By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Obama Admin Caves: ATF Halts Assault on Inalienable Rights

BraveNewWorld said:

James Madison is turning in his grave. He gave us a mere ten rules to ensure our freedom and they're being systematically altered and stripped!

 

“I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” - President James Madison

LOL such a nonsense arguement. Back in that time period overthrowing a governmentwould have been possible, those laws were put in place to protect us from the government but I hate to tell you our guns are not going to do crap to the U.S. military.  Gun control is a huge issue and maybe you should look as to why laws were created before talking about things from ages ago.....



Around the Network
Normchacho said:

On top of that, an annalysis of 15 studies done by the Annals of Internal Medicine found that men with acess to guns are 4 times as likely to commit suicide, or be murdered, than men who don't have acess to guns. Women, were 3 times as likely.

I do want to point out that this is a bit of an unhelpful statistic. Correlation vs causality and all that. I doubt that owning a gun makes one more likely to feel suicidal. However, feeling suicidal may influence someone's decision to purchase a gun...



o_O.Q said:
Normchacho said:


True, and mixing alchohol and guns is very, very dangerous. But those aren't the same thing. A car, when not mixed with alchohol, is a pretty pedestrian thing. With roughly 1 fatality for every 90 million miles driven, even including drunk driving related deaths. Guns, are dangerous even when not mixed with alchohol.

The other reason they don't really make for a 1:1 comparison, is that cars have a lot of upsides. It would be pretty much impossible for me to get to school or work without a car, and that's true for a lot of people.

Guns, on the other hand...Not so much. Many of the percevied benefits of gun ownership don't actually hold water when put under scrutiny. Especially when talking about self defense. A study done by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that as gun prevelance goes up, so does crime. On top of that, an annalysis of 15 studies done by the Annals of Internal Medicine found that men with acess to guns are 4 times as likely to commit suicide, or be murdered, than men who don't have acess to guns. Women, were 3 times as likely.


how did they interview the dead guys who killed themselves to get that data?

To corroborate Norm's assertion, the auto industry is way, WAY, WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more regulated than the firearms industry. Whether it be emissions standards, safety standards, or performance standards, it is MUCH harder to get a car street legal than it is to get a gun to market. In fact (I can say this with absolutely certainty.), firearms manufacturers can essentially produce any class of firearm with barely any regulatory agency oversight or QA.

In addition to that, permission to operate and automobile is far more prohibitive than to acquire a gun. Written tests are a prerequisite for permits, permits are a prerequisite for road tests, and road tests are a prerequsitite for being issued a license. That process also requires direct supervision until its completion by another licensed driver, with restrictions. Being an automobile owner with a license doesn't even grant you the right to operate the vehicle, because you need to buy insurance, to protect others from the risk you pose by operating the vehicle. 

Now, compare this to the ease with which you can acquire a fire arm, via the permit process or private sale, or the ease with which you can operate a firearm, via family or friend. The whole "auto accidents cause way more deaths, and we aren't regulating them" argument is, in fact, wholly disingeneous. The industry is heavily refulated, despite its intent of use being wholly benign.



o_O.Q said:
Normchacho said:

I've hear arguments like this a lot and they don't really make sense..."you could kill someone with a fork, does that mean we should ban forks?".

How many people were killed by pressure cookers in the U.S. last year? Is a pressure cooker designed to kill people?

if we go into statistics hand guns kill substantially more people than rifles per year

traffic accidents caused by alcohol cause even more so what is your point?

if we are to ban things out of concern for the amount of civilians they kill rifles wouldn't be near the top of the list

I see what you're saying, and agree with you entirely. Hand guns and drink driving should be banned as soon as possible.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Insidb said:
o_O.Q said:


how did they interview the dead guys who killed themselves to get that data?

To corroborate Norm's assertion, the auto industry is way, WAY, WAAAAAAAAAAAAY more regulated than the firearms industry. Whether it be emissions standards, safety standards, or performance standards, it is MUCH harder to get a car street legal than it is to get a gun to market. In fact (I can say this with absolutely certainty.), firearms manufacturers can essentially produce any class of firearm with barely any regulatory agency oversight or QA.

