OT: parenting and the santa barbara shooter

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
You didn’t read the first quote completely. It says that gun lobbyists claim ~2.5 million, and that **conservative** estimates by those who are anti-gun say that they are used tens of thousands of times in a year.

The drop in crime over the past couple of decades has more to do with “Three Strikes” and other similar laws, and also with more of a law enforcement focus on gangs, etc. It has nothing to do with fewer guns, IMO, because it would be the law-abiding citizens who would be most likely to get rid of their guns, not criminals.

As for the percentage of gun owners, I think that the percentage of the overall population counts more than households. We’re talking about support for an anti-gun agenda, so it’s the raw population numbers (especially voters) that matters.[/quote]

Actually I did read that. And looked into the claim of 2.5 million per year. It’s a number that’s been pushed by the NRA. The data is more than 15 years old, and it comes from a number ofk different surveys. Some of them ask if the respondent has ever used a gun in self-defense. Some ask if they’ve used a gun in self-defense in the last 5 years. And from those surveys they came up with 2.5 million per year. It’s bogus.

On an annual basis, I suspect that number is in the low thousands. There doesn’t appear to be any recent surveys asking the question directly. 2.5 million per year would be almost 7,000 a day. Yet we almost never hear about them. How can that be possible?

The drop in crime may be in part related to 3 strikes laws, though all states don’t have them. The larger cause is demographics. Men in their late teens to mid-20’s commit most crimes. There are fewer of them now than there were 3 decades ago.

I think you’re right that the percentage of gun owners is more important than homes with guns. Based on a quick review of 4-6 recent surveys, it appears that number is somewhere between 20 and 25%.[/quote]

I think the freak on omits guys said the drop in crime is basically related to roll very wade and less unwanted kids.

[spdrun]

^^^

Damn you, autocorrect!

[Coronita]

…Meanwhile, I’m told Nerf has successfully tapped into the girl’s toy market with the latest “Rebelle” series of toys….By making them pink…..

Dude, guns are in are “culture” from day 1….

“Bang bang, you’re dead….”

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]

It wouldn’t matter if the driver was unlicensed or licensed. The fact would be that they took/borrowed your car (with or without permission) and killed somebody. Should you be held responsible?[/quote]

If he is doing something on your behalf (ie your agent), like picking up your drycleaning or your kids, then you would be responsible.[/quote]

Fine, if a person with a gun owned by me were to do something “on my behalf,” then I would absolutely agree that I should be held liable; but that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about unauthorized use of another person’s weapon.[/quote]

This doesn’t apply to every state, but you can be responsible simply as the owner of a vehicle and you gave permission for a negligent driver to drive your vehicle.

As an owner of a deadly weapon, there’s No reason why you should have less responsibility if your gun was involved in a shooting.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter]
Right, which is why they want to do it piecemeal. First, they enact more “modest” gun control laws like restrictions on types of weapons allowed, and registration — neither of which, BTW, would stop or reduce violence or homicides — because the PTB could begin tracking the movement of weapons. They would have gun buybacks and other programs that would somewhat reduce the number of guns, and gradually, they would get us to a point where we feel that the govt would have the right to know the weapon status of every single citizen and resident in the U.S.

Once they know the weapons status and everything else about us (and they are making HUGE strides in data aggregation on U.S. citizens), then they can go in for the final kill: full confiscation of all weapons that can be used by a resistance or revolutionary movement.

If you can watch what’s been happening over the past few decades (especially as it relates to privacy, data mining and aggregation, laws regarding “domestic terrorism,” etc.) and still feel that the Second Amendment is some how ridiculous or anachronistic, then you’re either naive and/or not paying attention.[/quote]

Yes, you are right, I am naive about this massive conspiracy to strip 60% of America it’s guns… wait, or just 20%…

But let’s just assume there is this conspiracy in play, then gun ownership then is equal to patriotism. I should thank you for your patriotic defense of my liberty then. what about the victims of gun violence? Just martyrs who died for our freedom…

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]
Right, which is why they want to do it piecemeal. First, they enact more “modest” gun control laws like restrictions on types of weapons allowed, and registration — neither of which, BTW, would stop or reduce violence or homicides — because the PTB could begin tracking the movement of weapons. They would have gun buybacks and other programs that would somewhat reduce the number of guns, and gradually, they would get us to a point where we feel that the govt would have the right to know the weapon status of every single citizen and resident in the U.S.

Once they know the weapons status and everything else about us (and they are making HUGE strides in data aggregation on U.S. citizens), then they can go in for the final kill: full confiscation of all weapons that can be used by a resistance or revolutionary movement.

If you can watch what’s been happening over the past few decades (especially as it relates to privacy, data mining and aggregation, laws regarding “domestic terrorism,” etc.) and still feel that the Second Amendment is some how ridiculous or anachronistic, then you’re either naive and/or not paying attention.[/quote]

Yes, you are right, I am naive about this massive conspiracy to strip 60% of America it’s guns… wait, or just 20%…

But let’s just assume there is this conspiracy in play, then gun ownership then is equal to patriotism. I should thank you for your patriotic defense of my liberty then. what about the victims of gun violence? Just martyrs who died for our freedom…[/quote]

The revolution will actually be televised on pay per view.

[ocrenter]

[quote=scaredyclassic]

The revolution will actually be televised on pay per view.[/quote]

Actually, it is already on TV.

http://www.nbc.com/revolution

[spdrun]

^^^

Never dug that show — it seemed to overestimate the dependence of mechanical objects on electricity.

[CA renter]

[quote=ocrenter]
Yes, you are right, I am naive about this massive conspiracy to strip 60% of America it’s guns… wait, or just 20%…

But let’s just assume there is this conspiracy in play, then gun ownership then is equal to patriotism. I should thank you for your patriotic defense of my liberty then. what about the victims of gun violence? Just martyrs who died for our freedom…[/quote]

I’m very much in favor of the Three Strikes law and other “tough on crime” measures, though it could possibly use some modification where offenders are known to be non-violent. We need to get violent criminals off the streets, period. I have no mercy for violent offenders. That would go much further than banning guns if the protection of innocent lives is our first concern (as it is mine — and this is one of the primary reasons I support the right to bear arms).

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]
You didn’t read the first quote completely. It says that gun lobbyists claim ~2.5 million, and that **conservative** estimates by those who are anti-gun say that they are used tens of thousands of times in a year.

The drop in crime over the past couple of decades has more to do with “Three Strikes” and other similar laws, and also with more of a law enforcement focus on gangs, etc. It has nothing to do with fewer guns, IMO, because it would be the law-abiding citizens who would be most likely to get rid of their guns, not criminals.

As for the percentage of gun owners, I think that the percentage of the overall population counts more than households. We’re talking about support for an anti-gun agenda, so it’s the raw population numbers (especially voters) that matters.[/quote]

Actually I did read that. And looked into the claim of 2.5 million per year. It’s a number that’s been pushed by the NRA. The data is more than 15 years old, and it comes from a number ofk different surveys. Some of them ask if the respondent has ever used a gun in self-defense. Some ask if they’ve used a gun in self-defense in the last 5 years. And from those surveys they came up with 2.5 million per year. It’s bogus.

On an annual basis, I suspect that number is in the low thousands. There doesn’t appear to be any recent surveys asking the question directly. 2.5 million per year would be almost 7,000 a day. Yet we almost never hear about them. How can that be possible?

The drop in crime may be in part related to 3 strikes laws, though all states don’t have them. The larger cause is demographics. Men in their late teens to mid-20’s commit most crimes. There are fewer of them now than there were 3 decades ago.

I think you’re right that the percentage of gun owners is more important than homes with guns. Based on a quick review of 4-6 recent surveys, it appears that number is somewhere between 20 and 25%.[/quote]

You’re still not reading that correctly. I specifically picked the **dailykos/Mother Jones** numbers because they would be on the conservative extreme, and even they admit that “official” numbers where people used guns in self-defense is in the 70,000+ range, annually…only counting those who’ve filed police reports, NOT counting the millions, per the gun lobbyists, who brandish or use a firearm to prevent a crime, but don’t report it.

And how can your numbers for individual gun owners be lower than the number you’re noted for households who own a gun? Where are you getting your numbers from?

[ocrenter]

[quote=ca renter]

I’m very much in favor of the Three Strikes law and other “tough on crime” measures, though it could possibly use some modification where offenders are known to be non-violent. We need to get violent criminals off the streets, period. I have no mercy for violent offenders. That would go much further than banning guns if the protection of innocent lives is our first concern (as it is mine — and this is one of the primary reasons I support the right to bear arms).[/quote]

But that’s the easy position to take. Which politician out there is going around saying he or she is soft on criime?

Aren’t you not concerned that laws like three strike essentially have led the US to the world’s leading country in incarcerated people per capital. We lead everyone else in the world at over 700/100k. The next major countries behind us are Cuba at 510/100k and Russia at 490/100k.

Isn’t that the whole definition of a police state you think you can prevent with gun ownership?

If you actually need to use your gun to protect your liberty, it is already too late.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]

And how can your numbers for individual gun owners be lower than the number you’re noted for households who own a gun? Where are you getting your numbers from?[/quote]

It has to be lower. Households are always made up of at least 1 person, never less than 1. Average households are more than 1. If 1 person of 4 who live in a household owns a gun, that’s a 100% of households, but only 25% of individuals.

[CA renter]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]

And how can your numbers for individual gun owners be lower than the number you’re noted for households who own a gun? Where are you getting your numbers from?[/quote]

It has to be lower. Households are always made up of at least 1 person, never less than 1. Average households are more than 1. If 1 person of 4 who live in a household owns a gun, that’s a 100% of households, but only 25% of individuals.[/quote]

You’re right, I brain farted there. Still, where are you getting your numbers from, and how do they account for the people who are not willing to admit to a govt agency or survey taker that they own guns?

[CA renter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]

And how can your numbers for individual gun owners be lower than the number you’re noted for households who own a gun? Where are you getting your numbers from?[/quote]

It has to be lower. Households are always made up of at least 1 person, never less than 1. Average households are more than 1. If 1 person of 4 who live in a household owns a gun, that’s a 100% of households, but only 25% of individuals.[/quote]

You’re right, I brain farted there. Still, where are you getting your numbers from, and how do they account for the people who are not willing to admit to a govt agency or survey taker that they own guns?[/quote]

Thinking about it again and now I understand what I was thinking…if multiple people in a household own a gun, which is very common, then the number of individual owners would be higher than the household number. I was thinking in the opposite way that you were.

Still want to know the source for your numbers, though. 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=ca renter]

I’m very much in favor of the Three Strikes law and other “tough on crime” measures, though it could possibly use some modification where offenders are known to be non-violent. We need to get violent criminals off the streets, period. I have no mercy for violent offenders. That would go much further than banning guns if the protection of innocent lives is our first concern (as it is mine — and this is one of the primary reasons I support the right to bear arms).[/quote]

But that’s the easy position to take. Which politician out there is going around saying he or she is soft on criime?

Aren’t you not concerned that laws like three strike essentially have led the US to the world’s leading country in incarcerated people per capital. We lead everyone else in the world at over 700/100k. The next major countries behind us are Cuba at 510/100k and Russia at 490/100k.

Isn’t that the whole definition of a police state you think you can prevent with gun ownership?

If you actually need to use your gun to protect your liberty, it is already too late.[/quote]

Yes, I think we are incarcerating too many people, but I also believe that we have a higher number of criminals. Maybe because so many of us descend from revolutionary types, slaves, and criminals? (kinda kidding, kinda not)

We do need to address the problem of incarcerating white collar and non-violent criminals; but getting violent criminals off the street (in many cases, permanently, IMHO) is the #1 way to reduce the crime rate for homicides and other violent crimes. Banning guns will not do it.

There are a number of politicians who are “soft on crime,” though. A lot of people strongly believe that most violent criminals can be rehabilitated.

edited to add: And this is NOT the kind of police state that concerns me. What concerns me is when soldiers, police forces, and other govt resources are used to spy on innocent civilians and take down anyone who poses any kind of a threat to the existing power structure (including political threats). A good example would be the Occupy Wall Street protests, where innocent, non-violent protesters were abused, arrested, filmed (facial recognition, too), etc. by an incredibly and unjustifiably large police force…not to mention the other govt agencies that were involved in thwarting the OWS movement. Also worrisome is the militarization of local police departments where many of them have military-style vehicles, weapons, and technology. On the top of the list is the ever-widening ability of the government to spy on, and collect data about, regular citizens who are NOT committing any crimes.

[Author]

Posts