The PokéCommunity Forums Off-Topic Discussions Deep Discussion
Debate We've done this too many times now

Deep Discussion Have a seat at Deep Discussion for in-depth discussions, extended or serious conversations, and current events. From world news to talks on life, growing up, relationships, and issues in society, this is the place to be. Come be a knight.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #151    
Old May 23rd, 2018 (1:31 PM).
Nah's Avatar
Nah Nah is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esper View Post
Look, I'm sorry if you didn't like how I presented my viewpoints. I'm using some dark humor to point out the absurdity of the position that lax gun laws make us safe. If you don't want to be persuaded that's fine. There was nothing disrespectful in my post toward any member here so I don't see any issue or call for you to say I'm hellbent and all of that.

Really though, I do think that at this point the burden of proof is on people who are against gun control since we're seeing daily how much gun violence there is in America and the biggest differences between America and similar countries when it comes to gun violence is the relative lack of it elsewhere and the the lack of gun control in America. Like, I shouldn't have to continue to provide more evidence at this point. The evidence is all the dead people at the hands of gun violence.
i don’t think that his problem is so much your tone or presentation as it is your refusal to engage in discussion on the topic beyond “ but look at all the dead people tho”

but that’s sort of the problem with most major social issues these days—people on both sides’ general unwillingness to have a proper discussion and problem solve

i understand that it can be tiring, but that’s life for ya and it’s just internet discussion anyway
__________________
Nah ンン
“No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."
Reply With Quote

Relevant Advertising!

  #152    
Old May 23rd, 2018 (6:29 PM). Edited May 23rd, 2018 by Vragon2.0.
Vragon2.0's Avatar
Vragon2.0 Vragon2.0 is offline
     
    Join Date: Mar 2018
    Posts: 83
    [Might as well as say this, despite me sound a bit harsh in this, I do not think ill of the person I respond to. I rarely hold them as anything less after such a thing nor do I judge often for I'm flawed too. If I sound harsh or quite mean I understand, but I ask you do read to the end.]

    With that out the way,
    Oho this is going to be fun.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    Look, I'm sorry if you didn't like how I presented my viewpoints.
    Tell me where I say that? I said this is a debate place not a pot shot area. and regarding that,


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    I'm using some dark humor to point out the absurdity of the position that lax gun laws make us safe.
    I'm sorry, but I believe I responded to "sarcasm". I don't have issues with dark humor at all, (I can say that text is hard to discern tone, but I'm pretty sure the sentence structure presented a sarcastic tone). The issue I had was it being a pot shot only, without a proper backing to a point. You can call joke all you want, the thing it there was a point attached to it that I addressed.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    If you don't want to be persuaded that's fine.
    I suppose, by persuaded you mean agree with you. Look, the thing is I'm more or less the commentator in this debate. I mainly right now am pointing out flaws in arguments I see since well JDJacket, LDSman, Nah and others have given sources up for people to read and they can arguably debate their points better with sources than me. I'm critiquing your argument, rather than just giving my own opinion.

    Quote:
    [My reply to your second to most recent post]
    If you're going to claim that something doesn't work well, then I'd ask you bring up a base and stuff to support it.
    ---
    I suggest you either bring something to the table and construct an argument, or at least try and understand where the other side is coming from. That's something important to a debate and overall finding a solution. Understand where both sides are coming from so a proper solution can be found.
    And the times I was harsh, were in regards to my assessment on how you were behaving. What you seem to not get is that when I critique your argument, I don't necessarily share my own thoughts, because shocker, I'm on your argument. Your points, your base, your tennis field. I haven't disclosed my opinion on gun control too much in this thread whereas you have made it abundantly clear you are for it. And instead of coming up with counters and new points you seem to cherrypick individual cases and seem to think that adds to your points. Which, sorry, it doesn't unless you link it to a pattern that can be a base and evidence of what you have.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    There was nothing disrespectful in my post toward any member here so I don't see any issue or call for you to say I'm hellbent and all of that.
    Love, the strawman you sent my way so I can burn it. I believe you're referring to this.

    Quote:
    Like, I think it's fair to say that you're hellbent on thinking that gun control is a must and aren't even wanting to actual converse about it (kinda like when you made that comment regretting brining it up because others with different opinions brought their stuff up and things to back it up. That goes to all sides BTW)
    and/or this
    Quote:
    I don't want to sound like a dick, but I honestly get a feeling of spite from that comment. I'm fine with debating you as much as the others, but doing that at some group with a good amount of stretches and assuming that everything will be perfect if "the good guys" rules are enforced, then everything will be fine.
    When did I say you were being disrespectful? The whole "pot shot" at some group with a good amount of stretches was my critique of your little "joke" and the impressions I got from it. I didn't say it was downright disrespectful nor that it was bad that it was, I was addressing how I thought it was out of spite due to no one listening and how I'd rather you debate than using that alone as your base.