In addition to that, permission to operate and automobile is far more prohibitive than to acquire a gun. Written tests are a prerequisite for permits, permits are a prerequisite for road tests, and road tests are a prerequsitite for being issued a license. That process also requires direct supervision until its completion by another licensed driver, with restrictions. Being an automobile owner with a license doesn't even grant you the right to operate the vehicle, because you need to buy insurance, to protect others from the risk you pose by operating the vehicle. 

Now, compare this to the ease with which you can acquire a fire arm, via the permit process or private sale, or the ease with which you can operate a firearm, via family or friend. The whole "auto accidents cause way more deaths, and we aren't regulating them" argument is, in fact, wholly disingeneous. The industry is heavily refulated, despite its intent of use being wholly benign.


i was making the point that the suicide data posted there is dubious

 

in terms of car regulations that stuff is all great and everything but the use of alcohol renders it all null and void and sure its illegal to drink and drive but people still drive under the influence anyway



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Normchacho said:

You're right, just like they'd be super for the legal right to own gundams if the had them.


good we agree on that

and the same goes for the jews in nazi germany and any other oppressed group of people in similar situations

they were all powerless because they did not have the means to fight back 

and now people are being convinced that disarming themselves is the best thing to do... now why could that be?

 

what amazes me is that we study these events of the past and it never occurs to some people that it could happen again

because i suppose we are suppose to be "modern" and "civilised" now and "that can't happen to me" or "that can't happen here"

Such a naive and ill informed perspective. There are instances of groups who never resort to violence who get their way because they did not resort to violence. And there are instances of groups getting themselves annihilated because they resorted to violence.  And you don't even have to go that far back to find examples where non-violent opposition lead to the overthrow of regimes, the Orange revolution being an example.  

There are many factors that go into the people successfully or unsuccessfully ousting a corrupt or tyrannical regime by means other than the ballot box. And guns is not a common element to either success of failure. So read a bit more history than just evoking the Holocaust as the reason why everyone should have guns and arm themselves against an hypothetical scenario that is unlikely to ever happen in a stable democracy. There are far more stable and peaceful democracies around the world that have sensible gun ownership laws, including restrictions on carrying, licencing and bans on certain types of guns than there are peaceful and stable democracies that have a constitutionally entrenched right to own guns allowing carry of hidden weapons around in public.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

starcraft said:
o_O.Q said:

if we go into statistics hand guns kill substantially more people than rifles per year

traffic accidents caused by alcohol cause even more so what is your point?

if we are to ban things out of concern for the amount of civilians they kill rifles wouldn't be near the top of the list

I see what you're saying, and agree with you entirely. Hand guns and drink driving should be banned as soon as possible.

well don't forget we should ban knives before hand guns since they kill more people

so start with that 

no one shall be allowed to chop their vegetables!



o_O.Q said:
Normchacho said:


Are you serious? Like...really? I can think of very, very few scenarios where you would need to interview the victim first hand to determine if they had acess to firearms...


something about the way that is worded is confusing me

like, for example, how can it be determined that the man in question would not have killed himself via another method had he not posssessed a gun?

well we can't ask him because he's dead, therefore, its open to interpretation

so if for instance we want to paint gun owenership as being deviant we can use the interpretation that the gun influenced his decision when he might have been dead set on killing himself anyway


You can't, but! We do know that suicide is very often a spontaneus act. The things that may drive someone to want to kill themselves are long term, but the idea of suicide itself, is often caused by a single event or emotion, normally less than 10 minutes before the attempt. We also know that people to try to kill themselves with guns are much more sucessful than those who don't.

So would some of those people still have killed themselves? Of course, but acess to a firearm gave them a quick, and highly effective means of doing so.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

This is a good thread. I think I'll take my leave of it while it is still good and not stick around until it makes me sad.



starcraft said:
o_O.Q said:

if we go into statistics hand guns kill substantially more people than rifles per year

traffic accidents caused by alcohol cause even more so what is your point?

if we are to ban things out of concern for the amount of civilians they kill rifles wouldn't be near the top of the list

I see what you're saying, and agree with you entirely. Hand guns and drink driving should be banned as soon as possible.

I besshhh yur tyrnn stull mah kerrrr...dissss is MINE keys...I'm gud *hiccup* Jus han me muh gun...thunks muchos grasheeessss