Danger, Politics and Opinion follows!!!!

"Burn-Spaz1966-Burn" (burn-spaz1966-burn) 01/17/2016 at 05:14 • Filed to: None

0

43

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DrJohannVegas > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 05:35

1

I see a link, but no opinion, apart from that expressed in the article itself. Either your comments got Kinja’d, or the provocative nature of the headline caused you to lose consciousness mid-post and your now gravity-controlled face plopped onto the “publish” button.

Either way, the facts in that op-ed reflect an important lesson in the modern news cycle (regardless of your position): Don’t believe the hype.

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > DrJohannVegas 01/17/2016 at 05:45

0

Basically we must have intelligent debate.

Flavien Vidal > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 06:11

3

I’m happy in Japan... no guns, no paranoia of “the government” taking over our freedom, no shootings, very few murders, no need to “protect our loved ones”

A couple weeks ago, a guy got his classic car stolen. It made it to national news.

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > Flavien Vidal 01/17/2016 at 06:14

0

Because they have Stiff laws for unlawful weapons possession.

Flavien Vidal > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 06:18

1

hum?? no, because we have NO guns, lawful or not. Cops don’t have guns either. Some intervention police forces do have access to guns if necessary though...

garagemonkee > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 06:20

3

The number of guns in America has increased by more than 50 percent since 1993, and in that same period the gun homicide rate in the United States has dropped by half.

Note that gun ownership rates have also fallen by 40% to about 35% in the 2000s. So fewer people have more guns.

And while there was a huge drop between 1993 and 2000, deaths have been increasing since 2000.

That’s only part of the story, non-fatal gun injuries has increased nearly 50% between 2001 and 2011. It’s thanks to medicine that these are injuries and not deaths.

I generally have not cared much about the politics of gun ownership. I am very liberal but have owned pistols in the past myself, I had a CCW for a time. My feelings have been changing, but where they lie is still in the air, but hiding the fact that violence has been increasing since 2000 by including the years between 1993 and 2000 is a real easy way to obscure the argument.

Flavien Vidal > garagemonkee 01/17/2016 at 06:29

0

Mic drop?? You could lol

samssun > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 07:10

0

The conversation becomes much simpler, and more honest, once you realize this: it’s about control.

And when you vote away parts of the Bill of Rights you don’t personally value, you help create the leviathan that will take the ones you do. 2nd Amendment, 1st, 4th, 5th, or 10th...whatever you’re willing to give up.

samssun > garagemonkee 01/17/2016 at 07:14

0

And yet, all of this violence is happening in a handful of very narrow and specific areas. The majority of counties in the country have zero murders every year.

You basically have two Americas: hyper-violent urban slums, and the rest of the country which is safer than almost anywhere else in the world. Maybe we should focus our efforts there instead of stripping the rights of the 310 million people able to live peacefully.

duurtlang > Flavien Vidal 01/17/2016 at 07:31

2

That’s the way it should be in a civilized country. Having said that, I doubt it’s a realistic goal for the US, given the sheer number (and type of) firearms available legally and illegally, the powerful lobby and the general mindset.

Flavien Vidal > duurtlang 01/17/2016 at 07:36

0

Ooh no, I never meant that it was. The US is fucked when it comes to guns. Far too late...

Slant6 > samssun 01/17/2016 at 08:10

1

Are you saying take the rights of a group of Americans?

I personally think guns in America are never going away. People just won’t have it. We can do our best to prevent these deaths from happening by regulating gun sales and other gun control measures. I know they won’t stop all deaths but they stand a better change at it than everyone having a gun. If you have more guns there is a greater chance of a gun being used, or a gun malfunctioning, or a gun being stolen. It’s just math.

I know you probably don’t give a damn about being politically correct but I’d kick myself if I didn’t try. The “hyper-violent urban slums” comment verges on racism. I know you mentioned no races but we both know what you meant. If you want to “fix” the “hyper-violent urban slums” a great place to start would be dealing with the overwhelming poverty and admitting to and apologizing for the fact that these “ultra-violent urban slums” developed by this countries long history of oppressing minorities into separate neighborhoods.

If you reply please have something intelligent to say. Make it a good back and forth and not a pissing contest. I’m sure you can do this, I have faith in you, but I’ve been disappointed by people in this argument before.

samssun > Slant6 01/17/2016 at 08:40

0

I don’t see how piling more restrictions on people who follow the law will stop the people willing to commit far worse crimes. All it seems to do is create safe working environments for society’s predators. I’ve lived in both 2A friendly and highly restrictive places, and it’s the latter where I was least safe.

As far as the reality of where the violence is, all the PC in the world won’t change facts. I’m sorry you’ve been taught to ignore it and throw the race card, but come visit Chicago and I can show you the half dozen blocks where all 500 murders a year happen. And list the programs that have met every need of everyone living there for decades.

How about we stop paying people not to work? Nobody who works a ten hour day has the energy to go out at night looking for trouble. The majority of violent crime is committed by people with no demands on their time, so why not tackle it from that side? Or we can raise another generation of government dependents, and watch the same neighborhoods rot.

Frenchlicker > samssun 01/17/2016 at 08:52

0

I’ll stop you right there. I live in a fairly rural area and within the past year and a half within a 10 mile radius of my house we’ve had:

1) Double homicide, man shot his children

2)attempted murder resulting in suicide , using a handgun

3)triple homicide and attempt of murder, all with handgun

4) home invasion resulting in home owner being shot, with his own weapon

Before the last couple of years we may have had a homicide once per decade.

Edit: I feel I should also point out that all but one of the firearms were perfectly legal.

davedave1111 > Flavien Vidal 01/17/2016 at 09:41

0

Are you aware that there’s significant scepticism around the official Japanese crime figures? To put it politely, no-one believes that in ten years Japan halved the number of crimes they had: they just halved the number recorded.

davedave1111 > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 09:46

1

God, it’s so dumbass that USians call those calling for greater regulation ‘liberals’. I’m all in favour of stricter regulations where justified, but that’s the exact opposite of liberalism.

Taking a broader view, I often point out to Americans that it’s a complicated question. Clearly tighter gun controls are the first thing for the US to try , but equally clearly there are no guarantees that they’ll work. It seems pretty clear to me, looking at all the different experiments in gun control around the world, that availability of weapons is only a secondary factor.

Incidentally, the US types who label themselves ‘Liberals’ are typically also likely to cheer anyone who calls for the US to be more like Scandinavia - which is ironic here, because in fact the Scandinavians are the European countries with gun ownership levels closest to those of the US.

Mercedes Streeter > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 10:31

0

Honestly, the facts are still there. America has the highest amount of shootings and deaths by a landslide. And interestingly enough, even if you include 9/11, since the 2000s, Americans have killed more Americans than any foreign terrorist since 2000.

How, how is the answer MORE guns? Clearly, adding more guns into the system isn’t working. At bare minimum, we need regulations that slow the crazy sales of guns. After 20 children were killed at Sandy Hook, the FBI processed over 900 thousand new guns. Plus, in lots of situations, you can buy guns at gun shows without a background check. And often, if the FBI can’t finish the background check within three days, you get the gun anyway.

Jesus, you’d think that after 20 kids get slaughtered, you’d think people would say “well, maybe more guns is not the solution!”

Now, before you get all pissy about the second amendment. I’m not saying “ban all guns!” No, I’m saying get a tighter grip on them. America has a crazy gun culture, so outright banning them will be silly. But! If you make it significantly harder for people to get their hands on hardware, then maybe over time, shit will calm down. At this current time, you don’t even need the black market. It’s so easy to legally get a gun.

Many women have to go through a billion hoops to get an abortion.

