from getting guns up to a certain point. After that, it's safe to assume that they don't want to be criminals anymore. I suggest making the amount of time they aren't allowed to get a gun 10x the length of their sentence(that means if they were in jail for 1 year over something, they aren't allowed to have a gun for 10 years).
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
don't be fooled by the deaths per 100k, look at the total numbers.
I would say the homicide rate is more accurate then the number of homicides. Otherwise, the USA, which is a country with 1000x the population of iceland, would be around 1000x more dangerous to live since there would be 1000x more homicide. However, the safety of the USA and Iceland is comparable.
ten years later it dropped that much AFTER the ban expired.....interesting don't you think?
The ban lasted from 1994 to 2004.
The homicide rate for 1993 was 9.5
The homicide rate for 1994 was 9.0
The homicide rate for 1995 was 8.2
This indicates a drop due to the ban.
This is where it gets confusing. The ban was lifted in 2004:
The homicide rate for 2003 was 5.7
The homicide rate for 2004 was 5.5
The homicide rate for 2005 was 5.6
This doesn't indicate the expected increase in homicide.
A ban on AK 47s might decrease the homicide rate. Unless they do, banning them would be ineffective.
a right that you can't exercise is no right at all. what good is a right to protect your life if you don't have the means?
No one out of me, you, or dustryder wants to ban all guns. Dustryder wants to ban AK 47s. That I think is all. I don't know his/her full position on guns.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
And the people that are shot in mass shootings also have their own rights to safety.
Yes. However, homicide in general is my measurement for how effective gun laws are. Not every murder victim is someone that dies from a mass shooting. Most people that get murdered don't get murdered in a mass shooting. If AK 47s save lives, then they are worth having around. If they do kill too many people, then they should be banned.
It would be like owning a rocket launcher and your reason for owning a rocket launcher is to prevent and/or defend yourself against alien abductions.
-Aliens that have the technological capability to come to Earth probably have defense/attacking technology far better then humans. A rocket launcher wouldn't be effective.
-No one else owns a rocket launcher. Other people own guns. Just as it is a good idea for the US to have nukes because other countries have nukes. If the US removed our nukes, we would get nuked. If you remove AK 47s from law abiding citizens, how can they defend themselves against a crowd of robbers? Anyone can get robbed.
-There is not enough credible proof that aliens even abduct humans. There is evidence that people get robbed.
Where are all the situations in which the AR-15 is *absolutely* required that an alternative firearm cannot be used?
Protection against multiple people. What other firearm can be used for this purpose?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
It does provide protection against multiple people. But you have yet to prove that this a reasonable necessity such that it should be kept.
Isn't protection a basic human right?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
We cannot create policy based on what *could* be. We can only create policy based on what *is*.
I think AK 47s do provide protection against multiple people. How can this be accomplished with any other gun? A pistol only fires one shot at a time and won't do you much good against a crowd of invaders, all armed.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you must understand the history and why it is a right
It is a right because the Founding fathers wanted protection against a tyrannical government. The 2nd amendment says in it that guns are necessary for the security of a free state. The thing is, if we take away guns from criminals once until they have served on "gun parole" for enough time, it reduces crime and reduces homicide.
I think the measure of the overall homicide rate is more accurate as to saving lives then reducing mass shootings because not everyone who dies in a gun attack died from a mass shooting. They could have been the only person to die in a gun attack. Mass shootings are when 4+ people are killed by a single murderer.
Did the time period from 1994-2004 experience a lower homicide rate in the US then the time period before and after? I honestly don't know.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm states various crime counts and rates for the US. Right before 1994, the homicide rate was between 8.5 and 9.0 deaths per 100,000. When the ban was put in place, the homicide rate fell to around 6 per 100,000. However, here is where I get confused. When the ban was repealed in 2004, the homicide rate didn't spike up again. It actually fell slightly. It's tough to say if AK 47s have an impact on the nationwide homicide rate.
You state they will get guns illegally, but it would be harder for criminals to do it, therefore making crime more rare.
We have many laws that could and should be better enforced and stiffer punishments.
It depends on the law. If you want to make the punishment for murder more intense, I'm on board with that. Death to murderers. However, if you want to make speech laws tougher, I wouldn't support that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
naw the economic projections where half of what they thought.
Can you cite this? Even if it's only half of the expected revenue, money is money. It can to at least some extent reduce taxes while providing the same level of government services.
