Yeah i know, depending on who commissioned the study you get two very different 'results'. The difference with the one i linked is its the only independent one done that has not been requested by a pro or anti-gun lobby. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politi ... f_the_laws</a> Transcript of an interview with the author of the study i linked: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.ssaa.org.au/media-monitoring/2008/2008-09-23_researcher-wang-sheng-lee-buy-back-paper.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ssaa.org.au/media-monitoring ... paper.html</a>
Well, fact in the States is (no, I'm not going to freaking google it) that *probably* most crimes involving guns are committed by people who are not licensed in the first place. So no amount of laws, restrictions, anything is going to fix it. Buy backs aren't going to work, because, hello, they're keeping them for a reason! Even amnesty turn ins have little effect. Is there a solution? Probably not right now, unless they start microchipping people and the guns they buy at the same time. Hello, Big Brother? Plus if I buy a gun legally, and live with someone with a valid FOID, with my permission, they can use it. And that still won't touch what is already out there, illegally. I'm going to say once again. The issue with guns in the States is NOT those who hold them legally and are of clear & sound mind. The issue is that people go batshit crazy or obtain illegally, and then commit crimes. Period. It's either mental health issues, or flat out shouldn't have had access in the first place.
Guns in the states have an unnaturally high value based on family heirloom status, precious antique status, and high liquidity with little depreciation. My grandfather's guns aren't going anywhere, because my grandfathers are both dead, they are in good shape and considering they were both veterans and avid hunters, they were a huge piece of their lives. My great-grandfather's muzzle-loader isn't going anywhere, because it's really fucking old, and while it's probably not worth much, it's cool looking and by far the oldest thing in my family. If it's from the 1700's and it has your name on it, you fucking keep it. I am lucky that mine is that old, but the same feeling goes for a 1911 that was carried in Vietnam, for example. I can sell my modern guns for roughly what I paid for them, unless they are fucked up and using them (within reason) doesn't drop the value as drastically as in other items with a similar value. Look at the stats for guns, gold and poverty: they all go together in a redneck handbag, because a gun is a decent investment for a low-income family that can be converted to cash quickly in an emergency, just like shitty, gaudy, obnoxious gold jewelry. So, a gun buyback is a great idea for a country with few guns and plenty of government cash, but the US could never afford to make gun prices at a buyback high enough to entice legal owners like me to give them up. When you do have buybacks in the US, a lot of the guns were unregistered, damaged or simply "found" guns that were likely stolen. Good to have off the streets? Sure. Eliminating a criminal arsenal? Not even close.
Huh, this is interesting. I wonder if it's true? I wonder what all that means if it is? It's an older video, I believe, but something I found today that's interesting. Spoiler
Actual analysis of statistics? Admitting that the real problems behind violent crime are poverty and education in specific areas that have been brutalized (War on Drugs) and neglected (No Child Left Behind) as a result of racist policies? Concentrating resources on the Coloreds? That's not the kind of 'Merica I wanna live in.
Preach it! I too would prefer to pick "The One Known Problem Above All Others" and ban the shit out it. That's guns, in case you didn't know (and if you didn't please go see Superfantastic so he can call you an uncivilized idiot proper). But...I can't do that. At least, I can't if I want to be honest with myself. Like I said a few posts ago, I don't think this is a cookie cutter problem that one thing will fix. The gun argument here went pretty much as I expected it to, and one good article about why it wouldn't work so well went pretty much ignored. Mostly because it said "fuck...this sort of tragedy can't simply 'be prevented'." But many many many people cannot and will not accept that. They feel morally superior by not accepting it. They feel like they're "doing something" when they shout about how "we have to do something!" They lock onto the easiest thing they can see, especially when it's something they really don't understand or give a shit about, and decide that THAT'S the cause of it all and THAT'S what we have to get rid of. Now! OR they say that there needs to be lots more of it, in order to fight fire with fire and everyone should be armed! Unfortunately it's not that easy, either way, but they don't want to hear that because then they feel like they aren't doing anything. And if Facebook posts have taught us anything it's that people HAVE to at least be perceived as doing something. How are they going to feel empowered, morally superior, or properly civilized if they don't? Even supporting the passing of new, and ultimately redundant, laws is doing something. Right? People pray, plead, whine, and insult trying to get their point across. They say things like "We need to have a genuine adult conversation about whether the 2nd amendment is valid in the 21st century, and if so, what, if any, are its limits." As though changing the 2nd amendment will curtail violent crime. As though "gun control" is actually the problem at all. But...at least if we do something about the evil guns, we're doing something. And, again, that's better than nothing. Right? And it's sure as SHIT easier than attempting to "Admit that the real problems behind violent crime are poverty and education in specific areas that have been brutalized (War on Drugs) and neglected (No Child Left Behind) as a result of racist policies? Concentrating resources on the Coloreds?" Because that would take work. That would take effort. And that's certainly not any sort of immediate gratification that comes with passing some new fucking gun law(s). I'm not a gun lover. I'm not a gun hater. Would banning all guns stop violent crime? No. Would arming everyone above the age of 18 stop violent crime? No. Would actually addressing and attempting to improve the specific areas and reasons behind a lot of the violent crime in this country stop all violent crime? No, but I believe it would take a big bite out of it. Including violent crimes with guns. Would doing ANY of that have stopped that wacko from committing the tragedy that spawned this most recent conversation? I can't answer that. And neither can anyone else. But if I’m blaming anything, or anyone, for what happened there that day…it’s him. Even though he's dead and cannot be punished properly like I'm certain many many people would love to watch on the news, I still blame him and him alone for doing what he did to those people.
Yeah this guy knows his guns... Three things he conveniently left out: how the fuck to 1. Enforce anything like that and 2. Pay for everything, and 3. Deal with the millions of "dumb" guns already out there. Also what about concealed carry guns meant to be carried in public places?
It will be a relief for all of you to know that you are arguing over something that didn't really happen. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...wn-newtown-massacre-conspiracy-183530799.html
Four: If the guns can't shoot at people who don't have guns, I hope people who carry for self defense don't mind getting stabbed as they wield their paperweights in the general direction of their attackers. "Thank God for this technologically safe gun!" said the skewered liver. I appreciate that he's getting creative, but we're years away from an XBox kinect small enough to fit on a gun that recognizes who is and isn't holding a baby fast enough to stop a mass shooter when they begin to open fire into a crowd. As far as I know, we're not even to the point where a palm reading James Bond Walther is realistically possible. Are we?
I completely agree with this... I mean I do appreciate how he is thinking outside the box, but bottom line the idea is practical like driving my car to the moon. Interestingly there is a US patent on firearms with biometric skin sensors, and it has been around for awhile too. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.google.com/patents/US6711843" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.google.com/patents/US6711843</a>
Definitely interesting. Might be a decent solution for the issue of unauthorized access in newly produced guns. Hell, you could probably retrofit with relative ease, too. If crimson laser can reproduce every pistol grip around, there's no reason someone couldn't do the same with a biometric grip. As a hypothetical owner, my only concern would be battery charge, but at that point, as the gun owner, if I'm carrying it for self defense a quick battery check before I leave is just as easy and important as making sure the mag is loaded.
I think ease of retrofit can work against this idea too. It's a hypothetical, but could you disable this sort of thing just by swapping or modifying (deliberately damaging parts)? I'd like to see how the biometric system works with the mechanics of the firearm first.
Yeah, I would imagine that the technology for that has existed for some time, the main issues as I can see it would be a)making the system practical and affordable, and b)making it actually workable--by which I mean, the biometric check has to work INSTANTLY and be 100% foolproof.
My favorite part was when he basically accused Morgan of being a foot a soldier in the red coat army. Alex Jones is also an Oklahoma City/911 conspiracy theorist. The guy is fucking nuts. Morgan hardly said anything during the 'debate'. Every time he got half a sentence in Jones started screaming again. I can't help but believe Morgan was thinking, "You're making my argument better than I ever could." I don't know if anyone that angry all the time should be anywhere near a gun.
Yeah, I'm sure it was an accident that they chose that nutjob to represent gun owners. That said, he had Josh Boston (the Marine who wrote the letter to Feinstein) on last night and the president of Gun Owners of America tonight and got pwn3d by both.
Anyone else cringe reading that Marines letter? I mean, I don't want a new assault weapons ban too and I agree with his sentiment but it can off as super misogynistic and Im surprised that outside of your usual sites (Huffpo) no one has brought it up really.
Anytime I hear a veteran spouting off about "We're the ones keeping America free" and using that to attempt to shut down debate, I cringe. Basically, when you pull that card, you're saying that the other person's opinion is unpatriotic and against America or something. It's an ad hominem attack. On the other side, it'd be dismissed as ridiculous. "My brother was killed by gun violence, so I support a total gun ban. And since you didn't lose a family member to gun violence, your opinion is irrelevant." Sounds retarded, right? But suddenly, because a veteran is saying that he fought in the war, that somehow makes his opinions more valid... yeah, no. Either he's right or he's wrong. His combat experience, unless he can specifically point to something about it that has to do with gun control, is irrelevant. This might sound overly pedantic, but it's frustrating to me when people use hardship that is completely irrelevant to a debate to try to shut down other people. Rape victim says something crazy like, "WE SHOULD KILL ALL PEOPLE SUSPECTED OF RAPE" and then, when challenged on it, says "I WAS RAPED, YOU'RE AGAINST RAPE VICTIMS YOU RAPIST SUPPORTER" to avoid actually having to address the issues. Can personal experience give relevant insight into these issues? Definitely. That rape victim, for example, would probably have a LOT of insight as to the problems that victims face reporting the attack and confronting their attacker in the impersonal halls of justice. She'd have some great input as to how to best prosecute rapists and make things easier for victims. But it stops there. In any case, I agree with the Marine... I just despise it when people pull the YOU WEREN'T THERE, MAN card as if it actually does anything of value.
Yeah wow, what a nut job. But to be fair, Piers Morgan had been a pompous asshole on whole the topic. He doesn't invite anyone one that can seriously debate him on any issue, just fringe retards. No wonder he's not taken seriously.