    The "hellbent" comment was in regards to your own pushing narrative that doesn't address what anyone else is saying. You can keep trucking on all you want, but until you refute the stuff others have brought, you won't get far. Scientific theory needs only one margin of disproof against it to put it into more question than it was prior. Unless that is addressed, it cannot be treated as fact. Same goes for your points and whatnot. Refute the claims and counter the points.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    Really though
    minor nitpick here, but this phrase honestly is overdone and frankly isn't the best one to use when talking to someone seriously.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    I do think that at this point the burden of proof is on people who are against gun control since we're seeing daily how much gun violence there is in America and the biggest differences between America and similar countries when it comes to gun violence is the relative lack of it elsewhere and the the lack of gun control in America.
    First off,
    Citation f******* needed,
    second I do believe there are enough stuff supplied in this thread you can look at to wet your whistle. Frankly, I find it sad that you think evidence should be brought to you instead of, you know, going to the links they supply. Like, it honestly aggrivates me the lazy aspects of expecting everyone to cater to your "wants" in regards to evidence instead of either going to their sources they site or looking up the other sides argument yourself. Broadening your view on the topic makes you more fluent in it as well as gives you a birds eye view of the methods and prospects of you and your opponent's sides.


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    Like, I shouldn't have to continue to provide more evidence at this point.
    Oh, yes your wonderful evidence.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    Okay, so in recent years, people at concerts, schools, churches, and other places have been shot at and killed. Even congressmen have been shot at and some killed. In the past even presidents have been shot at (and some killed). What then do you think would have to happen before America changes its attitude toward guns?

    This is obviously a response to the school shooting in Parkland, Florida where at the moment 17 people have been killed. Read more about it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43066226
    Wow, you can recount historical events and current events regarding shootings, now tell me how America is so obviously fu***** up with this to the point where their currently instated (and sometimes not followed) laws are failing the general public? Can you perhaps show some statistics or something other things than just your word and one article to BBC on a shooting after Parkland?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    [in response to my first post to you]

    [first was an answer to a question I asked]
    The attitude toward guns, i.e., gun laws, gun accessibility, and general feelings and attitudes regarding guns.

    [second was a twisting the tables on LDSman's comment]
    Our thoughts and prayers go out to all those victims of gun violence in Australia, Japan, England, and elsewhere. When will the senseless violence end?
    Did you forget the evidence at this part oh wait, it probably is further down the road. Saving the best for last and all.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    [in response to my follow up regarding how you didn't answer my question and a presumtion on what you could mean]

    The viewpoint that guns make us safer. Evidence overwhelmingly shows that guns don't make us safer. And please don't anyone ask for me to provide the proof just so you can ignore it. I'm not falling for that tactic. The evidence is readily available. Just google "gun violence statistics" and steer away from political websites.

    Also, the viewpoint that guns are a right, which is a conflation of the right to defend oneself with the above misconception, i.e., that guns are the best way to protect oneself.
    Okay, no evidence here at the moment. I mean, you say there's evidence, but so far haven't showed anything save for...news...on a shooting....okay but probably later.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    [Responding to Nah's two questions.]

    a) The states with least strict gun purchasing laws have the highest gun death ratio to population.

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

    For example, the 5 highest gun death rates were (per 100,000 people, based on 2016 data): Alaska (23.3), Alabama (21.5), Louisiana (21.3), Mississippi (19.9), and Oklahoma (19.6). The lowest were Connecticut (4.6), Hawaii (4.5), New York (4.4), Rhode Island (4.1), and Massachusetts (3.4).

    b) Bump stocks are parts that can be added to a semi-automatic weapon to make it shoot as fast as an automatic weapon. It's what the shooter in Las Vegas last year used.

    Luckily, it looks like there is a chance to get those restricted/removed/outlawed/etc. since the NRA apparently doesn't sell very many of them and is looking for some good PR with a token effort.
    Ah finally some evidence...too bad JDJacket and LDSman brought things up as well as brought other studies, that you haven't even addressed while JDJacket addressed your source. But perhaps later you bring up some evidence or address someone else's points against your evidence, oh my bad, I mean Points. Evidence is stuff to be used to support a point, and if it's in jeapordy or proven not to support your point alone, then it isn't evidence to a beneficial degree.

    but the next part I'm sure, oh wait we get to your little "dark joke" that I address....okay, so out of all that from what I see as of least 5 responses prior to the one I addressed and your latest one, only 2 have had anything remotely evidencesk, and one was merely news and the other was addressed by others.

    Oh wait, actually there was something you brought up, in your latest comment no less.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Esper View Post
    The evidence is all the dead people at the hands of gun violence.
    ……………
    are you starting to see what I mean? Look I have no problem with you wanting gun control. I have no problem with you hating shootings like you do. I don't like them either. I know I've been sounding like a jerk in this, but that's because I'm honestly running out of ways to explain to you that what you are giving isn't sufficient or has been dealt with by others. Plus, you could try to refute the claims and sources given by others.

    If you read this far down, know I have no malicious or condescending feelings towards you. I think everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion as it is said at the top of the debate screen. If anything I have said in this comment is wrong or you notice something, I'd be fine talking it over. But when I say, "I think you're hellbent" I think you are just here so that others will agree. This was evident later in the thread where you regret making it. A proper discussion and debate was happening, and yet you regret making it. Like...do you even care to debate with the peeps here?

    Opinions and whatnot are fine, but when you argue policy and facts you need to play by those rules. You can't just trust the words of the dead, you need to show the numbers. You can't just recount or say some instances you remember, you need to show a pattern that supports what you say. You can't just show a thing to bolster your point that is eventually refuted and still count it.