Many employers do drug testing.
They may also test to see if you do other legal drugs, like alcohol and nicotine.
Then there's insurance issues.
Don't smokers pay higher insurance rates then the rest of us?
The unintended consequences haven't been thoroughly thought out yet and it's moving way too fast imo.
There could be unintended consequences, both good and bad. This is why an experiment ought to take place.
What are tide pods?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
This economic boom from legalization never happened.
I think the economic boom is in the process of happening. There are 4 basic steps that I see happening:
1. Weed is illegal everywhere in the nation. Stigma on weed is high.
2. Weed is a states issue. Stigma is still high.
3. Weed becomes legal recreational nationwide. The stigma is high still.
4. Weed is recreational for enough time to remove the stigma from it. Saying your a stoner is like saying your Jewish, and being Jewish used to have a negative stigma to it.
I think the economic boom will take a long time to occur.
If people want to use weed so much that they die from it, that's their choice. Recreational use shouldn't be legal until age 21 to prevent minors from consuming it. Medical use age limit should be 0 because if you need the THC to save your life, you should take the THC in whatever amount prescribed by a credible doctor.
In short, weed should be as legal as alcohol is and under very similar if not, the same terms. No stoned drivers. No underage stoning. But otherwise, let the free market exist.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
This is going to surprise dustryder.
Guns are like cars. I think you should be allowed to own any car/gun you want. But they should not be classified as a right for people. They are a privilege. Anyone with any type of car/gun should get trained on how to use it and should be made sure they aren't going to use the car/gun poorly. They are tools. Not toys. If you race with a car on a speed limit 25 mph road, you should have your license revoked. If you decide to shoot in the city recklessly, then you shouldn't own a gun.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
This country is pretty big. If 1/20 households get robbed in their lifetimes, that is about 5 million households in around 50 years then that means around 100,000 households get robbed annually in the US. A majority of these have multiple robbers responsible. There aren't that many shootings. Is there a consistent homicide difference between the time period before a state abolished AK 47s and after the AK 47 ban?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
But the point is, they don't appear to have common or appropriate usage outside of mass shootings that cannot also be replaced with other solutions or other firearms. Hence there is no good reason not to ban them outright
There are many unreported times when people use AK 47s to defend their house against multiple people. I imagine most robberies happen with multiple robbers because robbers have incentive to work in packs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Women tend to get higher grades in school.
Men tend to get higher SAT scores.
Every sex has their advantages and disadvantages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Decriminalizing is similar to legalizing it with a tax.
Created:
Posted in:
Should Cannabis/Weed be legal? I personally think so right now, but I can have my mind changed. I've posted a lot of right wing stuff on this site. It's time I posted something left wing.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
You'll note that in the case of 3 , the act of showing the firearm was enough to deter the intruders. In the case of 4, the act of showing and/or firing a handgun would've also been sufficient to act as a deterrent.
If you have 1 pistol and your up against 3 people all with pistols and you show them the pistol, it won't be enough of a deterrent to protect yourself. Your outnumbered with guns. Showing them a AK 47 would help prevent anyone from getting robbed, and would prevent anyone from getting shot.
There are scarcely any accounts of civilians actually having to use such firearms in such situations
I just listed a sample. You have about a 1/20 chance of getting robbed in your lifetime(http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm). Given that people are alive for a long time, it is safe to assume that you yourself have a significant chance of getting robbed. To make it personal, my aunt got robbed, and that is just within my family. Robberies are common.
While mass shootings are rare, they occur far more frequently than such situations, and such guns are commonly used in them.
Most mass shootings are caused by handguns. Only a fraction are caused by AK 47s and AK 15s combined.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
I don't agree with military rule.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Likewise, California should get rid of English, it's useless.
Most people in California are monolingual English speakers.
Spanish should be the official language instead and then California can get its independence once and for all.
Bad idea. California should not get independence. Those who do not know English in California or anywhere in the United States should get assimilated in classes they or their parents directly pay for or get deported.
Created:
Posted in:
Atheism is often characterised negatively, ie as nihilistic or iconoclastic.
Atheism is neutral. A religious heretic/infidel would be a negative conontation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The official definition is, "an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems." Do you think this definition fits you?
Is humanist just a positive connotation for an atheist?
Created:
Why would the left want a national emergency?