Many trans people have to wait at least three months or longer to be ELIGIBLE to get hormone replacement therapy. And in many cases, we have to prove that we’re 110% mentally stable before they give us hormones. The gatekeeping is enormous...

Yet, you can go to a gun show and buy an object designed to murder with no questions asked and no waiting.

Once again I’m not saying that we should ban guns, but damn, the answer is most definitely not to increase gun ownership.

duurtlang > davedave1111 01/17/2016 at 10:45

1

Number of firearms available doesn’t tell the whole story. Looking at Scandinavia, like you mentioned, you’ve got a very different situation than the US. Here’s a wiki link to Norwegian firearm legislation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_polit…

They seem rather rational to me.

There’s a clear difference in availability, types, licensing, storage and transportation requirements.

Funktheduck > Flavien Vidal 01/17/2016 at 10:48

0

Actually there are guns in Japan. It’s very difficult to get one and keep possession of it, but there are.

It's interesting that pellet guns are treated the same as firearms in Japan where here anyone 16 or older can buy a pellet gun from anywhere that sells one and all you have to do is provide your proof of age.

davedave1111 > duurtlang 01/17/2016 at 10:50

0

I agree, that was pretty much my point. It’s clearly not just the availability of weapons that matters. I mean, I live not far from one of the highest gun-crime areas of London, and if I really wanted one, I could get hold of a gun inside a few hours; I’m pretty typical, and yet the UK doesn’t have anymuch gun crime.

Flavien Vidal > Funktheduck 01/17/2016 at 10:59

0

Yes I can even get a gun here... sent to me in parts or in a car I import then assembled here from a foreign country. It’s still a long process, for small guns, that only collectors deal with, shooting in the middle of nowhere, under bridges, solely when trains pass by ( don’t ask me how I know it lol).... Nothing even comparable with what goes on in the US. Then again, getting a gun requires to speak english pretty well, which means, in Japan, that you are part of the 1% who can speak something than Japanese. It means you are educated and determined to get a gun.

You are either a fairly rich collector or a Yakuza. You will either never kill anyone or kill other Yakuzas (and we don’t care about that lol)

TheJWT > Flavien Vidal 01/17/2016 at 11:22

0

Between this and the V8 drift cars, Japan is sounding pretty cool right now.

Funktheduck > Flavien Vidal 01/17/2016 at 11:25

0

It really is night and day between the countries with many aspects of society. I like to read the kotaku articles on how things change (like anime and games) before they come stateside because of our puritanical sensibilities. Example: they put a diaper on a previously naked toddler in an anime. America: give us your head shots but cover your boobs.

It's my understanding the yakuza don't even really use guns because it draws so much unwanted attention.

nermal > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 11:52

1

I don’t think guns are the issue as much as the people with them, and what exactly causes them to want to shoot another person. In that light, it’s difficult to get to the root of the problem because every shooting is different, and things get complicated quickly.

The scenario of a child in TX accidentally shooting a sibling while playing with one of their redneck dad’s loaded guns is completely different from whatever gang-related activity is listed in the weekend Chicago shooting report.

Blaming the gun is easy, which is why people do it. Completely removing guns from the US - pretty much not gonna happen. That leaves addressing the reasons why people are shooting each other, and addressing them in different ways because the scenarios are different. Call that one plausible but unlikely, because it wouldn’t make a good news story.

Eric @ opposite-lock.com > Slant6 01/17/2016 at 12:05

0

As a counterpoint: The most violent urban slums in the west haven’t been segregated for almost 70 years now. Initially, some were nothing but the poor that the wealthier members of segregated groups left behind, resulting in concentrated poverty, drug addicted, and violent people.

The problem is that it isn’t racial and that belief is painfully ignorant. This myth is based on the mass media’s agenda, not on any facts. In reality, it happens for all marginalized people in the country. Most western countries have laws in place that concentrate poverty, from rent assistance to government housing. Rural areas are also hard hit because they have suffered the exact same thing. Smart people with valuable skills leave their poor homes to live in wealthier suburbs and exurbs of major cities.

I’m a prime example of this. My family is very poor working class. My father came from a working class family and my mother from a middle class family (her immediate family being the first generation in her family since they immigrated that wasn’t working in meat packing in the Midwest). I grew up in a ghetto suburb of Los Angeles that was (and still is) rather segregated for social reasons. When people talk about “minority” status, I remind them that I was the minority, coming from one of only three white families in my elementary school. I suffered isolation and violence due to the color of my skin. My childhood friends were members of a new minority for the area - recent immigrants, mostly Chinese. In spite of moving out of there to an all-white ghetto, I’m the only one among my siblings that went to college and the only one that isn’t in a dead end job and/or a drug addict.

My uncle, the only one of my dad’s siblings that had children, has less education than my father and has worked in roughly the same strata of working class jobs as my father. But he got lucky - he got a girl pregnant when he was in high school and ended up married in a shotgun wedding. But he was also lucky because his new wife was the favorite grandchild of her wealthiest grandmother. This grandmother wanted them close so she could see her grandchildren regularly, so she bought them a house in her neighborhood. Although my uncle never made much more than my father (more location than type of work), the free house and periodic cash injections kept the family appearing upper-middle-class. My cousins all went to college and they’re all at least middle class.

I’m the only one of my siblings to move out and stay out, the only one that has lived in a state other than the one my parents moved us to, and I haven’t lived anywhere that wasn’t at least middle class since then. Seeing my family is deeply depressing and it almost invariably involves a handout. My father and brothers call me “moneybags” and have no qualms with using me all they can. I even pay for their cell phones, otherwise there would be no way to contact them. They’re basically suburban hillbillies.

Poverty is not strictly racial, it’s a social and mental health problem that government policy reinforces. Poverty, lack of hope, and all that comes with it is what spawns violence.

Berang > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 14:20

0

If you want to drive a car on public roads, you have to take a test to prove you know how to use it. You have to register it so you can prove you own it. You have to insure it so you can prove that you’ll take some form of responsibility if something goes wrong.

I don’t really care what type or how many guns people own, so long as I know they’re responsible with them, and willing to take responsibility if something goes wrong. Here in Texas we’re part way there, you do need a license for handguns if you want carry them in public, but there is no need to register weapons, nor is there a waiting period for purchasing. And yet I think most gun owners would like to see people taking more responsibility. It’s been a point of contention recently with the introduction of open carry in Texas. Some people didn’t/don’t understand they still need a license to carry, and in general it seems a lot of owners look down on people who feel the need to display their weapons. There is a general want for better education.

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > Flavien Vidal 01/17/2016 at 18:17

0

I disagree.. Japan did not bring Koreans over and use them as slave labor. Then some hundred years later fight a war, (Civil War). Over the Federal Government versus the State Government rights. Oh, Yeah lets free those slaves.

Lets not give them the same opportunity to that all the Koreans as the Japanese Have.

Look up the Number one Race and Sex dying by the Gun in the U.S.

Oh Yeah the most important figure of all.

samssun > Frenchlicker 01/17/2016 at 18:36

0

Right, and those anecdotes were probably the total for the whole county and made the news because they’re so shocking. In Chicago, it barely gets reported because all of that happens every Saturday (and Friday and Tuesday). In 90% of cases it’s by someone with prior felony convictions, meaning it’s illegal for them to buy or hold a gun at the federal, state, and city level.

But honest citizens have to fill out an application for an ID card to own anything (yep, they’ve permitted a Constitutional right in IL), and ask permission any time they want to buy ammo. Think any of Chicago’s 500 murderers ever applied for one?

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > samssun 01/17/2016 at 19:29

0

With Rights come responsibility.

How do you feel about this statement?

Please respond. (What part does,”The Government”, have in insuring that it keeps it’s citizen safe from those who should not have Guns?)

Mentally Ill, Criminals.

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 19:32

0

Thank You to all Replies who addressed the Issues, and not attacking People.

We must get a Majority to agree on a course of action before anything gets passed.

One thing that I got from The State of the Union Address is that we have to have Intelligent Debate from all sides of the Question in order to get something done.

Nothing gets done if we are too busy arguing, “My Way or the Highway”.

What are the issues that cause a Person to think shooting people okay?

Mental Illness?

Lack of a Job that could take care of Them and their Family?

How do we impress on people that want to have Firearms that they a responsibility to their fellow citizens to Be Safe with the Firearms?

Frenchlicker > samssun 01/17/2016 at 19:33

0

Well along that line of thought I can point out a few people that drive with suspended license and it doesn't stop them. However those of us that have proper licenses still have to get license plates and register cars in our own names. It's not that it will always prevent people from doing illegal things, it's that it is harder to do said illegal thing and makes it easier to recognize said thing is illegal for that person.

samssun > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 19:55

0

I agree that individuals have a responsibility to respect others’ rights. I agree that those unwilling or unable to respect others’ rights (juveniles, mentally ill, or convicted of a crime) do not have the full set of rights of other adults. But I disagree that politicians can issue permission slips for Constitutional rights, or take away rights from functioning adults who’ve done nothing to forfeit them.

How would you respond to being told you had to apply for a permit to exercise your 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendment rights? Or told that because some people have whipped up dangerous mobs using words, you’ll only be allowed to say certain things, or limited to quill pens (the Founders never envisioned the internet!), or capped on the number of opinions you’re allowed to express, etc?

samssun > Frenchlicker 01/17/2016 at 20:02

0

I’ve lived in several sanctuary cities where unlicensed drivers are ignored, because politicians pressure the police into turning a blind eye. Driver’s licenses, registration, plates, city stickers, and parking permits are upfront revenue generation, and to make sure millions a year can be ticketed for non-compliance.

But the Constitution doesn’t forbid laws prohibiting free travel, so it’s harder to argue against every new layer of restriction there. 1A and 2A are pretty clear with “shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed”.

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > samssun 01/17/2016 at 21:47

0

Thank You for the response.

(I’m purposely not revealing my beliefs or Bias.) I think that we all have to hear all sides of the Conversation in order to move forward.

Except for this-

If all Gun owners were responsible, there would not be cases of accidental shootings when not in their possession. (Not talking break-ins and theft by someone outside of Household.)

I mean not taking enough steps to keep the firearm out of hands of those three classes of people.

We can’t trust Lawmakers to address this. The Background Check sometimes doesn’t work because of a Backlog. Lawmakers can pass a Law but won’t Fund it to make sure it works.

All those Amendments?

Which other Amendment ends Human Lives if we don’t make sure the individual uses that right responsibly?

I’m in agreement about politicians knee jerking to get re-elected. (Both Major Parties)

So what to you propose to scare the crap out of people that they don’t want to be found not being responsible in their gun ownership?

Frenchlicker > samssun 01/17/2016 at 21:53

0

The constitution may no but I believe there is a list of basic human rights that includes that. However the government and people like to pick and choose rights that are convenient for them. I'd have to say free travel is also a bit more important than right to bear arms. However that is not the argument here. Regardless, what is so wrong with thorough background checks and licensing?

samssun > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/17/2016 at 22:52

0

If you want the ultimate example of a right being mis-used, most of history’s biggest killers (Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao) ended the lives of millions purely with their words. And that doesn’t justify politicians declaring those rights too dangerous for honest people to exercise. Violent criminals refusing to testify lets tens of thousands of gang members stay on the streets to kill again, yet we don’t dismantle the 4th or 5th Amendment.

Accidental firearm deaths are a drop in the bucket, a few hundred a year in a country of 320 million. To put it in perspective, deaths from swimming pools, accidental poisoning, and bathtubs dwarf accidental shootings, but somehow those aren’t considered crises requiring more government overreach.

samssun > Frenchlicker 01/17/2016 at 22:58

0

I’m not arguing that there’s no right to travel freely, I’m saying control freak politicians have piled endless restrictions on it that accomplish nothing but grabbing more revenue from their citizens, and it’s harder to push back because there is no specific Constitutional protection.

Imagine what these same folks would happily do with your 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 10th Amendment rights if they weren’t so encumbered. We shouldn’t be figuring out ways to give them more control over more of our rights, we should be getting them out of the business of micromanaging our lives.

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > samssun 01/17/2016 at 23:44

0

So once they said something, people around them were free to disregard them when they said kill someone?

Or did they say something like that only after they were in power. When they could make people disappear.

So what to you propose to scare the crap out of people that they don’t want to be found not being responsible in their gun ownership?

I’m not saying curb anything. What do you propose we do to make Gun Owners more responsible.

Just like I’m driving down the Highway and everyone becomes a safe and careful driver when there is a Police car on the Highway. They don’t want a ticket so they obey the Law. Maybe its not possible all the time I’m aware of that. But if we could become safer and reduce accidental deaths wouldn’t that be a good thing?

samssun > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/18/2016 at 00:08

0

I see no emergency requiring legal gun owners to have the crap scared out of them. They’re far more law abiding than the average population, and while I’d love to see gun safety training return to schools (along with shooting clubs, so we stop treating them as foreign scary objects to run from), the rate of accidents is consistently lower than plenty of other things that aren’t a crisis.

You might as well ask what laws I want government to pass to scare the crap out of pool, labrador, & Tylenol owners...I don’t! People with an agenda have spewed irrational fear and dishonest claims, when for 95% of the country it’s a non-issue (and in the 5% where it is, we enable criminals while demonizing objects).

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > samssun 01/18/2016 at 19:47

0

pool, labrador, & Tylenol owners.. Hmm apples and oranges. So I can take A pool, labrador and Tylenol to Sandy Hook and kill the same amount of people as the firearms did?

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/18/2016 at 20:01

0

Why can’t people get training, then the gun? Just pass whatever a Security Guard has to pass to guard an Armored Truck?

samssun > Burn-Spaz1966-Burn 01/18/2016 at 22:18

0

You suggested we come down on law-abiding people to “scare the crap out of them” into accident prevention, so I listed a few things whose accidental deaths & injuries dwarf those involving guns.

If you’re going to tackle the safety side, the best remedy is education at a young age, instead of treating guns like scary evil devices to be avoided. But going after honest people who have nothing to do with the hyper-violence of a small part of the population (who don’t care what regs you pile on) makes no sense to me.

It’s like using drunk driving fatalities to argue for 10mph speed limits...only makes sense if your real goal isn’t preventing deaths but targeting car ownership.

Burn-Spaz1966-Burn > samssun 01/19/2016 at 09:05

0

Just up the requirements for possessing something responsibly. If you can’t handle the responsibility, why should you have the right?

Mandatory education. Self policing doesn’t seem to be working. If it was just the Gun Owner who was affected I would say okay. But their irresponsibility is affecting other Citizens with rights of their own.

Also for criminals who use weapons during a crime, Sentencing Guidelines like Japan has.

Increase training if you want to own a firearm legally. (To cut firearms involved in accidental and mass shootings with firearms acquired from a Private home.)

Also for criminals who use weapons during a crime, Sentencing guidelines like Japan has. But then we have to address the issues of why they thought it would be a good idea to break the Law.

I don’t like paying taxes for a revolving door into/ out of Jail and prisons. Plus, imprison enough and the you have overcrowding. Then they have to let them out.

My S/O is disabled and on SSI. Costs a Hell of a lot more to keep a prisoner in Jail a month then my S/O gets a month.

I’m not so sure we are giving the people in those violent areas reasons to stay away from violence and crime. Maybe after my S/O is taken care of I will move down to Oakland or Richmond to live. See what I see.