    Look, I want you to better yourself at doing this and being able to bolster your points. However, the big issue I have isn't with your opinion, but your lack of wanting to listen to the other sides or understand their sources and things provided. Listening and analyzing doesn't mean agreeing and to everyone that has the mindset, "I'll never change my mind on this," I honestly think is an unhealthy thing to have. You want to believe in something true right? Something that is beneficial and proper?

    Well tell me then (this is an example not related to the debate)
    If you have an opinion on a course of action and all the facts point to the other course of action yet you still say that "this course of action is what we need and is better" then I'm sorry...but that's not how it works. I have opinions that go against what facts say sometimes and to that I need to be real. Same for everyone. You don't need to change your opinion, but if you are going to argue the point's validity you need to support it. You need to show that this is something we do need to do and illustrate how it is indeed the right or better choice. If not, then don't be surprised if people laugh in your face or say "facts not feelings" or whatnot.

    The thing is feelings are important, but when it comes to policy and national affecting rules, then you need to debate on this. The gun debate isn't a debate about morality...it's about a debate regarding stopping/minimizing deaths related to mash shootings and possibly other criteria. It honestly annoys me that people think that because you disagree with a notion, that means you can plant your feet in the ground and not even try to understand or see the other perspective. I don't accuse anyone of doing this, but it honestly needs to be put out that if you are going to debate, you need to be able to have a more objective view.

    One more thing, even if I was the scummiest thing ever, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Even if I go against what I say that doesn't mean what I say is wrong. In this debate you address the argument, not the debater. I say, Esper and everyone here can make good points; it doesn't matter who makes them or whatnot. I look forward to your growth in this Esper as well as this debate to be continued (or concluded) in a civil manner.

    I wish you well
    Reply With Quote
      #153    
    Old May 24th, 2018 (8:21 AM).
    Esper's Avatar
    Esper Esper is offline
     
    Join Date: Jun 2009
    Location: California
    Posts: 10,761
    There was something in that tl;dr post about the need to have sources and evidence. Here's some that show there's more gun deaths (homicide or otherwise) per capita in the USA compared to other developed countries.



    https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

    And some that show how prevalence of guns has a corresponding effect on gun deaths. a.k.a. more guns, more gun deaths.



    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nah View Post
    i don’t think that his problem is so much your tone or presentation as it is your refusal to engage in discussion on the topic beyond “ but look at all the dead people tho”
    but look at all the dead people tho
    __________________
    Reply With Quote
      #154    
    Old May 24th, 2018 (2:48 PM).
    Vragon2.0's Avatar
    Vragon2.0 Vragon2.0 is offline
       
      Join Date: Mar 2018
      Posts: 83
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Esper View Post
      snip snip
      Cool, glad you brought some sources and that. I'll sit this one out and all and see how everyone goes, though I will say that "look at all the dead people tho" needs to at least take into consideration other factors. I'd have to review your charts for myself and whatnot, but eh.

      Thanks for providing these things and all.
      __________________

      “I’ve been to places I wouldn’t have visited before. I get to see different things, which is important. It gives me new experiences to draw from.” ~Hidetaka Miyazaki [creator of Bloodborne]
      Reply With Quote
        #155    
      Old May 24th, 2018 (8:47 PM).
      gimmepie's Avatar
      gimmepie gimmepie is offline
      • GT
      • EO
       
      Join Date: May 2012
      Location: Australia
      Age: 22
      Gender: Male
      Nature: Mild
      Posts: 17,363
      Quote:
      Originally Posted by Vragon2.0 View Post
      Cool, glad you brought some sources and that. I'll sit this one out and all and see how everyone goes, though I will say that "look at all the dead people tho" needs to at least take into consideration other factors. I'd have to review your charts for myself and whatnot, but eh.

      Thanks for providing these things and all.
      What other factors? It's a simple question of "does increased access to firearms increase the likelihood of death by firearm."

      Yes. Having more guns around absolutely will increase the odds of people dying via gun.
      __________________
      Reply With Quote
        #156    
      Old May 25th, 2018 (6:20 AM).
      Nah's Avatar
      Nah Nah is offline
       
      Join Date: Nov 2013
      Age: 25
      Gender: Female
      Posts: 12,211
      some things in life are not as simple as one would like to believe

      Something to keep in mind is that the USA has the 3rd largest population in the world. Last I checked it's at about 320 million people right now. Canada? The UK? Australia? Finland? All have a fraction of the population of the United States. We have states that are as big or bigger than, either in geographic size, population, or both, some countries in the world.

      If you look at the FBI's database, you'll see that California has the most homicides of all the states in this country (majority of those committed with a gun). California is also one of the states in the country with, iirc, strictest gun laws. But it wouldn't really be correct to simply say that "oh gun laws don't work because California" either, as the high number of homicides is likely more of a factor of California's massive population (more than 30 million people live in that state, and it's the most populous state in the nation).

      So naturally because of the massive population, there's going to be more of....basically everything. A bigger bag of skittles is almost certainly going to have more of each color than a smaller bag of skittles.

      Then there's the matter of what kinds of gun laws should be put into place that the US doesn't have already? And then actually enforcing these laws (at least one of the televised shootings in the past year was committed by someone who under U.S. law never should have been able to buy them in the first place). On top of that, how do you get our government to do literally anything at all about the problem (as they seem to not be interested in pursuing any proposed solution presented by any side of this)? What about crime?

      And then, ultimately the better (but much more difficult) solution is to get people to not want to murder each other to begin with.
      __________________
      Nah ンン
      “No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."
      Reply With Quote
        #157    
      Old May 28th, 2018 (7:33 AM).
      BronzeHeart92's Avatar
      BronzeHeart92 BronzeHeart92 is offline
         
        Join Date: Jun 2017
        Location: Finland
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Bold
        Posts: 120
        Call it values dissonance but it's indeed my humble opinion that Americans are taking freedom too far. How is it that we Europeans won't need gun laws like yours? Well, we do place a great value on freedom but at the same time it's important to know which rights to grant to people in first place. Is restricting certain freedoms for the benefit of collective whole something you can't wrap your heads around?
        Reply With Quote
          #158    
        Old May 29th, 2018 (12:40 AM).
        gimmepie's Avatar
        gimmepie gimmepie is offline
        • GT
        • EO
         
        Join Date: May 2012
        Location: Australia
        Age: 22
        Gender: Male
        Nature: Mild
        Posts: 17,363
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Nah View Post
        some things in life are not as simple as one would like to believe

        Something to keep in mind is that the USA has the 3rd largest population in the world. Last I checked it's at about 320 million people right now. Canada? The UK? Australia? Finland? All have a fraction of the population of the United States. We have states that are as big or bigger than, either in geographic size, population, or both, some countries in the world.

        If you look at the FBI's database, you'll see that California has the most homicides of all the states in this country (majority of those committed with a gun). California is also one of the states in the country with, iirc, strictest gun laws. But it wouldn't really be correct to simply say that "oh gun laws don't work because California" either, as the high number of homicides is likely more of a factor of California's massive population (more than 30 million people live in that state, and it's the most populous state in the nation).

        So naturally because of the massive population, there's going to be more of....basically everything. A bigger bag of skittles is almost certainly going to have more of each color than a smaller bag of skittles.

        Then there's the matter of what kinds of gun laws should be put into place that the US doesn't have already? And then actually enforcing these laws (at least one of the televised shootings in the past year was committed by someone who under U.S. law never should have been able to buy them in the first place). On top of that, how do you get our government to do literally anything at all about the problem (as they seem to not be interested in pursuing any proposed solution presented by any side of this)? What about crime?

        And then, ultimately the better (but much more difficult) solution is to get people to not want to murder each other to begin with.
        You do make good points but, I fail to see how having less guns available doesn't result in less death - by accident or intent - via guns despite this. On top of that, the theory breaks down when you look at New York compared to say, Chicago. New York is several times larger than Chicago but has less violent crime. Sydney is bigger than every US city by some margin, New York excluded, and has much less gun violence. Size doesn't necessarily mean more violence. However, less access to firearms will always mean a reduction in gun deaths.
        __________________
        Reply With Quote
          #159    
        Old May 29th, 2018 (4:48 AM).
        Nah's Avatar
        Nah Nah is offline
         
        Join Date: Nov 2013
        Age: 25
        Gender: Female
        Posts: 12,211
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
        You do make good points but, I fail to see how having less guns available doesn't result in less death - by accident or intent - via guns despite this. On top of that, the theory breaks down when you look at New York compared to say, Chicago. New York is several times larger than Chicago but has less violent crime. Sydney is bigger than every US city by some margin, New York excluded, and has much less gun violence. Size doesn't necessarily mean more violence. However, less access to firearms will always mean a reduction in gun deaths.
        The point I was trying to make wasn't really about (population) size, but rather just what I said in the first sentence--that I think that this issue and it's solution(s) are not as simple as anyone wants to believe.

        It kind of seems that (some) people think that all that has to happen is that the US passes more gun-related legislation (and again, what specifically is needed?) and in like a year or two we'll all be sitting around the campfire telling ghost stories about The Scary Days When People Got Killed By Guns in America. But is that really enough? To go back to the example of New York/Chicago/Sydney, ok, sure, New York and Sydney are bigger than Chicago but have less violent crime. But the reason really just as simple as and only due to a difference in gun laws and/or gun ownership? Does the potential really not exist for there to be other factors that may, at least in part, explain the difference?

        And regarding "less guns available", what's the plan for dealing with all the ones legally owned in the country? What about already illegally made and purchased guns?
        __________________
        Nah ンン
        “No, I... I have to be strong. Everyone expects me to."
        Reply With Quote
          #160    
        Old May 30th, 2018 (7:24 PM).
        TheGhostHunter's Avatar
        TheGhostHunter TheGhostHunter is offline
        Pokemon Trainer and Ghostbuster
           
          Join Date: Nov 2016
          Location: Lavender Town
          Age: 18
          Gender: Female
          Nature: Jolly
          Posts: 104
          Well, some lady just blamed *ahem* mature content for shootings. I don't understand how watching an adult film makes one a murderous maniac. People are crazy.
          __________________
          "Never say 'Who's there?'! Don't you watch horror movies? It's a death wish! You might as well come out to investigate a strange noise or something."

          Oh wait, that's me. :wink-right-eye:
          Reply With Quote
            #161    
          Old June 1st, 2018 (4:16 PM).
          TimmyTom's Avatar
          TimmyTom TimmyTom is offline
          TimmyTom
             
            Join Date: May 2018
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Timid
            Posts: 23
            They way I see it is that if you restrict legal gun ownership or even disallow it then people have no way of defending themselves against those who illegally obtain guns, which I feel will increase the casualty rate even more. If we disallow gun ownership we will see a huge surge guns on the black market which isn't really tackling the problem of stopping people from having weapons. That brings me to my next point; where there is a will there is a way and that is especially applicable to murderous intent. Take away the guns people will use knives. Take those away and people will get creative maybe even in ways we don't want to encourage. As for a solution, I don't really know because I haven't really studied this field but I have a feeling it lies in increased security and precautions.
            __________________
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            FC: 2982-1684-4645
            IGN: Asznee

            Check Out My YouTube Channel!



            Name: Butterfree?
            Adopt one yourself! @Pokémon Orphanage
            Reply With Quote
              #162    
            Old June 1st, 2018 (6:00 PM). Edited June 1st, 2018 by gimmepie.
            gimmepie's Avatar
            gimmepie gimmepie is offline
            • GT
            • EO
             
            Join Date: May 2012
            Location: Australia
            Age: 22
            Gender: Male
            Nature: Mild
            Posts: 17,363
            Quote:
            Originally Posted by TimmyTom View Post
            They way I see it is that if you restrict legal gun ownership or even disallow it then people have no way of defending themselves against those who illegally obtain guns, which I feel will increase the casualty rate even more. If we disallow gun ownership we will see a huge surge guns on the black market which isn't really tackling the problem of stopping people from having weapons. That brings me to my next point; where there is a will there is a way and that is especially applicable to murderous intent. Take away the guns people will use knives. Take those away and people will get creative maybe even in ways we don't want to encourage. As for a solution, I don't really know because I haven't really studied this field but I have a feeling it lies in increased security and precautions.
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/08/12/inside-the-black-market-for-guns/#1a40c8ae181e

            Actually, guns on the black market are more expensive than legally owned guns already. Now factor in supply and demand. Pretty much every black market gun probably begins its life as a legal firearm at some point. Thug McThugperson down the street doesn't have their own private firearm manufacturing gig. If you limit the number of legal firearms you're not only already lessening the number of weapons already available, you're also making them harder to obtain for black market sale which increases their value even further. Further more, if the black market is pretty much the only way you're going to get your hands on the kind of weapon you want, you'll be paying even more still because the person selling can charge whatever they want. Where else will you go? The sheer cost of purchasing an illegal weapon can be enough to prevent someone from committing a crime - or at the least can dramatically lessen the scale.

            Keeping in mind that this is ignoring that the majority of shootings and suicides are committed using weapons bought legally (I'm pretty sure there's a link earlier in the thread explaining this one, unless that was the previous GC thread). As for knives or more experimental weaponry, knives are a hell of a lot easier to survive and to stop if you yourself are unarmed. Experimental weapons like explosives are much more conspicuous and are much more likely to fail.

            Better gun control definitely won't remove all guns ever, but it definitely will help.
            __________________
            Reply With Quote
              #163    
            Old June 2nd, 2018 (2:55 PM).
            LDSman LDSman is offline
               
              Join Date: Dec 2017
              Posts: 74
              Quote:
              Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
              https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/08/12/inside-the-black-market-for-guns/#1a40c8ae181e

              Actually, guns on the black market are more expensive than legally owned guns already. Now factor in supply and demand. Pretty much every black market gun probably begins its life as a legal firearm at some point. Thug McThugperson down the street doesn't have their own private firearm manufacturing gig. If you limit the number of legal firearms you're not only already lessening the number of weapons already available, you're also making them harder to obtain for black market sale which increases their value even further. Further more, if the black market is pretty much the only way you're going to get your hands on the kind of weapon you want, you'll be paying even more still because the person selling can charge whatever they want. Where else will you go? The sheer cost of purchasing an illegal weapon can be enough to prevent someone from committing a crime - or at the least can dramatically lessen the scale.

              Keeping in mind that this is ignoring that the majority of shootings and suicides are committed using weapons bought legally (I'm pretty sure there's a link earlier in the thread explaining this one, unless that was the previous GC thread). As for knives or more experimental weaponry, knives are a hell of a lot easier to survive and to stop if you yourself are unarmed. Experimental weapons like explosives are much more conspicuous and are much more likely to fail.

              Better gun control definitely won't remove all guns ever, but it definitely will help.
              I like your link. Especially this part:
              Quote:
              Nevertheless, there is a moral to the story. The basic lesson I drew from meeting the ATF agents is they’re never going to get all the bad guys’ guns—even in London where handguns are completely banned the bad guys often have handguns. Instead, what cops need to do is go after the bad guys. As they do, they need to respect the good peoples’ right to own and carry guns. When they do this the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners become part of the solution to making the streets safer.

              As he walked me out of the ATF’s Manhattan office Agent Mulham said, “I don’t care if a guy like you has a million guns. What I’m after are the bad guys and their guns.”
              Reply With Quote
                #164    
              Old June 2nd, 2018 (6:07 PM).
              gimmepie's Avatar
              gimmepie gimmepie is offline
              • GT
              • EO
               
              Join Date: May 2012
              Location: Australia
              Age: 22
              Gender: Male
              Nature: Mild
              Posts: 17,363
              Quote:
              Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
              I like your link. Especially this part:
              You mean the one part that expresses personal opinion not fact?
              I never said that gun control will remove all firearms, I said it will help.
              __________________
              Reply With Quote
                #165    
              Old June 4th, 2018 (10:17 AM).
              JDJacket's Avatar
              JDJacket JDJacket is offline
              Electric Jacket
                 
                Join Date: Oct 2016
                Location: Multipliers. Amplifiers.
                Gender: Male
                Nature: Quiet
                Posts: 1,111
                Quote:
                Originally Posted by gimmepie View Post
                Keeping in mind that this is ignoring that the majority of shootings and suicides are committed using weapons bought legally (I'm pretty sure there's a link earlier in the thread explaining this one, unless that was the previous GC thread).

                . . . knives are a hell of a lot easier to survive and to stop if you yourself are unarmed. Experimental weapons like explosives are much more conspicuous and are much more likely to fail.
                Pretty much 'no' is the answer to nearly everything you've stated here.

                FBI, I choose you! https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-20.

                I'm going to drop the FBI's UCR data table. A cursory glance will tell you that even the combined might of the rifle and the shotgun pale in comparison to the almighty sword (knives and stabbing weapons). The count of stabbing deaths; you can go through the years if you like, but I assure you that the difference is only in count and not a difference in ratio (meaning there has always been more stabbings than shootings when up against rifles and shotguns).

                "So it looks like you're trying to ban rifles . . ." - Clippy

                Now, let us review the trials and tribulations of bringing up the knee jerk "Legal weapons do most of the killing".

                I will, again, use the FBI which states that findings across the nation (United States) find: "Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities, according to law enforcement officials throughout the nation. Typical gang-related crimes include alien smuggling, armed robbery, assault, auto theft, drug trafficking, extortion, fraud, home invasions, identity theft, murder, and weapons trafficking."

                https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/pressrel/press-releases/national-gang-threat-assessment-issued

                Before you respond and say that doesn't include anyone else only the FBI: "The following agencies contributed to the report: the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance; Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Department of Justice, Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force; Drug Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Federal Bureau of Prisons; National Drug Intelligence Center; National Gang Intelligence Center; Office of National Drug Control Policy, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas; United States Army Criminal Investigations Division; United States Customs and Border Protection; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; United States Marshals Service; numerous sate and local law enforcement agencies; and the Canada Border Service Agency."

                If you feel lucky and think this is a fluke (a small, flat parasitic worm) let's use another governmental source: https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx.

                Now, if we look at the numbers provided and the information given to us this report states: "Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant."

                Now, Pie, I know you know that the vast majority of gang members are prior felons. I also know you know that felons cannot own any firearm whatsoever legally. Because I've told you this. Multiple times. But, let's chalk it up to shoddy memory.

                Even if we conclude that 80% of all homicides are gang and/or drug related, we can be sure that the vast majority of gang members that have been in prison for any amount of time are unable to purchase a firearm legally.

                Now, you've never bought a gun. The process for purchasing any gun in the united states through legal channels nets you a federal background check. This is federally mandated. If your check comes back and they say "Don't sell this individual a firearm of any kind) and you sell one to them anyways, you lose your license, get fined and get sentenced if and where applicable because this is a felony.

                What else . . ? Ah, there also was a study regarding the survival rates between stabbing and gunshot victims to be roughly averaged (by Penn. State). But even studies that claim as such (and conversely, those that claim the contrary) are almost always dubious and tend to waver either or, every other year or so.

                Also, these studies don't account for caliber used or type of knife used as far as I've been able to track them. There also doesn't seem to be a general concensus on whether or not to even group like victims together.

                If, for example, you get stabbed in the leg and I get shot in the gut. I die. You don't. This data is skewed. These studies count a stabbing as a stabbing and a gunshot as a gunshot.

                The opposite is equally true. You get stabbed in the leg and die and I get shot in the gut and live. Silly. It doesn't tend to matter that the wounded area is different and less or more vital.

                The very idea of even comparing this data is ridiculous. Body types, age, area affected (stabbed or shot), time taken to arrive at the hospital all take a factor in the victim's survival chances.

                Regardless, arguing that knives are less deadly isn't a very good argument to take away my rights, because as it is written, that's what they are: a right.

                Also, if we boil it down, knives do tend to kill more people than rifles and shotguns combined so why not ban them first?

                If the argument is that rifles can kill more people faster, why do you care whether during the course of a year more people die in a single day than overall?

                Because to me, trying to solve crime that happens in a single day is backwards and doesn't lessen the crime through the rest of the year. What should be done about the criminals?

                Criminals and felons commit the vast majority of homicides and other violent crime (US Associated). This is fact. The question isn't what is lethal or not (as evidenced by the distinct near 10:1 ratio in favor of knives over rifles/shotguns) but how to combat that criminal rate.
                __________________
                Reply With Quote
                  #166    
                Old June 5th, 2018 (12:14 PM). Edited June 5th, 2018 by LDSman.
                LDSman LDSman is offline
                   
                  Join Date: Dec 2017
                  Posts: 74
                  Interestingly enough, I’m not finding actual hard data on black market price ranges. Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that handguns range from $50 for older, crappy handguns or guns with a history, Ie homicides, to above market value. Higher prices apply to new guns and are also dependent on how the gun was obtained. In other words, a stolen gun will be cheaper that a straw purchased gun than a gun that is smuggled into an area.
                  Reply With Quote
                    #167    
                  Old June 6th, 2018 (7:56 AM). Edited June 6th, 2018 by MortalPhoenix.
                  MortalPhoenix's Avatar
                  MortalPhoenix MortalPhoenix is offline
                     
                    Join Date: Jun 2018
                    Location: USA
                    Gender: Male
                    Nature: Serious
                    Posts: 48
                    This debate is focusing too much on the Guns, and not enough on why people believe that using violence in the first place is necessary. Pretty much, this debate is focusing on the symptoms and not the cause. If you nip the problem in the bud, then you will resolve the issue.

                    "Advance Peace interrupts gun violence in American urban neighborhoods by providing transformational opportunities to young men involved in lethal firearm offenses and placing them in a high-touch, personalized fellowship—the Peacemaker Fellowship™.

                    By working with and supporting a targeted group of individuals at the core of gun hostilities, Advance Peace bridges the gap between anti-violence programming and a hard-to-reach population at the center of violence in urban areas, thus breaking the cycle of gun hostilities and altering the trajectory of these men’s lives.

                    Advance Peace works with both public and community-based stakeholders to establish responsive community-driven strategies that achieve high-impact outcomes for those caught in the cycle of urban gun violence."

                    https://www.advancepeace.org/about/the-solution/

                    A solution that can reduce gun violence without having to take away guns.
                    Reply With Quote
                      #168    
                    Old June 10th, 2018 (7:27 AM).
                    LDSman LDSman is offline
                       
                      Join Date: Dec 2017
                      Posts: 74
                      Quote:
                      Originally Posted by MortalPhoenix View Post
                      This debate is focusing too much on the Guns, and not enough on why people believe that using violence in the first place is necessary. Pretty much, this debate is focusing on the symptoms and not the cause. If you nip the problem in the bud, then you will resolve the issue.

                      "Advance Peace interrupts gun violence in American urban neighborhoods by providing transformational opportunities to young men involved in lethal firearm offenses and placing them in a high-touch, personalized fellowship—the Peacemaker Fellowship™.

                      By working with and supporting a targeted group of individuals at the core of gun hostilities, Advance Peace bridges the gap between anti-violence programming and a hard-to-reach population at the center of violence in urban areas, thus breaking the cycle of gun hostilities and altering the trajectory of these men’s lives.

                      Advance Peace works with both public and community-based stakeholders to establish responsive community-driven strategies that achieve high-impact outcomes for those caught in the cycle of urban gun violence."

                      https://www.advancepeace.org/about/the-solution/

                      A solution that can reduce gun violence without having to take away guns.
                      This group doesn’t nip the problem in the bud, they intervene after the violence starts, provide what amounts to bribes for good behavior and then promises to not talk to the police if they uncover evidence that their fellows are the perpetrators of gun violence. Didn’t at least one of these groups get busted because their felon was running gangs while in the program?
                      Reply With Quote
                        #169    
                      Old June 10th, 2018 (7:35 AM). Edited June 10th, 2018 by MortalPhoenix.
                      MortalPhoenix's Avatar
                      MortalPhoenix MortalPhoenix is offline
                         
                        Join Date: Jun 2018
                        Location: USA
                        Gender: Male
                        Nature: Serious
                        Posts: 48
                        Quote:
                        Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
                        This group doesn’t nip the problem in the bud, they intervene after the violence starts, provide what amounts to bribes for good behavior and then promises to not talk to the police if they uncover evidence that their fellows are the perpetrators of gun violence. Didn’t at least one of these groups get busted because their felon was running gangs while in the program?


                        WHAT THE ADVANCE PEACE PEACEMAKER FELLOWSHIP IS NOT

                        • Payment to stop shooting. The Stipend is awarded for performance of responsibilities articulated above, period.
                        • A “get-out-of-jail-free” card. If law enforcement brings a case against any of the Fellows, there is no protection
                        against arrest or prosecution. The AP program is designed to fill the gap where prosecution does not occur. While the suspected “firearm offender” is not in custody, AP will continue to work with him or her.
                        • An anti-gang program. AP is focused exclusively on those at the center of firearm hostilities, not others who may be affiliated with them. Not all suspected “firearm offenders” are members of gangs, and not all gang members are suspected “firearm offenders.”
                        • An investigative arm for law enforcement. AP cannot retain its credibility with the Fellows if AP relays incriminating information to police. However, if AP learns that violence may occur at any given time or place, it will
                        alert law enforcement.
                        • Free money for violent individuals. As indicated above, Fellows who do not perform, do not earn.

                        https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/CMO/Gang-Prevention/Advance-Peace/A-Law-Enforcement-Perspective-on-Advance-Peace.pdf?la=en

                        https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-sacramento-paying-gang-members-not-to-kill/
                        Reply With Quote
                          #170    
                        Old June 10th, 2018 (9:59 AM).
                        LDSman LDSman is offline
                           
                          Join Date: Dec 2017
                          Posts: 74
                          Quote:
                          Originally Posted by MortalPhoenix View Post
                          WHAT THE ADVANCE PEACE PEACEMAKER FELLOWSHIP IS NOT

                          • Payment to stop shooting. The Stipend is awarded for performance of responsibilities articulated above, period.
                          I bet one of the responsibilities is “stay out of trouble.” The stipend is explicitly aimed at those suspected of gun violence and is meant to stop the cycle of violence. At its base, it’s payment to stop shooting with conditions added.
                          Quote:
                          • A “get-out-of-jail-free” card. If law enforcement brings a case against any of the Fellows, there is no protection against arrest or prosecution. The AP program is designed to fill the gap where prosecution does not occur. While the suspected “firearm offender” is not in custody, AP will continue to work with him or her.
                          never said there was such a card.

                          Quote:
                          • An investigative arm for law enforcement. AP cannot retain its credibility with the Fellows if AP relays incriminating information to police. However, if AP learns that violence may occur at any given time or place, it will alert law enforcement.
                          so AP will protect offenders if they come across evidence regarding past crimes. And I’m supposed to believe that they won’t protect future offenders?

                          Quote:
                          Free money for violent individuals. As indicated above, Fellows who do not perform, do not earn.
                          Be a good citizen and get paid.

                          What are the fellowship criteria?
                          Reply With Quote
                            #171    
                          Old June 10th, 2018 (12:49 PM).
                          MortalPhoenix's Avatar
                          MortalPhoenix MortalPhoenix is offline
                             
                            Join Date: Jun 2018
                            Location: USA
                            Gender: Male
                            Nature: Serious
                            Posts: 48
                            Quote:
                            Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
                            I bet one of the responsibilities is “stay out of trouble.” The stipend is explicitly aimed at those suspected of gun violence and is meant to stop the cycle of violence. At its base, it’s payment to stop shooting with conditions added.
                            never said there was such a card.

                            so AP will protect offenders if they come across evidence regarding past crimes. And I’m supposed to believe that they won’t protect future offenders?

                            Be a good citizen and get paid.

                            What are the fellowship criteria?
                            I'm quoting it from the link I posted below. The fact you are asking what the criteria of the Fellowship shows that you don't know enough to talk about it.

                            Here, watch this video from the Daily Show about it.

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLiyFumseqQ
                            Reply With Quote
                              #172    
                            Old June 10th, 2018 (1:09 PM).
                            LDSman LDSman is offline
                               
                              Join Date: Dec 2017
                              Posts: 74
                              Quote:
                              Originally Posted by MortalPhoenix View Post
                              I'm quoting it from the link I posted below. The fact you are asking what the criteria of the Fellowship shows that you don't know enough to talk about it.

                              Here, watch this video from the Daily Show about it.

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLiyFumseqQ
                              The link you provided doesn’t list any of the fellowship program criteria.

                              Are you sure you know enough about the program to discuss it?

                              The program has positives and negatives to it. If it works, it does seem like it could prevent repeat offenders from continuing gun violence. However, it doesn’t stop the gun violence from starting and there are indicators that the group will not help law enforcement if they find a participant has committed violence.
                              Reply With Quote
                                #173    
                              Old June 10th, 2018 (1:46 PM).
                              MortalPhoenix's Avatar
                              MortalPhoenix MortalPhoenix is offline
                                 
                                Join Date: Jun 2018
                                Location: USA
                                Gender: Male
                                Nature: Serious
                                Posts: 48
                                Quote:
                                Originally Posted by LDSman View Post
                                The link you provided doesn’t list any of the fellowship program criteria.

                                Are you sure you know enough about the program to discuss it?

                                The program has positives and negatives to it. If it works, it does seem like it could prevent repeat offenders from continuing gun violence. However, it doesn’t stop the gun violence from starting and there are indicators that the group will not help law enforcement if they find a participant has committed violence.
                                "The overall strategy is known to experts as “cognitive behavioral therapy,” or CBT, which basically means helping someone change his thoughts in order to elicit positive action. Studies have shown that CBT is one of the most effective ways to combat crime; in one study, the likelihood of a criminal committing another offense after CBT intervention declined an average of 25 percent or, in the best case, up to 50 percent.

                                In this case, the controversial stipends are but one piece of the CBT strategy. According to the crime and delinquency center’s independent review of Advance Peace, as of 2015 only about 60 percent of the fellows had received stipends — and only after six months, once they’d proven their desire to change. Most of the stipends were between $300 and $700 per month, though the program allows up to $1,000 per month.

                                The stipends serve several purposes, the nonprofit center says. They provide an incentive for young men to participate in the program. They provide an alternative to committing a crime like robbery. And they send a “powerful message to fellows about their worth.”

                                "Homicides in Richmond declined from 47 in 2007 to 11 in 2014. The University of Southern California valued that improvement at more than $500 million."

                                I would say yes. The program is working.

                                http://www.recordnet.com/news/20180113/advance-peace-promise-and-potential
                                Reply With Quote
                                Reply

                                Quick Reply

                                Join the conversation!

                                Create an account to post a reply in this thread, participate in other discussions, and more!

                                Create a PokéCommunity Account

                                Sponsored Links
                                Thread Tools

                                Posting Rules
                                You may not post new threads
                                You may not post replies
                                You may not post attachments
                                You may not edit your posts

                                BB code is On
                                Smilies are On
                                [IMG] code is On
                                HTML code is Off
                                Minimum Characters Per Post: 25

                                Forum Jump


                                All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:02 AM.