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
70% of robberies are over in around 7 minutes. The average time it takes the police to get to your house is 11 minutes. The police can be used after the robbery to catch the criminal but immediate defense is best reserved for the individual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I think Quebec will still receive refugees from countries that France conquered like Morocco since they have french influence.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
A handgun wouldn't necessarily protect someone in #3 and #4. There were multiple intruders at once. If you shoot one with a pistol, the other shoots you with their gun.
As tragic as mass shootings are, they are extremely rare. There are about 320 mass shootings a year. There are about 320 million people in the US. Assuming the average mass shooting kills 10 people, this equates to 1/100,000 chance of dying from a mass shooting in a year. Moreover, if you want do prevent future school shootings from happening, If you ban AK 47s, crazy shooters get the guns illegally and they commit shootings against classrooms that usually don't have protection. This is why arming teachers and advertising it on schools would deter shooters from committing mass shootings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
The someone I was referring to were the anglophones in Montreal. Wishing death upon people for being anglophones is poor conduct. I am an anglophone. I don't want to be (dumped in le Golfe du Saint-Laurent.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
Wishing death upon someone for speaking a different language could get you reported.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Diversity causes division. That's why many in Quebec want independence.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-people-who-used-an-ar-15-to-defend-themselves-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.mgwhWYkb3 shows 5 examples of when an AK 47 was used to save someone. Any time multiple people rob your house with guns they will get either legally or illegally, a pistol alone won't save you. An AK 47 gives you more of a chance against a mob of robbers.
Created:
-->
@Vader
But they need to be better trained with a gun and be certified that they can own one.
I'm fine with training requirements.
Depends on what "mental stability" means. If it means that no one with a mental disability is allowed a gun, then no. If it means prohibiting ISIS members from getting a gun, then that makes sense.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Autistic s need protection too.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I have Asperger syndrome and what's wrong with me owning a gun? I don't want to kill any human with it.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Concretely, how many cases have there been where a civilian has successfully used an AK-47 to defend him/herself against multiple people, where a pistol, or realistically any other action would not have sufficed?
Anytime there are multiple armed robbers at once trying to invade your house. Robbers tend to not only steal, but they might rape females in your house, and they might kill the people involved, because that's what criminals do. I heard of this scary time for this one guy and his AK 47 saved his life. This was when no gun shots were fired. The robbers saw the gun, they got scared, and they ran away. Had he not had a gun, he would have gotten robbed, or maybe even killed.
Created:
-->
@Vader
I imagine teachers shooting other students is less common and less deadly then crazy guy on student shootings, which would be reduced in fatalities if teachers were armed.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Teachers may do perverted things to get the students attention, but I don't think they will shoot a student to get that attention.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
AK 47s provide protection against multiple people easier then a pistol. Robbers have huge incentive to rob a house in packs.
Created:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
@Vader
All of the teachers know better then to shoot the students. Otherwise, teachers committing shootings would be common in places like Israel where teachers can be armed.
Created:
-->
@Vader
@dustryder
How would you guys think about the following compromise on guns:
-AK 47s banned nationwide.
-Teachers are allowed to arm themselves with any legal gun to defend their classroom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
More Free Condoms For Young AdultsKeep Abortion LegalSex Education For Our Youth
This is moving the goalposts. I also know that you don't like to compromise even if it is a policy based compromise. You have a my way or the highway attitude and this is poor conduct.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I think Quebec should be assimilated to be more like the rest of Canada from a linguistic standpoint. This prevents separatist movements and unifies Canada more.
Created:
Posted in:
Should English be allowed in Quebec? Should Quebec be it's own country? Please comment below.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I wouldn't mind losing my voting rights for the sake of security
How would people win debates?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
Sorry I haven't been able to get back. Life got in the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@linate
What if religious institutions paid for the health costs of poor people instead of the government? I think this would be better because religious institutions are not funded by taxes, but instead funded by donations.
Under this setup, the church is happy because they are doing God's work, doctors are happy because they are getting paid well, and poor people are happy because they are getting religious institution subsidized healthcare instead of government subsidized healthcare.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
If you live in Texas and you want to go to New York, and you have an AK 47, you have to leave our gun at home to legally do so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What religion are you? Your profile says other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
If people accepted Karma and reincarnation they would know why so many forms of beliefs, lack of beliefs and circumstances exist.
1st amendment allows for religious freedom.
Created: